Battle: Los Angeles

Snapper123 said:
One thing I want to talk about though is the quality of whatever they shot the film on.
Click to expand...
Film, apparently.

(and I believe it was shot digitally, I saw rolling shutter in one shot.)
Click to expand...
Those would likely be the shots from the Sony EX3.
Jonathan Liebesman: What I did a lot was I’d actually go with my video camera which is a Sony EX3 to downtown and I shot a lot of footage. Then I would track the footage and put elements within the footage. So for downtown, you literally would go through with either a still camera or with film, and then track that in and literally burn it up and stuff.
Click to expand...

There is, however, one entire scene that was actually shot entirely on video. No mention of what video camera that was; might have been the EX3 or might have been something else, he didn't say. Here's what the director said:
CraveOnline: So you can use the footage you shot yourself in the movie?
Jonathan Liebesman: There is. There’s one entire scene that’s shot on a video camera, where he goes to the graveyard to visit his brother’s grave.

CraveOnline: That’s not even an effects scene!
Jonathan Liebesman: Dude, the whole scene is video because the way we shot it was very guerilla.
Click to expand...
The rest of the interview is available here.




and the film was crystal clear. If it was digital, I believe it was without a doubt 4k+ going on.
Click to expand...
Nope. It was apparently film (which is, of course, 4K+), with some scenes and elements that were shot on 1080p video. The film was mastered in 2K (which is basically the same as 1080p). What you saw projected was a 2K image.

It made me feel very bad about how my camera only resolves around 640P, there's no way that 640P will hold up like that on a screen as big as the one I just saw
Click to expand...
Then sell it and get rid of it and start saving up for something that meets your expectations.

Battle:LA had a hundred million dollar budget. There is no way a little SLR is going to compete with what they could do. And even for scenes that were shot on the EX3, it's still much sharper than any SLR. It would be irrational to expect a $899 stills camera to perform like an Arri Alexa or 35mm movie camera.

If what you have isn't working for you, sell it and move on.
 
Michael Traven said:
Case and point: Transformers 2. Everyone knew it was going to be a s..t film, but it was a relatively fun s..t film. I don't get why everyone seems so upset to have "wasted their money." For god's sake, it was a Michael Bay movie... surely you weren't expecting an Empire Strikes Back?

</rant>
Click to expand...

I'm glad someone brought up Transformers 2. I knew this was going to be a mindless alien invasion film. I knew what to expect from Transformers 2 as well. I enjoyed Battle: Los Angeles, as opposed to Transformers 2, because it didn't kid itself about being epic. Transformers 2 didn't need to be 150 FREAKINING MINUTES LONG. It's almost as long as There Will Be Blood. Battle: LA breezed by. It didn't waste time with robots with black stereotypes, and moms eating pot brownies. Transformers 2 has a lot wrong with it, but it's worst offense is being so damn overlong and boring.
 
Eh, the heck with Roger Ebert - I liked the film, and I'll see it again. It was exciting, fast-paced, lots of cool fx.
What's not to love?
 
Enjoyed this one.
...really hated the handheld shots in the beginining. testvideos do inspire I geuss :)it was none stop action...thought the sounddesign was a bit overkill in a couple of fight scenes .But in a way it brought the fight closer to me then a stereo 3d film would !
Want to see it again.
 
I loved it. Independence Day went the same route. Bad reviews but killed at the box office. Siskel and Ebert reviewed it (ID4) again to figure out what the appeal was all about, I remember they had a special show just for that re-review.

My only complaint is the 'hyper-aware' camera shake when filming dialogue scenes. Must be getting old.
 
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=battlelosangeles.htm

For anyone who thinks Battle LA is bombing.

Half a week later it's 60M worldwide, 40M from returning its money.

I reckon another 20M between domestic and foreign ticket sales then the rest will come back in home theater and television showings.

At least it will break even, if not a little more.

A break even scenario on an attempt to try something somewhat fresh, betting on a relatively no named director, with one major name?

I think that's a good thing. Others may disagree.
 
Batutta said:
The studio will disagree, considering the budget. It's not a shameful gross but, I don't think any of the suits are very happy.
Click to expand...

Not shameful at all. And it should make a little more as it hits more territories foreign.

I know it's just gossip, but I read Slashfilm as much as I read DVXuser now and it seems like the good weekend spurned some more Sci-Fi deals. Maybe it has nothing to do with an almost 40M Opening weekend?

Who knows.
 
Y'know? Now that I have been thinking about it for the past two or three hours....

... Why did this movie cost 100M? Even the PR/Marketing wasn't that strong. And, remembering how most of the movie was shot out in close-ups and quick pans, you barely see the aliens and when you do their' District 9 style grungy, dirty, etc...

The most money spent was on locations, torn buildings etc, but a lot of those set pieces we spend a LONG time on or inside of. The Broken freeway exit, police station, the bus....

