MovieChat Forums > Battle: Los Angeles (2011) Discussion > On behalf of the silent majority: Shut-u...

On behalf of the silent majority: Shut-up, morons.This movie was good!

posted 13 years ago by curtiscee
121 replies | jump to latest

I just saw the movie on DVD and it was very entertaining in a dark, but glad we made a breakthrough and have hope kinda inspiring way. There were deaths, some sense of grim this is not winnable, to yeah, we have a chance. Special effects were good, and all the basics. I'm extremely intelligent, and movie buff, and like dumb comedies when I'm expecting a dumb comedy, intense drama, well-crafted drama, thrillers, action, etc. A good movie is a good movie; a bad movie is a bad movie, and a middling movie is ok, regardless of genre. But it's all about expectation. My expectation was that this had a great trailer and I wanted to see the movie in the trailer, but being a true intelligent movie watcher and buff, I NEVER assume the movie will reflect the trailer. Those trailer guys are genius pros. They can take any !#@$@$@% movie and craft it into an awesome trailer. That's what they're paid to do. Transformers anyone? This movie was good. Not great, but a lot of fun.

So I come to IMDB to share the love, and everyone is saying it's cliche, horrible, and so on. It's like Monsters. Great trailer. And the movie is actually intelligently made...a good movie. But the movie is horrible if you're expecting it to reflect what the trailer hints at. The problem is expectation. If you're too immature to think a trailer and a movie are one, you'll be disappointed 99% of the time. A trailer is designed to make ALL movies look as good if not better than the actual film. Uhm, it's one huge aspect of getting you into the theater.

This is what I think happened to this film. I wanted to see this film because of the trailer, but didn't imagine it could actually BE that movie. So, as I often do, I waited several months for the DVD with lowered expectation, forgot the trailer, and watched THE MOVIE. Not the trailer. I enjoyed it. Did I love it? No. But I loved the time watching the movie. It hit all the expected emotional notes for an action movie, and had great eye candy and a sense of teamwork. I had no expectation for an Academy award winning genre-defining movie.

So I get the hate. But this movie does not deserve it. I'm sure if I saw the trailer and then saw the movie all eager days after it came out, my expectation would differ, and I would've actually be as, if not more, disappointed as all the rest. But you have to step outside of yourself and not hate the movie because of you. It's what happened to the Blair Witch Project: awesome if you saw it seconds after it came out because there was a HUGE belief that this was actually maybe kinda true lost footage. A week or month or more later...worst movie ever...everyone was in on the joke, and so the expectation was very high for a very low pay off. Now these lost footage movies are commonplace and Blair was first. So now, people don't believe they're true, so you just kinda go in and try to have fun. It's the same thing as watching an awesome movie like Back to the Future NOW in the current context and going "this movie sucks; special effects are laughable, and it's cheesy and dated etc." It was great in 1985. It's great because of the expectation then...not now. You can't come back 20 or 30 years later and say the movie sucks because of our expectation. The movie is and remains great. Terminator 3 probably was "better: in many ways than Terminator 1 because of advances in technology and so on. But the first wasn't expected, and so it was more emotional bang for the buck. After the excellent 2 followup which delivered, the 3rd was tough to maintain expectation. So the fact that I didn't completely barf over it with my expectation is a telling sign. Terminator 4...need I go on. Even when Mike Tyson was a thousand years old and way past his prime like EVERY OTHER FIGHTER HIS AGE, it was always disappointing to see him lose because the expectation was that he was MIKE TYSON...and could win and still knock someone out. Then it finally hit us...wait a minute, he can't do this anymore. Our silly expectation kept those fights going too long.

We've kinda become lazy watchers. We complain when even entertaining movies are not what we were expecting. The fault is really us, looking at what the trailer says it will be, which is laughable, versus geeky details like the Director and the Writer and the Casting Agent and the Actors and all that stuff which REALLY make a movie good. Every time I see a poster, I look at these details and say "dayum, awesome poster, great idea for a movie, too bad this director. It'll be horrible." Meanwhile, all my friends get excited and say the movie will be awesome because of the what the poster, or the trailer is selling. Really? Does anyone believe infocommercials and regular commercials are really selling ther best hamburger, and food, and gadgets? It's silly. And yet, we still do this for trailers and movies. The best thing anyone can do is wait for a movie to come out on DVD, lower money, lower expectations, and a better opportunity to watch a movie for what it is, as it is, rather than as a result of the hyped-up multi-million dollar marketing campaigns. I really hope The Avengers, new Spiderman, and the final Batman in the the latest trilogy can match the expectation. They won't. But...they will be good entertaining movies I can tell ya. But I want to see them when they come out. So,sigh, they won't be as good as if I hid in my room, never knew they existed, didn't see the awesome trailers for them that will come out months from now, and then watched them on DVD...or even in a theater without any knowledge of the pre-hype.

