Roger Ebert reviews Battle for Los Angeles and it aint pretty

I found the film pretty mediocre myself when I saw an advance screening. I'll place my hopes in Sucker-Punch and Hanna for spring films.
 
There is a lazy editing style in action movies these days that assumes nothing need make any sense visually. In a good movie, we understand where the heroes are, and where their opponents are, and why, and when they fire on each other, we understand the geometry. In a mess like this, the frame is filled with flashes and explosions and shots so brief that nothing makes sense. From time to time, there'll be a closeup of Aron Eckhart screaming something, for example, and on either side of that shot, there will be unrelated shots of incomprehensible action.
Click to expand...

Ugh... I know exactly what he's talking about, and this editing style pisses me off to no end. However, I'll still watch this movie and give it a chance.
 
Exactly! I thought I was the only one who couldn't tell what the hell was going on in modern action scenes.
 
The only reason this got any hype was because of the music in the first trailer, which was fantastic. The music that is, not the trailer.
 
I always have to google image Ebert and Roeper to make sure the one being talked about is the one whose opinion I couldn't care less about. Turns out this is. Can't say I'd be surprised if he was right, but the trailers have been pretty good and not made it look like an absolutely retarded blockbuster, so I'll wait to hear the general consensus.
 
I'll wait for the Netflix rental and save myself like $30 from seeing it in theaters

:( but I'm also sad because I had high hopes for this movie
 
I'm sure the movie does suck, most action films made in the last 10 years do.

But that Ebert guy has a smugness vibe that really irritates me.
 
Mr Stabby said:
I'm sure the movie does suck, most action films made in the last 10 years do.

But that Ebert guy has a smugness vibe that really irritates me.
Click to expand...

exactly, but I also think hes a burnout. If I sat there watching movies all day I'd have a very limited mindset on what was good and what was bad. I know yall don't like my reviews sometime....but still everyone has tastes and some people need to learn how to tolerate. anyway, the guy sits there watching movies all day, of course hes going to be grumpy, but people listen to him.
 
The punch line was pretty good imo.

Young men: If you attend this crap with friends who admire it, tactfully inform them they are idiots. Young women: If your date likes this movie, tell him you've been thinking it over, and you think you should consider spending some time apart.
Click to expand...
 
Not really imo. I come up with better punchlines than that in my sleep.

People who like Ebert's reviews: If you enjoy his shit reviews, please gracefully **** off you stupid ****, because he hasn't had an opinion worth noticing in his entire life and his career is nothing more than a fluke of happenstance.
 
Sheepo said:
I always have to google image Ebert and Roeper to make sure the one being talked about is the one whose opinion I couldn't care less about. Turns out this is.
Click to expand...

It may behoove you to know that the one who this isn't is also somewhat dead.

Edit: Haha, no wait that's Siskel. That'll show me for never having seen either show.
 
Krynn72 said:
People who like Ebert's reviews: If you enjoy his shit reviews, please gracefully **** off you stupid ****, because he hasn't had an opinion worth noticing in his entire life and his career is nothing more than a fluke of happenstance.
Click to expand...

Couldn't you say that about all movie critics? While I love reading movie reviews, I can't help but think that most (not all) are either a) over paid pretentious film snobs... or b) over paid studio mouth-piece hacks. anyway

I've been following Ebert for a long time. Some of the earliest TV watching memories I have consist of the Siskel and Ebert tv show. As I got older, I started to watch more and more movies, and I started to see that I more often than not agree with his opinions on certain types of films (like animation or sci-fi). But, I don't let his reviews alter my views on any movie. I wont like a movie because he did, and I wont hate a movie because he did. But there have been many films I would have never seen otherwise had it not been for his reviews: Rabbit Proof Fence, Grave of the Fireflies, Cache, Ghost in the Shell, Dark City, and The Searchers to name a few.

and I have to say that I wasn't really amped to see this movie anyway, although the music in the trailer was good. And thats about it.
 
David.Seth2 said:
Couldn't you say that about all movie critics?
Click to expand...

Yes, and I often do. The only relatively good review is composite review sites. That way you get all sorts of opinions right up front, and can easily see which type of people a movie appeals to. I generally find rottentomatoes.com scores to be within 10 points of my own rating, which I think is the best any review site can achieve.

Battle for Los Angeles has a 35 there right now, which means I'll probably give it a ~45 at best, or a 25 at worst. Which means its probably a shit awful movie.
 
Krynn72 said:
The only relatively good review is composite review sites
Click to expand...