... I'm being a bit of a conspiracy theorist when I say that I think this realistically, with marketing included, cost 30M and the budget's been inflated in other ways to hide the profits. I have no evidence other than putting the puzzle pieces together having watched the movie and wondered why in the hell a 100M budgeted feature would use almost poorly shot video cam footage (EX3, Barry posted) and what looked like test footage.

All good if I'm way off, but if it did REALLY cost 30M, like Cloverfield and District 9 which are very similar not only in execution, but polish, they just doubled their money.
 
Blech. I have to preface this review with the same disclaimer I gave for Cloverfield. This movie made me physically ill, which reduced my ability to enjoy the story considerably. Shaky cam in the right hands can be an effective tool. Unfortunately this director abuses shaky cam like a teenager who just discovered masturbation. That said, there didn't seem to be anything here I haven't seen done better elsewhere. I didn't hate it, I just enjoyed very little of it.
 
Saw this last night and was very pleasantly surprised. For a totally non-stop action piece, I felt there was more than enough story around the central characters. The visuals were very good from the widest establishes to the smaller digital set-pieces. The group of guys I went with all raved about it - including an active Army buddy who said that it was really well done technically, save for ammo count.

As much as I like to talk about how vain and campy the industry is when portraying Los Angeles (itself) on film, I thought the filmmakers' approach in Battle presented SoCal fairly and, perhaps, even with a bit of fondness.
 
I couldn't sit through it. It seemed way overly predicatble to me. I lasted about a half hour. I felt like I was being spoon fed. Usually I agree with you guys for the most part but not this time.
 
I thought this film was a blast. Definitely something I could re-watch over and over, and much better than Independence Day, which this film keeps getting referred as being similar to.

Sure it may not be everyone's cup of tea, but the majority of professional reviews seem unduly harsh. I can't recall the last time I've seen the critics sharpen their knives and carve up a single film in such a ferocious and brutal manner. If Battle: LA gets a half-star rating from Ebert, then how can he even begin to explain his three star reviews for Land of the Lost and Transformers?

Erik Olson said:
Saw this last night and was very pleasantly surprised. For a totally non-stop action piece, I felt there was more than enough story around the central characters. The visuals were very good from the widest establishes to the smaller digital set-pieces. The group of guys I went with all raved about it - including an active Army buddy who said that it was really well done technically, save for ammo count.
Click to expand...

When is proper ammo count ever done realistically in movies?

As much as I like to talk about how vain and campy the industry is when portraying Los Angeles (itself) on film, I thought the filmmakers' approach in Battle presented SoCal fairly and, perhaps, even with a bit of fondness.
Click to expand...
I also felt similar about the way they portrayed the various neighborhoods they were fighting in. I actually really appreciated the fact that they resisted the urge to cut to a wide shot of the Hollywood sign on fire with alien troopers hanging out on top of the letters.
 
Nektonic said:
When is proper ammo count ever done realistically in movies? I also felt similar about the way they portrayed the various neighborhoods they were fighting in. I actually really appreciated the fact that they resisted the urge to cut to a wide shot of the Hollywood sign on fire with alien troopers hanging out on top of the letters.
Click to expand...

When Dirty Harry is the central protagonist. I noticed you could actually hear a pang of dismay when one soldier asked, "You mean they're going to blow up Santa Monica?" LA received much better treatment in this movie than most previous disaster outings.
 
Brandon Rice said:
This film was contrived upon contrived...
Click to expand...

See, I would argue that this wasn't a film, it was a movie.

As a film, yeah pretty forced and contrived (no true cinematic greatness here), but as a movie, the shots were really good and the pacing for most of it kept you involved. Yes there was some cheese and some silly stuff but as someone mentioned earlier, we all knew going into it that this was an alien invasion movie. By default we can almost assume its not going to be some masterpiece of modern cinema... but it did keep me entertained.
 
When will the seizure-cam die? This film made me physically ill. Half the time, I could not tell what was happening on screen with the camera flailing around like Daryl Hannah premortem. I am really fed up with this queasy-cam trend and so is the audience. It does not look epic or gritty, it pisses people off and drives them away in droves. When will Hollywood learn that clarity is king?

There should be a warning that accompanies this film: "Warning, this film contains a significant number of action sequences that are at times, unwatchable due to the poorly done shoulder mounted camera work. If you want to be able to watch the film you just payed money for, we suggest you look elsewhere. If you like your blockbusters to look like home movies, this bud is for you. We apologize for making fun of home movies. Some of them show more technical mastery than this film."
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Shaky cam aside this movie worked for me. This is the first movie I have seen in a while that was projected properly which really added to its impact. The audience gave a loud applause during several momments. I knew going in that this wasn't going to be an acting masterpiece but the pacing and combat scenes took up the slack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top