This movie was well acted, directed and had tense moments for a silly action sci-fi movie. I can't wait to see the movie of the trailer one day. But the movie I SAW was pretty good. Just had to say this so that the minority who hate the movie enough are usually the only ones inspired enough to write. The vast majority of us just go to the fridge and grab something to eat after watching a movie we enjoyed rather than go online to rant about it. So don't be confused: You're not strange for liking this movie. There are millions just like you and me who don't take the time to write because we were happy after the movie.

These actors and movie makers are rich and don't need me mouthing off in their defense. They couldn't care less; whether I like it, hate it, love it. My only point is:

Shut up. Tastes are subjective, of course, and opinions are welcome. But it's more than a little comical to hear rabid remarks that this movie was stunningly horrible and one of the worst movies of 2011 or ever made. Uhm, no it wasn't. You had high expectations and so were highly disappointed, and so said silly things in these IMDB boards. Meanwhile, the silliness of such horribly written and directed shlock such as Star Wars continues...because so many people have "anything goes" expectations that they see these movies and still like them. The movies are horrible, but the expectations will do them no wrong. Subjective opinion, perhaps.

But this was a good movie.

[–] vny109-1 13 years ago

I saw the trailer once or twice and new exactly what to expect when I saw it in theaters. I enjoyed it as much as you, but months in advance. And just like you I was surprised to see all the negativity in these boards.

Then I realized that the negative comments were posted by the exact same idiots. I mean, it's cool if you dislike the movie but going out of your way to discredit the film says a lot about a person. You would literally see up to five posts from the same people, either posting the exact same thing in different words, or nitpicking about some thing or the other.

Was it a perfect film? No one is saying it was. Was it enjoyable and fun to watch? Yes. The majority of the hate however does not come from high expectations based on a trailer, but rather that the soldiers are American. Some idiots I guess can't wrap their heads around the fact that it's an American movie.

[–] curtiscee 13 years ago

I do agree with you. I really searched for a logical reason to explain all the hate that would account for the numbers because I really am an informed viewer. I didn't want to simplify the reality that most people who respond are simply goofballs, while those who liked the movie are typically more silent. So I found refuge in the trailer theory. But ultimately your arrow is more on the bull's eye: many if not most people are generally idiots. I tried not to take it there, but something about these responses just made me really want to cry out that enough's enough of this type of group hate nonsense. It's the same majority mob fanaticism of those supporting slavery and the holocaust. Is it Hitler whose most at fault that a bunch of idiots actually decided to listen to his nonsense? There's got to be people like us who go: wait a minute, there's tons of people besides these idiots...and then help develop an underground railroad for example. Something silly gets reversed after the idiot masses establish a ridiculous standard. This is why this movie is having a DVD renaissance. Thanks for reminding the rest of us that we are not alone. I just wished these people stayed centralized in one location like making sub-human comments on Youtube or Facebook instead of communicating on IMDB and all over the rest of the Net.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] curtiscee 13 years ago

Arggh, I tried but the username makes further resistance futile:

Jay...you're a Nobody.

[–] Defenseman13 12 years ago

This movie wasn't that good. Sorry.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

[–] Chronus 11 years ago

Well, I'm not an US American, and can only say this: this is damn GOOD movie, Aaron E. has one tremendous performance, as do most of actors in it.

Good and effective story. Universal appeal to any normal human being, US American or not.

Haters simply gotta hate.

Great, great movie.

[–] BradburyR 10 years ago

"Universal appeal to any normal human being, US American or not."
Normal? Nope, Sorry. Only in the US and maybe North Corea it's considered normal to have such a massive army fetish that you love anything just cause it features two-dimensional shouting brutes in uniform running and shooting. See also the new godzilla movie...

"I am NaN, I am a free man!"

