Battle: Los Angeles Trailer

[mach2infinity 12]

Keep in mind they always release the good stuff before the movie is released so you'll pay money to go see the movie and then find out you've already seen all the good parts and by the time you figure that out they have about 20 to 30 bucks of your hard earned cash and that's if you're lucky. Some places charge up to 50 to 60 bucks.

Well, of course they'll show the bits they deem to be the most interesting but that's what a trailer is supposed to do. I'm not bothered about spending money on a film, if I'm disappointed then fine, I accept that risk when I hand over my money. I wish people would not whinge when they've paid to see a film but come away feeling disappointed. They can't guarantee everyone's enjoyment. It's annoying when I have to read infantile comments such as "I want my money back!".

Regardless, I'm confident that I'll enjoy it. For instance, I saw the trailer for "The Fighter" a few times and I thought it looked really good. I went to see it and I thought it was a brilliant film.

By the way, we only pay about £9.50 here. Although there's things such as 'Orange Wednesday's (1) where an Orange customer can buy two tickets for the price of one. I don't mean to advertise there but it highlights how one can take advantage of promotions and so forth to save money.

Here's another clip:

Drawing the line

1. I assume you're American. Orange is a mobile phone network operator.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

I love how Hollywood thinks a 5.56 would easily kill an alien that looks as if it's wearing some medal armor thing. Why protect Los Angles? It will end up being destroyed by a natural fire or earthquake. lol

[Big Mac 19]

Well, of course they'll show the bits they deem to be the most interesting but that's what a trailer is supposed to do. I'm not bothered about spending money on a film, if I'm disappointed then fine, I accept that risk when I hand over my money. I wish people would not whinge when they've paid to see a film but come away feeling disappointed. They can't guarantee everyone's enjoyment. It's annoying when I have to read infantile comments such as "I want my money back!".

You obviously didn't get the point I was trying to make... By showing the best parts in the previews it gets people like yourself hyped up about a movie that most likely is about as good as skyline was and there for people dish out their money for a movie that is utter shit and hollywood makes it out to be box office success and uses that formula to make even more shitty movies there for destroying what used to be known as good movies in favor of shit movies.

Regardless, I'm confident that I'll enjoy it. For instance, I saw the trailer for "The Fighter" a few times and I thought it looked really good. I went to see it and I thought it was a brilliant film.

I personally didn't care for The Fighter anymore than I cared for Ali or Hurricane. It's just not my genre of film.

By the way, we only pay about £9.50 here. Although there's things such as 'Orange Wednesday's (1) where an Orange customer can buy two tickets for the price of one. I don't mean to advertise there but it highlights how one can take advantage of promotions and so forth to save money.

You obviously are just counting ticket prices. You can't go on ticket sales alone because nowadays they factor in sales from popcorn, candy, and drinks into how much a movie goes for at the box office and at a cheap theater that'll run you about 25- 30 bucks. Edited March 1, 2011 by Big Mac

[jakerod 254]

I've seen a promo picture that wasn't in the trailer that looked pretty awesome. Even if the scene is only 10 seconds long it makes it look quite interesting.

[mach2infinity 12]

You obviously didn't get the point I was trying to make... By showing the best parts in the previews it gets people like yourself hyped up about a movie that most likely is about as good as skyline was and there for people dish out their money for a movie that is utter shit and hollywood makes it out to be box office success and uses that formula to make even more shitty movies there for destroying what used to be known as good movies in favor of shit movies.

Look, I understand your point fine. You posit: they only show the good parts or the most interesting parts of an otherwise 'bad film'. In order to propogate a film industry whose sole purpose is to create an output of sub-standard films purely for profit gain. Ergo, we're all hapless victims who are sucked in. Regardless, taste in films is subjective and personal. Usually one can draw a consensus from a body of opinion on the quality of a film but I don't care what others think. If I'm entertained then it's job done. To further add, even though there is always a slew of bad quality films, it doesn't mean that good films have suddenly stopped being made. As I'll state later, use your brain and sense to find out whether it's the film for you.

Another example. In an issue of Empire magazine (apologies for inadverent advertising) -- -- I read a review for the film "Taken". The review for it was damning, I think it received one out of five stars. The BBC critic Mark Kermode didn't give a glowing report on the film either and I respect his views on films. So, already I had been fed this negative press about the film. I went to see it and lo and behold I was blown away. Liam Neeson was a revelation and I came away from the film feeling extremely gratified. I don't put any stock in what someone says about a film, I'll go see it and I'll determine whether it's a bad film or not.

