The 9 Most Scathing Sentences in Roger Ebert's Review of Battle: Los Angeles
It wasn't just Red Riding Hood that got dragged over the coals by the critical mass this week -- fellow Friday release Battle: Los Angeles is apparently pretty bad, too. As Movieline's own Michelle Orange wrote, Battle: Los Angeles is such a slave to the shaky cam aesthetic that it may as well have been shot by her iPhone-using mother. Ouch. Though considering the all-time pan Roger Ebert wrote for Battle, perhaps Apple-based cinematography and wooden characters are only the beginning. Ahead, the nine most blistering sentences in Ebert's half-star review.
9. "Battle: Los Angeles is noisy, violent, ugly and stupid."
8. "Its manufacture is a reflection of appalling cynicism on the part of its makers, who don't even try to make it more than senseless chaos."
7. "Here's a science-fiction film that's an insult to the words 'science' and 'fiction,' and the hyphen in between them."
6. "The aliens are hilarious."
5. "They seem to be animal/machine hybrids with automatic weapons growing from their arms, which must make it hard to change the baby."
4. "The only characters I remember having four sentences in a row are the anchors on cable news."
3. "[The alien battleships are] aggressively ugly and cluttered, the product of a planet where design has not been discovered and even the Coke bottles must look like pincushions."
2. "Generations of filmmakers devoted their lives to perfecting techniques that a director like Jonathan Liebesman is either ignorant of, or indifferent to."
1. (tie) "Young men: If you attend this crap with friends who admire it, tactfully inform them they are idiots. Young women: If your date likes this movie, tell him you've been thinking it over, and you think you should consider spending some time apart."
· 'Battle: Los Angeles' Review [RogerEbert.com]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
If the aliens had been portrayed as benevolent but misunderstood, with the U.S. soldiers shown to merciless, evil, cold-blooded murderers I'm sure Ebert would have given this film a glowing review.
When I read reviews like this, I often wonder if the critics could get together and produce the "perfect" movie.
It's kinda funny how Ebert -- an absolute sci-fi geek if there ever was one -- has zero tolerance for films that dress up as sci-fi but otherwise are not (Battle: Los Angeles essentially being a combat film).
Can someone tell me how Ebert is still relevant? I mean I'm sure it's a pretty horrible movie (the title alone speaks volumes) but Ebert was never one to look at a movie and say - hey, I could kick back with a good bucket of popcorn and sit through this movie without thinking. Not everything has to be a thinking man's movie. The advent of reality TV should tell him that.
Yes, if anyone disagrees with you, it must be for liberal reasons and not because the movie sucked. Go get cancer and die.
Thank you very much for fully representing those on your side of the isle with such a wonderful, heartfelt comment.
I guess "get cancer" doesn't fall under the "violent rhetoric" rule.
Vic
I agree it was absoulutely awful
it has to be a thinkin mans game to him its his job and usually I dont watch movies he dislikes but sometimes I take a shot in the dark and I am usually wrong
Isle?
There's that conservative brilliance shining through yet again.
First of all with due respect to Roger, A good critic is one who tells the viewers which is good in the movie and whats not in the movie. But i think Roger Ebert thinks himself overly enlightned and got insane in this case. Sorry but i have to use these words. A movie critic should never tell the readers or viewers go or not go to the movie. Its up to the viewers. The final closing comments are awfully terrible and is not a good a sign of a good movie critic or even a movie lover..its just putting him first then the movies...Even his review of 'Rango' is equally condemnable where he endorses the movie and encourages the reader to watch the movie openly. A reviewers is a one who tells whats good and whats not. Not the one who decideds which movie is worth to go or not...thats misleading...
This is not about Battle LA...this is about the review itself..
Hope everyone agree on this..Roger...no movie is good or bad...or the quality is decided by the critics...its the people of all generation and time...who decides whether a movie is good or not or whether its mortal or immortal...its sad to see a good critic like Roger has comedown something like this...
Ebert rocks. I love reading his pans (his two collected books are among my favorites). However, Movieline, MARS NEEDS MOMS is a mere five points away from BATTLE: LOS ANGELES on Rotten Tomatoes. Where is the hate for that one?
LOL, yes, Joe - telling someone to "get cancer and die" in repsonse to an opinion of a movie PALES in comparison to a typo in a comment.
More points for your side.
Vic
Oh no! ANOTHER typo? I must be an imbecile who shouldn't be allowed online.
There, no you don't have to respond.
Vic
+1
The comment "get cancer and die" is obscene. I'd never even think it, much less voice it. I've had several cancers and it is not anything to wish on a person, even if you are making a joke. Rethink this comment, please. Go **** yourself is not as bad as that one.
Maybe it's actually not so bad?
Yes, when you hear Battle, Los Angeles and Marine and Alien-- the name of the movie already speak itself, this is a simple action movie for entertainment , I like to watch it, just like I love playing games without any drama, or deep thought. Roger Ebert is low , especially the last sentence: not just tell people not see the movie and also call out people who watch this movie.Can he even produce or direct or act a movie ?
Vic, you are a pathetic, dimwitted man. The internet requires a level of knowledge and intelligence that you just don't have.
Go back to books. Books are your friend. Books won't laugh at you every time you make a mistake, which I'm guessing is rather frequently.
Vic,
After reading Ebert's review, I was bothered with his last paragraph. It basically translates to, "You're a loser if you like this movie." I'm puzzled as to why he attacked the "young men" that do/might like this movie. He gave advice to their women to dump them. Why such contemptuousness?
I don't think you're too far off on the mark about your opinion of Ebert. I thought your opinion was stated well without attacking anyone. As a moderate, I like this. It's hard for me to find a place to voice my opinions without being labeled and demonized by either the left or the right. The left-wingers that post in the Huffington Post forums are no different than those that post in the Fox forums. The left thinks they're the voice of reason and the right thinks they're the voice of common sense. However, both are nothing more than parrots of the rhetoric. I just wished both would be logical.
I love how the liberal tells the conservative to "Go get cancer and die." Yet, everyone continues to gang up on the conservative. Very nice.
The only scathing one of that list is #1, a low blow which seems culled from the wellworn playbook of Armond White. His review for "North" however... THAT WAS SCATHING AT ITS MOST SUBLIME.
Now pay me for that opinion, Movieline.
I took the review as tongue in cheek and laughed throughout. It's obvious he hated the film and didn't feel it deserved a legit review so he decided to have a lil fun with it.
Seriously, thats your response? You people are all sheep just taking other people's opinions as your own because your too brainwashed to develop your own.....
Roger Ebert is a pompous, self-aggrandizing egocentric who, like most of his ilk, carves out a name by spewing hatred for a medium that he pretends to love. His entire livelihood is built on hate, yet what of worth has HE contributed lately?
There's such a thing as escapist cinema. Not everything has to be Citizen Kane. Not everything has to have a higher meaning or social commentary. Sometimes it's okay to just have fun. I enjoyed Battle: LA for what it was, and I'd bet money my IQ is higher than Roger Ebert's.
Are you that big of an imbecile? Ebert is a critic. A film critic. Do you know what film critics do? They criticize movies. I don't recall him building his reputation based on reviews of hate when he's given plenty of generous reviews (some of which I do not agree with). Calling him out because he didn't like a movie and tell him to do better is almost as moronic as you claiming to have an IQ higher than him. Have you ever had a syndicated show? Wrote a book? Does anyone outside your mother know who you are? Obviously not.
Next »