[–] Tsavo 10 years ago

I think it's also worth noting that it is not at all based on any story that was already in existence. It's not an adaptation of someones favorite comic book, taking massive liberties outside of the spirit of the comic, it's not an adaptation of a great piece of literature, and it is not a sequel, spinoff or remake of another film or TV series, which to be honest, says a LOT about it, even if it is cliched, and has other notable flaws.

[–] Pseudotaku 13 years ago

Why I think this movie was rated so low is:

1)It is an action movie.Most people have this bias against action movies as brainless entertainment regardless of the quality of the said movie.

2)The general perception that invading aliens should much, much ,much more advanced than us,this idea is inherently unrealistic and ridiculously naive.Without knowing the biology, history,culture and belief it is virtually impossible to say whether or not their tech is plausible.

3)This movie is more of a war movie/realistic military action rather than a straight invasion flick.This blindsided people who expect more over the top invasion flick.

4)The protagonists of this movie are a bunch of US marines. Considering the current "popularity " of US armed forces (especially among non american) ,it is understandable ( some even say justifiable) many would see this movie as at worst blatant propaganda(which isn't exactly true) or at best a recruitment drive.

IMHO,the movie itself is decent war movie/ action flick set during a extra terrestrial invasion.It has some standard action movie trope(wooden acting,cheesy script,shaky cam)but then again most action movies fall into this common trap. Bottom line,it is a very watchable and severely underrated war movie that I would easily recommend to everyone,though not necessarily on the big screen(I know i didn't).

_______________________________________________________________________________

I am capable of manipulating matter and energy on a subatomic level by speaking. A mere flick of my finger is sufficient to alter the gravitational pull of the planet. I shelve physics texts under 'Fiction' in the library, I consider the laws of thermodynamics loose guidelines at best. In short, I am grasping the reins of the universe's carriage, and every morning I wake up, look to the heavens, and shout, 'Giddy up, boy!' You many never grasp the complexities of what I do, but at least have the common courtesy to feign something other than slack-jawed oblivion in my presence. I, sir, am a wizard, and I break more natural laws before breakfast than of which you are even aware.

[–] curtiscee 13 years ago

Your points are extremely well balanced and dead-on but without the not so hidden frustration seeping to the surface of my posts. Not that it matters, I just wanted to let you know that I agree with your post entirely. It doesn't require an enhancement of opinion. Im not responding in a wolfpack manner like the other groupthinks, but rather particularly like how the silent majority is clearly not saying this is awesomely the best movie ever, but simply acknowledging that it was a good movie within in genre, and that more so it was not an awesomely bad movie. You nailed it by saying that it was a war movie with aliens and not an alien movie. It was that dynamic and that expected genre that is what places someone in the good or bad camp. My underlying point is that our muddied expectation of genre should not fault the movie itself for not fulfilling that expectation when the failure originates with the viewer--or at least at the whim of the trailer maker. But in him set, what I really liked about this movie was the war movie focus in both the trailer and movie. So those going into this movie missing that basic premise, well, missed the point. It's utterly ridiculous to fault a movie for not being something that it never intended to be. We should arguably fault a movie for failing to deliver something it set out to, and appreciate it achieving those things it did.

Battle of Los Angeles was the movie I expected based on the trailer and it was a lot of fun on the small screen as I expected, perhaps more fun than on the big screen as I had suspected.

[–] mcgallagher_8 13 years ago

As the OP says (but in many many more words) .... I could look for a thousand ways to hate the movie but instead I chose to enjoy it. Sucks to be me.

[–] curtiscee 13 years ago

DOH! That's all I was trying to say. Hey, not fair...you did it in so fewer words. You're exactly right. There are so many ways to find fault with a movie, and deservedly so for some really flawed movies. But this movie? Nah...this movie is deserving of just sitting back and enjoying it. It's so much easier and better too!

[–] rlbatesiii 10 years ago

I first watched it on DVD, having never seeing the trailers (hospitalized at the time). I thought it was well made and very entertaining...

[–] hooper-xxx 13 years ago

2)The general perception that invading aliens should much, much ,much more advanced than us,this idea is inherently unrealistic and ridiculously naive.

That doesn't make the least bit of sense. We haven't been able to send a single man to the moon in 40 years, and you're suggesting that we could go toe to toe with a civilization that can transport an army through interstellar space? Put the crack pie down.