Carrying on, the film-making industry is a business, it has to make money where it thinks it can do it best. If you get your knickers in a twist over such a thing, then simply rent films at home and stay there like a hermit. Adults handle budgets all the time, I don't see how budgetting for watching a film is a problem. If you're concerned about the cost of food or drinks then stay at home or don't buy them. I don't buy popcorn, sweets (candy) or soft drinks (soda) when I go to see a film. I have my food at home and then simply pay for a film. As I also said, you need to be discerning enough to know when a promotion is 'on' and to take advantage of it. I have, I'm going to see "True Grit" tonight with an 'Orange Wednesday' ticket, I get a ticket free.

I personally didn't care for The Fighter anymore than I cared for Ali or Hurricane. It's just not my genre of film.

I didn't solicit your opinion on the film. I used the film as an example to show where your theory can be wrong. One in which a film trailer will show the best parts of a film in order to lull filmgoers into a false sense of security. I thoroughly enjoyed the film. The trailer did its job. The end of it.

You obviously are just counting ticket prices. You can't go on ticket sales alone because nowadays they factor in sales from popcorn, candy, and drinks into how much a movie goes for at the box office and at a cheap theater that'll run you about 25- 30 bucks.

As I said. I factor in what I pay, it's that simple. I seldom buy confectionary and other refreshments from the cinema. I simply have what I want to eat or drink at home. Which is usually something nourishing and healthy and my only cost is the cinema ticket. The Odeon cinema to which I go does not charge for parking either. If one doesn't like the 'additional' cost of goods in a cinema, then protest by not purchasing them.

Besides, I can smell a 'sh*t sandwich' a mile off. If I wanted one, I'd simply go for a big mac. ;)

Despite what you've said. My enthusiasm for the film hasn't dampened and each clip I've seen has only made me want to go to see the film even more. It's exactly my kind of film and whilst I recognise it's far from an 'oscar worthy' picture. It doesn't mean I won't enjoy it and be thoroughly entertained. I won't be spending in excess of 25 'bucks' to go see it either.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Mach2Infinity

[Big Mac 19]

Dude I could really give two shits about whether you go see the movie or not. I'm just stating the facts about how the movie industry works and you're blowing me off with the "ZOMG THIS MOVIE LOOKS SO AWESOME!!" rants that pretty much make you look like the typical dumb ass who goes into the theater all hyped up about a movie and comes out with the "I've been screwed" look on their face.

Carrying on, the film-making industry is a business, it has to make money where it thinks it can do it best. If you get your knickers in a twist over such a thing, then simply rent films at home and stay there like a hermit.

I clearly remember a lot of Brits getting their "Knickers in a twist" on Independence Day back in 96 because it portrayed everyone except Americans as idiots. My 'knickers' aren't in a twist I just know a shit movie when I see the previews. BTW True Grit is worth seeing even without a promo.

I didn't solicit your opinion on the film. I used the film as an example to show where your theory can be wrong. One in which a film trailer will show the best parts of a film in order to lull filmgoers into a false sense of security. I thoroughly enjoyed the film. The trailer did its job. The end of it.

You obviously did or you wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place and even if you didn't I gave it. I didn't ask for your droolings over Battle:LA but I got it.

Besides, I can smell a 'sh*t sandwich' a mile off. If I wanted one, I'd simply go for a big mac.

And what did that have to do with anything except to make you look like someone with no proper ground to debate from so you hurl insults. How old are you? 12?

[kavoven 4]

Dude, its just a film...

Please keep the evil industries out, we're just talking about the trailers we've seen so far.:)

[Hans Ludwig 0]

I wouldn't say it's a shit movie, just probably has zero acting. Transformers was pretty bad ass, but I didn't go in expecting to see Anthony Hopkins, Denzel Washington, Kurt Douglas acting.

[sudayev 27]

What do you know about special effects. See how they handle it in India :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svOlz2ei4Yk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmSGpe41ZvA&feature=related

[mach2infinity 12]

Dude I could really give two shits about whether you go see the movie or not. I'm just stating the facts about how the movie industry works and you're blowing me off with the "ZOMG THIS MOVIE LOOKS SO AWESOME!!" rants that pretty much make you look like the typical dumb ass who goes into the theater all hyped up about a movie and comes out with the "I've been screwed" look on their face.