I have to admit I usually will go to RT or metacritic first before Ebert or other singular reviews. It was because of those sites I decided to take a chance on Rango.
 
I don't always agree with Ebert (see: The Thing), but he's a smart guy. I like him.

Warped said:
I know yall don't like my reviews sometime....but still everyone has tastes and some people need to learn how to tolerate.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
I can't help but think that most (not all) are either a) over paid pretentious film snobs
Click to expand...

haha you guys just dont get it. you honestly think film critics are going on their personal opinion and nothing else? this is basically saying that the common person's opinion is just as valid as a film critics but that's utter nonsense. most people dont have a degree in film. most people have limited understand of techniques, historical innovations/genres/ways of thinking/artistic movement. most people wouldnt know the difference between fellini and fettuccine. how can someone have a well rounded opinion on a film, any film, without having the background necessary to understand what they're seeing in the context of all that has come before it? I may really like Star Wars however if I havent seen any other movie besides star wars I may very well conclude it's the best movie ever made. however if I've seen hundreds of movies I may come to the conclusion that it's not that great compared to these other movies. if I've seen thousands of movies that may change my mind again. if I understand the time period when the movie was made and compare it to all that came out up to that point I may change my mind again. if I understand film history, if I understand cinematic movements and artistic trends I'll have a better pool of resources to take from when criticing a film. you cant review pulp fiction without knowing where that movie sits in from a historical, and stylistic perspective. all you can render from your review is whether YOU liked it or not. not whether it's a good film or not because unless you can weigh it against all that has come before it you're doing nothing more than giving a binary answer: yay or nay. sure you can give arbitrary answers to arbitrary questions; "it's dull because, it's good because" but unless you know the context and history behind it you're only giving half the information "this part of the film is an example of an overused convention and similiar to that found in Movie X but without the pathos ..."

it's basically like saying that the casual gamer's opinion, who thinks CoDblops is the best shooter ever made, is just as valid as someone who's spent years playing video games across multiple platforms and genres. any member saying this would literally be eaten alive by our community I dont understand why that way of thinking doesnt extend to everything else
 
That analogy's pretty shaky, seeing as the average game reviewer's packing about ten brain cells. I can respect a critic's experience and knowledge of movies, but any special education or knowledge shouldn't be necessary to determine the quality of a movie. Perhaps a critic can appreciate positive and negative aspects of a movie more than the humble masses, but if anything that makes their opinion less meaningful and valuable as a measure of quality than the opinion of an average viewer who goes in without added insight or context. There's also the matter of subjectivity: On any given movie there could be quite a few different distinct views on it, positive and negative, held between plenty of intelligent and respectable people. None of these people are wrong, but they judge different things with different value. If they think certain qualities are so impressive they cover up the blemishes, that really is just their take. Getting any sort of valuable Will-I-Actually-Like-This verdict van be pretty hit and miss, unless you get a Spoony-esque review, in which there is a long breakdown of pretty much every aspect of the movie rather than, "I like this bit enough to make up for these bits." My solution is to get a general consensus, or hear directly from people I know, who know what I like. When it comes to Ebert, well, hard to respect someone who has so many generally disagreed with opinions, comes off more as pretentious and obnoxious than clever, and thinks video games aren't because you can't win art.
 
ríomhaire said:
Wow cinemas are expensive in the states!
Click to expand...

$12 a ticket now is most places, let alone the food. We usually sneak in everything we can fit in our jackets now but now my friend gets a discount Regal Cinemas which is one of the largest now in the US....I think...well at least in the North East here its all I see. Imax is $15 a ticket :(
 
The local multiplex charges $7 a ticket here.

>butt**** Michigan
 
Warped said:
$12 a ticket now is most places, let alone the food. We usually sneak in everything we can fit in our jackets now but now my friend gets a discount Regal Cinemas which is one of the largest now in the US....I think...well at least in the North East here its all I see. Imax is $15 a ticket :(
Click to expand...
How do you save over twice as much as the ticket costs by going to netflix? That doesn't make any sense.
 
Sheepo said:
That analogy's pretty shaky, seeing as the average game reviewer's packing about ten brain cells.
Click to expand...

I hate to see how many brain cells you think non-game reviewing gamers have

Sheepo said:
I can respect a critic's experience and knowledge of movies, but any special education or knowledge shouldn't be necessary to determine the quality of a movie.
Click to expand...