[–] scottarnold 13 years ago

2)The general perception that invading aliens should much, much ,much more advanced than us,this idea is inherently unrealistic and ridiculously naive.

That doesn't make the least bit of sense. We haven't been able to send a single man to the moon in 40 years, and you're suggesting that we could go toe to toe with a civilization that can transport an army through interstellar space? Put the crack pie down.

You know, it's that same kind of thinking, if made by the aliens, that may have lead them underestimating the human response and ultimately losing the battle.

The reason we haven't been able to send a man to the moon is not lack of technical know how, it's a lack of commitment. Space science and space travel doesn't get anywhere near the commitment that weapons and war get here on Earth. Bad news for us as a species...at least, until aliens attack. War is our specialty, and the aliens perhaps were not quite prepared for that.

[–] LeftyMcLefterson 13 years ago

Amen! I think they would expect a bunch of simple minded morons when they land and they don't relize that our basic sole occupation for the past 5000 years is killing each other

[–] jeff_dickey 10 years ago

No crack pipe necessary.

A very old military aphorism reminds us that "the attacker must vanquish; the defender need only survive". Our expectations of uneven, absolute slaughter in such situations are coloured by our own historical experiences with relatively technologically advanced empires rolling over native populations. But ask any veteran who served in Afghanistan or Vietnam (and to a degree Iraq), and they'll tell you that the "natives" did their own share of "rolling" back. Home turf and an invader overly confident of his superiority can be significant assets to defenders. If the aliens depicted in Battle Los Angeles had arrived, say, 500 years earlier, humanity of the day simply would not have had the military, political or technical means to effectively communicate and coordinate a large-scale defence in the time scale that is practical today. Flintlocks and smooth-bore cannon would have presented a far less lethal threat to, say, command-and-control centres than a Copperhead missile. And on and on and on.

The fact that we "haven't been able to send a single man to the moon in 40 years" is a political limitation far more than it is a technical one; space-capable nations find it far more politically expedient to lavish even more wealth upon their already-wealthy political actors than to do anything that's actually useful or interesting. But to use that as an excuse for a derisory crack against someone you believe you disagree with is, well, immature. Unfortunately, that's pandemic in what passes today for "culture".

[–] I_Created_U 9 years ago

Nice post, very eloquent.

People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

[–] bigmanpac20 13 years ago

i agree this was a awesome movie!!

[–] debbiebuster2001 13 years ago

Your in the loud, minority if you think this was good. Garbage. Maybe if you saw some good movies, you know the difference. Read Roger Eberts reviews and save your money. I started to watch on cable, gave up, saw it was crap.

[–] curtiscee 13 years ago

Sigh. Sounds like you may be confusing the 2011 ripoff movie Battle *OF* Los Angeles with the 2011 feature film Battle Los Angeles--no OF. So to further complicate things, lots of this message board's rants are targeted at the wrong movie. It's amazing that companies can't sue for the confusion, just like the knockoff food and other products they sell in grocery stores.

Ripoff movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1758570/
Feature Film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1217613/

Otherwise, if you have the right movie, here we go again. We fully acknowledge that everyone like you who hates war movies, scifi movies, or both, will hate this movie. For example, in your IMDB review of "Rise of the Planet of the Apes," you say "Ridiculous premis for a movie, but it is science fiction, or maybe fantasy. NO WAY are a handfull of smart apes going to take over from BILLIONS of humans."

IMDB Quote: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1318514/board/nest/186441047?p=2&d=186 597769#186597769
Image Quote: http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/108/debbiebuster.png

So your inability to enjoy a movie not based on absolute reality is a personal preference that has nothing to do with the well-reviewed movie itself. (In fact, your suggested Roger Ebert gave Rise of the Planet of the Apes three out of four stars, which further underscores that your personal preference does not equate to film quality--and by extension, that film quality often has little to do with even a professional reviewer's subjective view of whether a film is either good or bad.)