How does one rant about something that they like? Surely it is the opposite? You seemed to be making the case against seeing the film (before seeing it) because in your view it's bound to be poor. Fine. I disagreed and stated that I look forward to seeing the film despite your ramblings. Give a sh*t or don't, I couldn't care less. Although I'm flattered that you chose me to try and disuade me from going to see the film. The only person here that really looks like a 'typical dumb-ass' (how old are you? ;)) is you for ranting and raving because someone took an opposite view to you.

I clearly remember a lot of Brits getting their "Knickers in a twist" on Independence Day back in 96 because it portrayed everyone except Americans as idiots. My 'knickers' aren't in a twist I just know a shit movie when I see the previews. BTW True Grit is worth seeing even without a promo.

Actually I enjoyed "ID4" on its release and still do. Sure, its flagrant American jingoism but it's harmless and I have the good sense to recognise it for what it is: cheap entertainment. Besides, the producers (namely Dean Devlin) gave permission to the BBC to do a radio-play named "Independence Day UK" that would tie-in with the film. It involved Patrick Moore (a well-respected British astrologer) and a radio host having a fracas with an extra-terrestrial. In it, Mr. Moore punched an alien. Quite comical really. Devlin's only stipulation to the BBC was that they didn't alter the ending, namely the success brought about by the Americans. So there's one 'Brit' that didn't get his proverbial in a twist. Besides, I go commando.

You obviously did or you wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place and even if you didn't I gave it. I didn't ask for your droolings over Battle:LA but I got it.

No I didn't. Nor did I phrase it in such a way. All I said was say "for instance I saw this film as an example of a Hollywood film whose trailer and content I enjoyed". As you seem to believe that any and all Hollywood output is of a poor quality. On the one hand, I made a general post about how much I liked the premise and look of the "Battle LA" film. On the other hand, your post was a direct reply to mine, one in which I made no such gesture for your opinion. I'm sorry it hurts.

And what did that have to do with anything except to make you look like someone with no proper ground to debate from so you hurl insults. How old are you? 12?

You're clearly not mature enough to know when someone's used a bit of mild banter. I was being facetious. You're simply being precious. Lighten up, will you.

By the way I saw "True Grit". Filler for a sh*t sandwich as far as I'm concerned. Solicited or not.

Back on-topic:

A new teaser:

If you guys go to the marketing websites: battlela (North America)

worldinvasionbattlela (UK & Europe)

Enter the site and you'll receive a pop-up window. It'll play the music from the two main trailers ("Sun's Gone Dim and The Sky's Black" by Jóhann Jóhannsson) then afterwards, it'll play music which I think is from the film's score. Sounds pretty good to me. The pop-up window and the above teaser has the same musical piece. What do you guys think of it? I think it sets the scene pretty well. I also like Aaron Eckhart's expression and then the ones of his 'rookie' marines. That palpable look of fear and determination juxtaposed quite nicely.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Mach2Infinity

[Archamedes 10]

why does everyone seem to know everything about a film by a trailer? i mean anybody that thought they knew it all with "sweeny todd" then why do you think so many people where stunned at the musical fail it actually turned out to be. would anyone have gone to see it if they showed it for what it actually was? And for gods sake stop comparing it to other films that failed before you have even seen it. Yes Skyline was a disaster and this film really came out at a bad time due of that, because everyone has been left with a bad taste in their mouth and desert is not looking too good. Seriously, I have been on this forum for a while now and it seems a lot of people are never satisfied with anything, be it a game, film or tv show. Everyone seems to be a pre viewing critic and pages upon pages of flame wars start before anyone has seen shit. The film could be absolutly awesome, but there are people will go to see it or download it with the attitude that its going to be shit, try to hate it no matter what, then watch it over and over and over, then run to an internet forum and complain about it in every way possible.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Archamedes

[mach2infinity 12]

Well put Archamades. If someone says to me "I've seen this <whatever> and I thought it was nonsense", even if I disagreed with them, fine. It's when someone judges something purely on the basis of what it is or by whom it's made before they've seen it, I find very annoying. Furthermore, when they arrogantly assume that they know how someone else will enjoy a film or that they'll become another 'disappointed' victim.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Mach2Infinity

[Big Mac 19]

By the way I saw "True Grit". Filler for a sh*t sandwich as far as I'm concerned. Solicited or not.

