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
Oh wow, really?? I didn't realize he was a film critic!!! This changes everything!!!
I really felt a bunch of hate in his 4-star Rango review.
Ebert reviews movies in a wide range of styles though usually in a more personal than objective way that has contributed to much of his success. When he doesn't like a movie e usually gives many thought out reasons why but every once in awhile he hilariously decides to really lay into one (his "North" review is a thing of legend). I think it's fun when he goes all out like that even if I liked the movie. I wouldn't if he was a one trick pony and did it all the time though.
Hopefully the irony isn't lost on you about how your insult and emotion charged critique of his insult and emotion charged critiquing style in the review more affirms your approval of that style while you are condemning him doing it. Most likely not seeing how you already made the connection that you criticizing him mirrors him criticizing the movie and that you both have a right to do it which I fully agree with.
I don't agree with the defense of bad movies by saying not all movies have to be "Citizen Kane". Yes you can have many styles of movies and some are more serious in tone that others but that doesn't mean that the less serious genre fare has to be badly made. I rather they be good. I'm not against b movies, but a 200 million dollar movie shouldn't be immune to criticizing or being called out because of the "escapists" or "b-movie" defense. Bad is sometimes just bad.
Can all you badge wearing "liberals" and "conservatives" take your cute little fight elsewhere?
Wow, I'm a little surprised this post created this much heated discussion. And especially at the people who think Ebert's a pompous jerk disconnected from reality.
He's my favorite critic, in large part because he reviews films based on their own merits i.e. he has different standards for action movies than he does for Oscar bait dramas. He also, even in a rant like his Battle: LA review, explains WHY he feels the way he feels about a movie. He enjoys "popcorn" films as much as the next guy. Read him regularly enough, and you'll learn he has a soft spot for well-plotted thrillers and traditional stunts. The dude liked The Eagle and Tron: Legacy -- no matter what your opinion of them, you'll probably agree that neither is Citizen Kane.
Kurt: the irony isn't lost on me 🙂 I realize many people respect Ebert's opinion, but he annoys the hell out of me, and I find his standards vacillate too much and in too condescending a manner. Also, some of his reviews seem more based on pre-conceived notions of what a movie will be, rather than what it actually is (in fairness, that's something many reviewers are guilty of at times).
To be clear, I'm not in favor of BAD movies in any form. Even a humble story should be well-executed. The eternal debate, then, is "What makes a movie BAD?" The answer changes with each person, which is why I avoid condemning a person for liking what they like (even if I hate it). It's one thing to eviscerate a poor piece of cinema, but quite another to make attacks on the personal quality of the audience.
Then there are people like Reality Hurts, who truly are nothing but brainless trolls. If they aren't put in their place swiftly, they'll keep jabbering like fools.
In my opinion, Battle: LA is not a BAD movie. I see it as flawed, but still enjoyable. If that makes me an idiot, what does Ebert's poorly-written review make him?
i don't care what Roger Ebert thinks of the film, but if hes going to write a review about how bad it is, have some better arguments. All i was getting from this review was he was looking for ways to hate this movie
having seen it, I can understand the urge to emphatically tell people not to see it.
WAAAAH Poor WHITTLE Repub is crying now. WAAAAAH! Them mean ol Libby-erals make baby cry! WAAAH!
Well, Ebert got cancer and nearly died, probably due to my curse after his review of _Team America: Word Police_..
There's also GOOD escapist cinema & BAD escapist cinema. If you want explosions & gunfire, go watch Die Hard. If you want explosions & aliens, go watch Independence Day. If you want gunfire & aliens, go watch Alien. If you absolutely need all 3 in 1 movie...go watch Lilo & Stitch. But for the love of God, please don't give money to Battle: Los Angeles.
His review's full of arguments. The impression that I got from his review is that he feels the movie is horrible because it lacks a real story, dialogue, characterization, or style. The editing is nauseating, the violence is meaningless, and the writing...aw who am I kidding, there was no writing.
I saw the movie, and I absolutely agree with everything Ebert wrote, and even if I didn't agree, he still makes strong arguments in his full review (this article is just excerpts).