I disagree. if you havent the faintest clue about who vittorio de sica is or what his contribution to cinema is or if you dont understand the context of when it was filmed a movie like the Bicycle thief would be lost on you; you'd probably be bored to tears because removed from it's context it's just a boring story about someone getting their bike stolen.

One could certainly watch Pulp Fiction and give an opinion on it's quality based on the person's pov. but that's only half the picture. tarantino pulled from hardboiled detective series of the 30's and 40's . he also was heavily influenced by people like jean-luc godard and sam peckinpah. if you are familiar with the work of these directors it's obvious tarantino was doing a homage to their work. hell you can see it in the work of the coen brothers


Sheepo said:
Perhaps a critic can appreciate positive and negative aspects of a movie more than the humble masses, but if anything that makes their opinion less meaningful and valuable as a measure of quality than the opinion of an average viewer who goes in without added insight or context.
Click to expand...

the bicycle thief becomes a boring story about some italian dude with a missing bike. jean-luc godard's breathless becomes a movie about some strangely familiar characters that resemble some shitty tom cruise movie that was actually based on godard's movie but hey it has french subtitles but who wants to read? context is everything. it's not if the movie is Transformers 4 but it is if it's Man bites Dog or the Seventh Seal.


welp I'm off to florida see you all in a few weeks
 
Ebert thinks Nicholas Cage is one of the best actors in the world, so that should ruin any credibility he had.
 
I had high hopes for this movie :| It's not this Ebert fella, but the RT score that worries me.
 
So many misunderstandings in this thread. First off Stern misunderstands people who think critics suck at movie reviews to then think that they must hold consumer reviews in higher regard. Maybe someone else does in this thread, but my post certainly wasn't saying that, and I dont see the implication of it in anyone else's post either.

Secondly, Riomhaire is saying the math doesn't make sense. Warped says he saves 30 dollars by watching a movie on netflix rather than in a theater. Warped then said a ticket costs 12 dollars. So then Riom says you can't save 30 dollars by spending 8 dollars on netflix to avoid spending 12 dollars on a ticket. Riomhaire misunderstands Warped, because warped said "the ticket alone costs $12 let alone the food" implying that Warped is a fat American who can't help but buy a 10 dollar popcorn, 8 dollar medium soda, and 8 dollar box of delicious Sno-caps candy. Then Warped misunderstands why Riomhaire is confused and only clarifies the price of a netflix account rather than clarifying that hes a fat American. Then Yorick also misunderstands Riomhaire by thinking Riom must be confused because Riom pays 12 dollars a ticket whereas in places where Yorick lives it costs more. Thus Yorick's misunderstanding comes from the fact that he doesn't realize Riom was using the price that Warped said it costs him, and not saying that it costs Riom $12 to go to the cinema.

In short, all of you suck at reading comprehension. You guys should go watch a movie and write a review about it, you'll be really good at it.
 
Krynn72 said:
Riomhaire misunderstands Warped, because warped said "the ticket alone costs $12 let alone the food" implying that Warped is a fat American who can't help but buy a 10 dollar popcorn, 8 dollar medium soda, and 8 dollar box of delicious Sno-caps candy. Then Warped misunderstands why Riomhaire is confused
Click to expand...

Krynn72 said:
misunderstands why Riomhaire is confused
Click to expand...

Krynn72 said:
Riomhaire is confused
Click to expand...

No, I'm Qonfused.
 
Best review quote so far:

"These have to be the politest, cleanest-talking Marines ever. They don't even curse at the aliens. They want to take back Los Angeles while avoiding an R rating." -- Mike Lasalle, SF Chronicle, reviewing Battle: LA
 
Jerry_111 said:
Best review quote so far:

"These have to be the politest, cleanest-talking Marines ever. They don't even curse at the aliens. They want to take back Los Angeles while avoiding an R rating." -- Mike Lasalle, SF Chronicle, reviewing Battle: LA
Click to expand...

Seriously, Marines are renowned for inventive invective.
 
Maestro said:
Seriously, Marines are renowned for inventive invective.
Click to expand...
Nice.

Nicolas Cage is a fantastic actor, he just signs on to a whole lot of terrible movies with directors who don't know how to use him.
 
Warped said:
$12 a ticket now is most places, let alone the food. We usually sneak in everything we can fit in our jackets now but now my friend gets a discount Regal Cinemas which is one of the largest now in the US....I think...well at least in the North East here its all I see. Imax is $15 a ticket :(
Click to expand...

Ha! Its 4 bucks here including popcorn/drink and the theater is clean and never crowded at all (podunk town)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top