Then you obviously don't know a good movie when you see it.

Actually I enjoyed "ID4" on its release and still do. Sure, its flagrant American jingoism but it's harmless and I have the good sense to recognise it for what it is: cheap entertainment. Besides, the producers (namely Dean Devlin) gave permission to the BBC to do a radio-play named "Independence Day UK" that would tie-in with the film. It involved Patrick Moore (a well-respected British astrologer) and a radio host having a fracas with an extra-terrestrial. In it, Mr. Moore punched an alien. Quite comical really. Devlin's only stipulation to the BBC was that they didn't alter the ending, namely the success brought about by the Americans. So there's one 'Brit' that didn't get his proverbial in a twist. Besides, I go commando.

So you're one of mindless millions that say a shit movie such as ID4 is a good movie but since you can't understand a movie like True Grit you call it shit?

You're clearly not mature enough to know when someone's used a bit of mild banter. I was being facetious. You're simply being precious. Lighten up, will you.

HAHAHAHAHA That's funny, I'm immature but what makes a movie good in your eyes is mindless special effects with zero acting and zero plot line.

No I didn't. Nor did I phrase it in such a way. All I said was say "for instance I saw this film as an example of a Hollywood film whose trailer and content I enjoyed". As you seem to believe that any and all Hollywood output is of a poor quality. On the one hand, I made a general post about how much I liked the premise and look of the "Battle LA" film. On the other hand, your post was a direct reply to mine, one in which I made no such gesture for your opinion. I'm sorry it hurts.

By mentioning the movie you invited my opinion kid, it's as simple as pi. For every 10 movies Hollywood puts out 8 of them will be of poor quality, not that every movie is of poor quality. Maybe you should try reading more and less advertising.

How does one rant about something that they like? Surely it is the opposite? You seemed to be making the case against seeing the film (before seeing it) because in your view it's bound to be poor. Fine. I disagreed and stated that I look forward to seeing the film despite your ramblings. Give a sh*t or don't, I couldn't care less. Although I'm flattered that you chose me to try and disuade me from going to see the film. The only person here that really looks like a 'typical dumb-ass' (how old are you? ) is you for ranting and raving because someone took an opposite view to you.

Why do you keep thinking I'm trying to keep you from seeing the movie? All I'm doing is pointing out that the movie will most likely be shit and you're getting your dick in a knot because someone presented you with an opposing point of view. Typical childish response. Edited March 3, 2011 by Big Mac

[mach2infinity 12]

Then you obviously don't know a good movie when you see it.

Hang on, so you're the judge of what constitutes a good film? That's a rather ignorant and arrogant position to take. Each person judges what is a good film for themselves, no-one else. Some people may have a predilection for a certain genre or genres. Who made you the arbitrator of good films?

So you're one of mindless millions that say a shit movie such as ID4 is a good movie but since you can't understand a movie like True Grit you call it shit?

I never said that "ID4" was a "good movie" per se. I merely remarked that I enjoyed it for what it is: cheap entertainment. I understood "True Grit" perfectly well, it just didn't do anything for me whatsoever. Just because one doesn't like a film doesn't mean they cannot 'understand' it, that's absurd and frankly blinkered.

HAHAHAHAHA That's funny, I'm immature but what makes a movie good in your eyes is mindless special effects with zero acting and zero plot line.

Where did I say so, son? If we're talking about "Battle LA" then how do you know if it's a good or bad film when I assume you haven't seen it?

By mentioning the movie you invited my opinion kid, it's as simple as pi. For every 10 movies Hollywood puts out 8 of them will be of poor quality.

No I didn't precious. I mentioned a film as an example of where your 'Hollywood theory' can be proven wrong. By your logic, after having seen the trailer for "The Fighter", I should have been disappointed or as you creatively put it: the typical dumb ass who goes into the theater all hyped up about a movie and comes out with the "I've been screwed" look on their face. You've made a number of assertions which can be easily challenged and frankly just as easily dismissed. I judge a film on its own merits and not whether it comes from 'Hollywood', an independent studio or Bongo Bongo land (sic).

Why do you keep thinking I'm trying to keep you from seeing the movie? All I'm doing is pointing out that the movie will most likely be shit and you're getting your dick in a knot because someone presented you with an opposing point of view. Typical childish response.

