I went and saw Battle: Los Angeles on Friday night. It was actually quite good and held your attention throughout the whole thing. If you're looking for lots of shooting, aliens getting fucked up and U.S. Marines kicking ass and taking names then go see it!
The only thing that bugged me is the lack of civilians with guns, but then it was set in the anti-gun paradise that is California.
I suppose it could have used some eye candy, but that's always a given, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In downtown LA, the only folks with guns would have died in the first assault (gangbangers) or hightailed for somewhere else (the shockingly low number of legal firearm owners). I agree they probably should have had a token group of civilian hold-outs in some building or something, but those aliens were not screwing around, and I doubt average folks would have had sufficient training to work together as a team to knock the ETs down.
My complaints were more technical - where was the artillery, where were the cruise missiles, and why, once the FOBs had fallen, did the military make the call to not glass the coast? Oh, and the Copperhead missiles at the end? Strictly anti-tank, with all of 15 pounds of HE onboard. Hardly capable of knocking down a skyscraper-sized UFO.
But, still, all that said, one hell of a ride, and a hell of a lot better than "Skyline".
I watched it tonight and was entertained. Any movie with Michelle Rodriguez, in my opinion- should never be analyzed to closely with regards to plot or technical accuracy.
Even if no civilians were shown, I wouldn't have minded seeing a cop or two holding out with a shotgun and sidearm. Just something to break up the AR style hardware.
Post a Comment