Battle: Los Angeles

[Batutta]

This may come off abruptly, but I'm just tired of seeing it everywhere

People who have adverse physical reactions to "Shaky Cam" need to realize that they have a physical condition which prevents them from objectively commenting on the camera work. This is akin to someone who gets seasick saying that riding on boats is dreadful. Of course it is... your body is wired differently and is unable to enjoy it. In these instances judge the film on it's other merits, fine, but again realize that you have a physical condition which is no fault of the filmmakers.

Hence the disclaimer I put before my review. But I disagree to an extent. I think there is good shaky cam use and bad shaky cam use. Some filmmakers break up those shaky shots with ones that are less taxing to watch, and that have an actual focus. I didn't have any problem watching District 9 or Saving Private Ryan. But when a filmmaker goes from shaky shot to shaky shot to shaky shot for the entire duration without ever giving the eyes anything to focus on it becomes difficult to watch, especially when projected 40 feet high. I'll even go further and say non stop shaky camera work can often be an artistic failure because it strips the film of a director's point of view. Instead of having to think "what am I saying with this shot", the director is just covering everything and saying nothing.

 

[shorty15]

This may come off abruptly, but I'm just tired of seeing it everywhere

People who have adverse physical reactions to "Shaky Cam" need to realize that they have a physical condition which prevents them from objectively commenting on the camera work. This is akin to someone who gets seasick saying that riding on boats is dreadful. Of course it is... your body is wired differently and is unable to enjoy it. In these instances judge the film on it's other merits, fine, but again realize that you have a physical condition which is no fault of the filmmakers.

I have absolutely zero physical reactions to shaky cam and am enthusiastic about its use (when done properly). This film is a great example of it being used properly and taking advantage of the unique enhancements to action filmmaking that it has to offer. Had this film been shot on tripods or other similar stagnant viewpoints it would've been boring and uninteresting. It is the camera work that draws you in to the intensity of the moments, and the chaos that is closing in.

Make no mistake, shaky cam is not a "fad"... it is a completely relevant camera technique that will continue to thrive due to the wonderful elements it offers the filmmaker and the audience.

Obviously, the things I am saying only apply to talented use of the technique. As with any other technique, when done improperly or with a noticeable lack of skill, any general positivity toward it is negated.

As for the film... I thought it was rather fun as an action film, but the dialogue was laughable. It was literally Independence Day shot like District 9, meets Black Hawk Down. Its only merits are in its production values and being able to appreciate them on a large screen with an excellent sound system.

I could not disagree more. I am fine with shoulder mounted camera work and when done properly, it can be quite effective (Children of Men, Saving Private Ryan, District 9, The Hurt Locker). There is one shot in particular where the camera man is running down an alley and you can literally see nothing, that is how shaky it is. I'm sorry but full sprit shots with a 30 pond camera on your shoulder look like crap. It is not gritty or engaging but annoying. There was nothing artistic about it. And it is not just me. Everyone in my group complained about the shaky cam and I could hear other people in the audience around me saying stuff under their breath like, "God this looks like crap, stop shaking the damn camera, I can't see what the hell is going on!"

There is a difference between a shoulder mounted setup that has a little bit of shake to add a level of instability to the scene and the shaky cam Bourne look where the camera flails around even when nothing particularly exciting is happening on screen. Battle LA falls into the latter category.

 

[Duke M.]

I liked the movie and will buy the Blu-ray. It had its faults but it did try to get you engaged with the characters while giving you almost non-stop action. And, while I'm not a big fan of the shaky cam, it gave the feeling of a current news cam similar to what was achieved in classic psuedo documentary, The Battle for Algiers.

 

[SPZ]

This was, for me, a mediocre film. 100 million? THis film felt like a bad episode of the TV series "24", where "terrorist plot" is exchanged to "Alien plot". The lead was 100% pure Jack Bauer clone!
Anyway, I share with a former poster the disbelief on the budget, by the way it was filmed, the average CGI, the low profile actors.... District 9, a much cheaper film, looked way more impressive than this. And I really felt the story to be a very big cliché. The father to son speech, come on... And that ending? 24 hours and still going strong? No rest at all? What are they, Captain Americas? Very patriotic, but suspension of disbelief has its limits!

 

[Duke M.]

This was, for me, a mediocre film. 100 million?

Two things:

a) the director said the FX were mostly practical, not CGI. It costs money to blow stuff up.

b) never believe publicity regarding budgets. They almost always lie to either:

i) convince you they worked miricles on a micro budget; or

ii) were important enough to make a really big budget/significant movie.

In IMDB it shows 5 prior movies for the director (horror), and two were shorts. Its doing well in earnings and will do even better with DVD and foreign sales.

 

[Kholi]

Two things:

a) the director said the FX were mostly practical, not CGI. It costs money to blow stuff up.

b) never believe publicity regarding budgets. They almost always lie to either:

i) convince you they worked miricles on a micro budget; or

ii) were important enough to make a really big budget/significant movie.

In IMDB it shows 5 prior movies for the director (horror), and two were shorts. Its doing well in earnings and will do even better with DVD and foreign sales.

Not everyone's a liar. Although I believe it cost a lot less to shoot Battle:LA, half or more of the budget was probably spent on marketing.

Too many people seem to have no knowledge of, or simply ignore, the fact that marketing is part of the budget. So the inflated numbers CAN come from the costs of worldwide marketing campaigns.

And, sometimes, people ACTUALLY DO HAVE MINISCULE BUDGETS and produce PRETTY GOOD work. I know a lot of filmmakers want to find every excuse they can to not get out there and do it, but that's the truth whether it's an unsettling one or not.

 

[Duke M.]

El Mariachi did not cost the mere $7,500 claimed. There were hundreds of thousands of dollars spent beyond that just getting it up to snuff to play in a theater, then advertising, etc. Same with Blair Witch Project.

Just the opposite on Avatar and Titanic.

If it offends you to say they are lying, then think of it as creative exaggeration to assist with marketing. However, I don't have the time for PC crap.

Legally that's called "mere puffery", an exaggeration told in advertising that you're not relying upon to buy the product, but your perception of it. That isn't legally considered false advertising and doesn't create a warranty that the statement is true.

In essence, they can claim any size budget they want.

 

[Kholi]

It cost Robert Rodrigues 7500 spending cash to get it to a plac where someone bought it from him. Then they did the fine tuning from there. Who cares about the rest as a filmmaker?

And have yOu seen the accounting on Avatar or is it just what you guess?

 

[Doc Bernard]

I really enjoyed the film..... go figure, right?

It had guns, aliens, action, a hot actress, what more can an armorer want?

But I did like the shaky-camera work too. Gave me the feeling I was there with them. The VFX was killer, and glad to hear they went practical heavy with this.

It all boils down to who your demographic is. Me, I sit right in the middle of their target demo.