You're clearly opposed to this film based on some conceited idea that it's beneath you because it happens to have explosions and special effects. So did "Black Hawk Down" but that film had good drama and characters you could care about, despite the ensemble cast. You seem intent on disparaging the film even though you haven't seen it. Which frankly makes your position look very idiotic indeed. In doing so, one can only surmise that you're trying to influence the opinion of others in a vain and pathetic attempt for self-gratification. If you're comfortable with your view of the film, stop going on about it. If my responses are childish then I've certainly been outclassed by the professional here. Don't worry, I'm sure you can undo that knot. ;)

[Archamedes 10]

Edited March 4, 2011 by Archamedes

[mach2infinity 12]

Doesn't stop you from accidentally stepping in it...so, what do you make from what you've seen of the film Archamades?

[Archamedes 10]

haven't seen it, like the look of the trailer and will definatly go to see it with an open mind and hope it is a good film. Thats all anyone can do. Slagging it off before seeing anything other than a trailer is wrong. that should be the end of the arguement

[mach2infinity 12]

Righto, I meant from what you've seen of the footage via trailers etc. Which trailer did you see? I've seen more than I should've! The first two trailers and the international trailers. Plus the clips I've linked of course. It's looking pretty good. It'll be interesting to see how many of the marines they focus on. The problem with an ensemble cast is it's easy to just skim over each character and put a rather narrow focus on each one. There was an interview with the director posted on the Empire website. He talked briefly about how the aliens are similar to us with use of tactics, a military hierarchy and of course objectives. A lot of people are wondering what's so special about LA. My guess is it's the beachhead for the aliens on the pacific coast of America. It's not so much that it has something of importance but rather it being their point of landing and so you'd want to defend it at all costs.

I agree with what you've said. It may indeed be a disappointment. Anything's possible. Still, it's got a lot going for it. An interesting premise, a new visceral take on the alien invasion genre, probably a decent amount of action, it looks quite frenetic and I'm hoping the story is dynamic. I'm also eager to see Aaron Eckhart in the role because I've seen him in "The Dark Knight" and "In the Company of Men" where his characters are nasty so it's good to see him inhabiting a different role.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Mach2Infinity

[kavoven 4]

haven't seen it, like the look of the trailer and will definatly go to see it with an open mind and hope it is a good film. Thats all anyone can do. Slagging it off before seeing anything other than a trailer is wrong. that should be the end of the arguement

qft :)

[Big Mac 19]

Hang on, so you're the judge of what constitutes a good film? That's a rather ignorant and arrogant position to take. Each person judges what is a good film for themselves, no-one else. Some people may have a predilection for a certain genre or genres. Who made you the arbitrator of good films?

Well considering pretty much everyone who's seen it has come out saying it was a good movie and only people who enjoy cheap entertainment say it sucked I guess that does put me in position to tell you that you don't know a good movie when you see it.

I never said that "ID4" was a "good movie" per se. I merely remarked that I enjoyed it for what it is: cheap entertainment.

That's what adults call "Splitting Hairs" If you enjoyed it then by your logic it was a good movie. Case closed.

I understood "True Grit" perfectly well, it just didn't do anything for me whatsoever. Just because one doesn't like a film doesn't mean they cannot 'understand' it, that's absurd and frankly blinkered.

Maybe it was because it focused more on acting and plot as opposed to special effects?

No I didn't precious. I mentioned a film as an example of where your 'Hollywood theory' can be proven wrong.

Lets try this again sweetheart. By mentioning it you invite someone's opinion. Also you haven't proved my theory wrong. In fact if anything you proved it right.

You're clearly opposed to this film based on some conceited idea that it's beneath you because it happens to have explosions and special effects. So did "Black Hawk Down" but that film had good drama and characters you could care about, despite the ensemble cast.

You couldn't go wrong with BHD nor could you go wrong with We Were Soldiers, because both of them had a rock solid plot and a few good actors to boot. This movie has one good actor in it and so far as I can tell the plot looks flawed. I mean come on LA being the city of mankind's last stand and how much do ya wanna bet that someone is going to pull a rabbit out of their ass and save the day in the nick of time? It's the formula for every shitty sci-fi aliens invading the earth movie out there.

You seem intent on disparaging the film even though you haven't seen it. Which frankly makes your position look very idiotic indeed. In doing so, one can only surmise that you're trying to influence the opinion of others in a vain and pathetic attempt for self-gratification. If you're comfortable with your view of the film, stop going on about it. If my responses are childish then I've certainly been outclassed by the professional here. Don't worry, I'm sure you can undo that knot.