Ebert Review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110803/REV IEWS/110809988

We represent the group that are open minded enough to appreciate the artistic merits of any good movie, whether a comedy, drama, documentary, foreign film, or yes, even a silly action flick that achieves its intended goal. Exclusively watching Oscar-worthy performances,whether holocaust movies, highbrow period pieces, or films filled with english accents is not the only intelligent way to seek out and enjoy the many opportunities for quality entertainment. The movie is understandably not your cup of tea, which is completely valid. However, what you don't understand is that your nonpreference for this type of movie does not reflect its production quality, success at achieving its intended goals, nor its overall entertainment value to its target audience, which is simply not you. For example, if you don't like Tyler Perry movies or German foreign films that is your prerogative to dismiss these high-grossing movies and even Das Boot. But it takes an intelligent mind to critique a movie in a way that separates personal preference from analyzing a film on its own merits. It's easy for everyone else to simply criticize a movie because they don't like it. Case in point, more people than naught hate the often cerebral movies that win Oscars but love the comedies and romantic comedies that the Oscars typically ignore as too lowbrow. But safe to say, despite their personal opinion and IMDB rants, such hated films are thankfully Oscar-nominated anyway because they are without question well-made films worthy of viewing and that demonstrate success at achieving the director's goal. And yet, many Oscar-winning films unfortunately do not always appeal to a larger target audience. But that's okay, and many people simply don't get this. And so, we're left with baseless "critical intelligent commentary" from these folks in the form of "this movie sucks." Trust us; we fully understand that you think this good movie sucks. We're simply telling you why you think it sucks. We remain the silent majority. The loud minority are the loudmouths trolling these boards. But alas, that has always been, and shall always be, the case. The defense rests.

[–] tramky 13 years ago

The critics, including Ebert, can go pound dust. Stay out of our theaters. This was a rip-roaring, great movie. A straightforward invasion tale to be sure, but it was gritty and entertaining.

Its closest affinity is to "War of the Worlds" of course, except that violent military action defeats the alien horde, not microorganisms. The movie moves at a generally breakneck pace.

As for the rabble trashing this film on here, pay little mind. Arrogant trolls. They're everywhere.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] OrionKnight 13 years ago

This was one of the best movies of 2011. Roger Ebert lost any and all credibility with me after I read his review. He's just one man who happens to have been watching movies for a really long time, not the judge of cinema.

[–] Blitzerg 13 years ago

its a pretty enjoyable movie but for the most part like said it is pretty much military propaganda. i gave it a 5.5 out of 10. it is entertaining but just doesnt hold up. its far from a terrible movie but not great either. it is simply a decent entertaining action flick.

If you do good, you'll see me one more time. If you do bad, you'll see me.. two more times.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Abolfazl3007 13 years ago

AGREE

BATTLE : LA is the firt movie i watched on my bluray system and dolby audio (dts)

i really enjoyed the ell out of this movie

i watched it wit my dad and friends and ... for about 7 - 8 times now ...

[–] sirius-james 13 years ago

Curtiscee, please tell me that you're not a native English speaker. If you are, your post has even less merit than I thought. Although, you pretty much lost me when you stated that you were 'extremely intelligent.'

Battle Los Angeles was probably the worst movie I ever seen in my entire life. I've seen a lot of movies and I have a lot of respect for the art of movie making. I love action movies. I love epic battles, aliens and bombs exploding just as much as most dudes do. This film, however, hardly had a plot, and if it did, it was badly ripped off from, like, three other films. There was very little dialogue aside from the shouting commands over the stupid, pointless explosions going on around the stupid, pointless characters. I swear to God, the CGI on the aliens wasn't even fully finished because you don't even really get to see them clearly. It's like they realized that their movie sucked halfway through production and they decided to half-ass the rest. I've never wanted to walk out of a theater, and I had to strongly resist the urge with this one.

Juuuust when I thought your opinion on films couldn't garner any less merit, you made a senseless rip on Star Wars. The reason those films--the originals, anyway--are so beloved regardless of the bad writing and directing is because the world that George Lucas created was so complex and fantastical; it succeeds in giving you a feeling, which is something only accomplished with good work. The characters actually had...character, who, along with the film's morals and inspiring way of story-telling, influenced many films and shows after it. Battle Los Angeles possesses none of these redeeming qualities, and the fact that you insinuated that it was better than Star Wars is embarrassing, and you should give up your title of an 'extremely intelligent movie buff.'

[–] Tsavo 10 years ago

You realize that a LOT of films take a lot from previous films correct? Films that are given accolades from critics and viewers that the same argument of "It ripped off like, three other movies" could apply to.

[–] remurmur 13 years ago

TL;DR
You know, for claiming to representing the "silent" majority, you're awfully verbose.