As for his last paragraph, this movie was obviously meant to appeal to the Call of Duty young male demographic, and Ebert therefore makes the (amusingly accurate) assertion that people who honestly thought this was a good film have no idea what a good film is.
Why are people getting all butthurt over this review? I could understand if it was, like, a good film, but some stupid movie about aliens not even released in the summer but in the dead zone of winter... not so much.
At first it seemed to me that you were offended that Roger Ebert indirectly called you a moron. But now I believe that you're not as offended that Roger Ebert indirectly called you a moron as much as you are hurt that he indirectly called you a moron and YOU CARED.
I deduced this from the fact that you acknowledged that you're "the readership" and that were he to come to your house you'd tell that to his face. It's as if you want to get him back for what he did to you, and you want him to feel as hurt as you did when he indirectly called you a moron who doesn't merit the company of an intelligent significant other.
Is he an elitist? Well considering he's the one of the most well-known and respected people in his field, I'd say he's pretty elite. Egocentric? Only in that his website has his name in it. The man likes movies, and he likes talking about movies. He's fortunate enough to be very good at it, and is even more fortunate that people enjoy reading and hearing what he has to say about movies and culture.
The statement "Are you a professional writer? No? I AM, JACKASS" seems to contradict itself. I did see the film, and I found myself in awe of how bad it was. It's almost impressively stupid, as if the director went out of his way to make a movie that bad because of how expensive it looks. But no, it's just the combination of bad directing, and excess of money, and a clear lack of writing.
Roger Ebert has no right to be taken seriously anymore, between his "video games will never be art but I've never played them" BS and his review of Battle: LA, which is frankly one of the best movies I've seen in years, he should think about retiring
This is a movie discussion, not politics, take it to the relevant forums if you want but consider the rest of us who are here for the movies and don't want to see your shit when we go to make a comment
truly pathetic
What it really all comes down to is that every time someone pays to watch this movie, a puppy gets set on fire and punted into an orphanage for blind children. And the terrorists win.
Ebert -- like most of us -- LOVES movies for pure entertainment that are actually ENTERTAINING, not just so much noise in your face. He's written raves of plenty of non-art-house films. In other words, he is relevant because his opinions are informed, unlike yours.
I think it still just makes you an idiot.
" ... and his review of Battle: LA, which is frankly one of the best movies I've seen in years"
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA *Breathe* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ok, now that I have that out of my system, here's my opinion: after watching Black Swan, the lady-friend and I decided to see what the hubub was about and snuck into B:LA. After watching 20 minutes of it, we left with full understanding of Ebert's rage. It has drinking game potential, but that's it.
I'm not a total Ebert fan-boy. In terms of ratings standards and consistency, the AV Club staff is way better. I also agree that his incoherent arguments against video games as art (which he gave up on and admitted he was out-of-touch) were pretty bush league. And he's been pretty aloof since his surgery. But there's no other critic that's as accessible and respected as him.
I saw the movie expecting it to be just a popcorn movie with not much more than cool effects and fighting between men and aliens. I got that, but it was the diologue and the heavy handed 'get to know the characters so you can feel something for them before they die' that really helped to make this the worst movie I have ever seen. Had they not been doing 'Meaningful and Heartfelt' diologue I actually would have liked a lot of it. I was with my dad and two friends... otherwise I would have gotten up left in the middle of it.
Hey, "Oliver Queen", this movie sucked. I bet you love awful movies, but lack the capacity to understand why they always get terrible reviews. Here's a hint: you're an idiot.
I trust Armond White more so than Ebert, and agree entirely with the former's dissertation on the latter.
“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.”
Or just tell them like us critics do: "You're an idiot!"
And to the ladies: If yu're dating someone who likes this and you stay in the relationship; later on down the line you'll be paying for counselling!
Considering Mr. Ebert wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Doll's", I don't give his criticisms of ANY movie (Yes, I said movie, not film. I'm obviously NOT in the business) much weight.
Next » « Previous