How about this kiddo stop projecting yourself upon me, practice what ya preach and stop going on about the film. I've proven my point time and again and until March 11th I'm out kiddo. If it's a good movie I'll be the first one to say so and if it's a shit movie then I'll say I told ya so. Edited March 4, 2011 by Big Mac

[mach2infinity 12]

Well considering pretty much everyone who's seen it has come out saying it was a good movie and only people who enjoy cheap entertainment say it sucked I guess that does put me in position to tell you that you don't know a good movie when you see it.

It's a question of taste, not everyone will like the same kind of films. further still, not all those who wouldn't have liked the film only subscribe to films of a cheap calibre. A big sweeping generalisation. That's why if you go on IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes or wherever. You will find a varied body of opinion. Usually the bulk of it will favour one side or the other. The mature crowd will simply agree to disagree. You put yourself in a position to judge because you're narrow-minded. If someone says to another person "your taste in films is poor because you didn't like 'X'" then there's something wrong with that person. I think here, it's merely a case of misplaced arrogance. Furthermore, I don't judge a film on whether the majority liked it or not. Jog on.

That's what adults call "Splitting Hairs" If you enjoyed it then by your logic it was a good movie. Case closed.

No, it's just being precise and there's no semantics. Traditionally, one would say a "good movie" consists of solid script-writing, direction, acting, cinematography etc. Good script-writing was certainly not evident in the film for example; which is why I didn't say it was a "good film". It's an entertaining film sure. Is it film that I would recommend as a "good film"? No because it has certain failings. One could term it as a "guilty pleasure".

Maybe it was because it focused more on acting and plot as opposed to special effects?

Not at all. I found it plodding and languid. I could barely understand the slurring of Jeff Bridges's character which I think was his way of trying to distance himself from the John Wayne interpretation. If you have a slow-burning drama you must engage the viewer all the way through with good dialogue and characterisation. I didn't find that with my experience, if others did then good for them. The girl was an obnoxious snot too. It's art for christ sake, what works for one person doesn't do it for someone else. In that regards, should we all like the same sculpture or painting?

Lets try this again sweetheart. By mentioning it you invite someone's opinion. Also you haven't proved my theory wrong. In fact if anything you proved it right.

You obviously cannot understand context. The film I mentioned was merely used as an example to prove where your theory could be wrong. I didn't solicit an opinion nor did I pose a question. So it's bizarre how you suddenly chirp in with "I didn't like it because...".

Please elaborate on where I've proven you right? You made a number of erroneous assertions:

Keep in mind they always release the good stuff before the movie is released so you'll pay money to go see the movie and then find out you've already seen all the good parts and by the time you figure that out they have about 20 to 30 bucks of your hard earned cash and that's if you're lucky. Some places charge up to 50 to 60 bucks.

You indicate that it is an unavoidable part of 'cinemagoing' that one has to spend between "20-60 bucks". I showed you how I did it for £9.

By showing the best parts in the previews it gets people like yourself hyped up about a movie that most likely is about as good as skyline was and there for people dish out their money for a movie that is utter shit and hollywood makes it out to be box office success and uses that formula to make even more shitty movies there for destroying what used to be known as good movies in favor of shit movies

Once more, using that parameter. I should not have enjoyed "The Fighter" or let's say another film such as "Crazy Heart". Where it comes from is irrelevent nor whether one has drafted up some stupid ratio on the quality of films released. The quality of each film will be different and so in one year we may see a number of good films from Hollywood, another year there may be none.

You couldn't go wrong with BHD nor could you go wrong with We Were Soldiers, because both of them had a rock solid plot and a few good actors to boot.

Both had visual effects and a lot of action. Which you've idenitified as components for a bad film.

How about this kiddo stop projecting yourself upon me, practice what ya preach and stop going on about the film.

You make it sound as if I'm beasting you. I haven't gone on about the film at all. I've posted clips and put forth my thoughts about them. The point of which is stimulate interest and discussion for the film. Furthermore, this is a thread regarding the film's trailer and by extension discussion relating to the film. Badmouthing a film before you've even seen it is idiotic and very petty. If you feel so aggrieved by it then go elsewhere and vent. Stop polluting this thread unless you have something to contribute towards discussion of the film. I've at least made an attempt to move it away but if you persist then you're only going to make yourself look an idiot. Once a review thread for the film is up then by all means slate it to your heart's content if you didn't like it. Otherwise do us all a favour and go take out your inadequacies on someone who gives a toss.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Check the trailer for the console game here:

Game

There's a tab on the right for it. It looks all right at the moment. Not sure what features it'll have. Such as squad control, whether there'll be any real-time strategy element to it.

[froggyluv 2135]

I personally didn't care for The Fighter anymore than I cared for Ali or Hurricane. It's just not my genre of film.

So you're one of mindless millions that say a shit movie such as ID4 is a good movie but since you can't understand a movie like True Grit you call it shit?

Erhm....maybe he doesn't care for the Western genre as you dont care for the Fighting one, doesn't disqualify his opinion.

Besides, some movies rise above their genres by way of character study and outstanding acting. Ive heard Bale's performance in the Fighter is amazing and I for one would like to see it.

[mach2infinity 12]

Erhm....maybe he doesn't care for the Western genre as you dont care for the Fighting one, doesn't disqualify his opinion.

Besides, some movies rise above their genres by way of character study and outstanding acting. Ive heard Bale's performance in the Fighter is amazing and I for one would like to see it.

Hello froggyluv

I actually like the western genre. For instance I'm very fond of "Open Range" and "Tombstone". I responded to the characters and story in those films. Frankly, it's ridiculous for someone to turn around and tell me I can't hack a good plot and decent acting. Simply because I didn't like a film that has been commercially and critically lauded. "Open Range" is a slow-burner of a film and it's only at the end when things heat up. Which is the point of it because the tensions simmers to boiling point. I enjoyed the acting, cinematography and the intimate character moments between the two leads.

What do you make of the trailers and teasers for "Battle LA"?

[froggyluv 2135]

Yep, enjoyed Tombstone as well.

Trailer is well done and it looks like pure spectacle - and spectacle is good for "had a tough week at work/family, just want to disappear for a few hours". Generally movies like this keep their actors restrained (not in the artistic good way) so that they become 1 dimensional heroes with maybe a slight flaw for endearment purposes. Endings are usually a huge letdown (think Apple/Intel saves day ID) but if the ride is thrilling enough, then money well spent.

I'll wait to hear friends reviews :)

[mach2infinity 12]

Yep, enjoyed Tombstone as well.

Trailer is well done and it looks like pure spectacle - and spectacle is good for "had a tough week at work/family, just want to disappear for a few hours". Generally movies like this keep their actors restrained (not in the artistic good way) so that they become 1 dimensional heroes with maybe a slight flaw for endearment purposes. Endings are usually a huge letdown (think Apple/Intel saves day ID) but if the ride is thrilling enough, then money well spent.

I'll wait to hear friends reviews :)

I'll agree that on the surface, it may seem quite heavy on the action and visual effects element. I think the SFX guys have done a great job in visualising the invasion and there's plenty of stunning imagery to accompany it. Such as the CH-47 Sea Knights flying amidst the backdrop of the aliens's landing craft. I think the challenge is to give enough focus on each character without leaving anyone out and without giving too shallow a focus. As I've said earlier, this caveat applies with any ensemble film. I think how "Black Hawk Down" did it was to pick out key characters for a particular story strand and then use them as a focal point with the supporting characters of course helping out. You basically had the story move between the Rangers, Delta Force and of course the command staff. So you had a complete picture of what was going on. I thought the film moved amongst them quite well without seeming as if it was rushed or doing it 'by the numbers'. My guess is this film will only focus on the Marine platoon and from there, you're going to have a core group of characters which will be the main focus. There's also a bunch of civilians so how they're going to fit in is interesting. I think this is the first time that an alien invasion film has been done from the point of view of a grunt filmed in a cinema vérité style manner. It's bold stuff and I hope it all comes off.

By the way froggyluv, Christian Bale is on excellent form in "The Fighter". I think he's back on form and the way in which he immersed himself in character is great to watch. I'm not talking about the changes in his appearance but his voice, his mannerisms and just his presence in the film. You actually get to see the real Dicky Ecklund at the end of the film, he's just like him. I think Mark Wahlberg gives an understated performance and he does anchor the film and is the film's emotional core because he's surrounded by a few livewires!

Edited March 4, 2011 by Mach2Infinity