Battle: Los Angeles (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> Battle: Los Angeles (8/3/2011 5:14:19 PM)

Post your comments on this article




guysalisbury -> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! (8/3/2011 5:14:19 PM)

I was so looking forward to this! Really looked like it might have District 9 pedigree. Please someone go and see it and tell me Empire are wrong!!!!!!




Deviation -> RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! (8/3/2011 5:58:23 PM)

Mr. Newman better be wrong on this one.




Woger -> RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! (8/3/2011 6:05:38 PM)

The lack of advanced reviewa makes me feel the review may be correct.




MatthewTPotterDotCom -> RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! (8/3/2011 6:11:38 PM)

Newman aint never wrong.




hemibell -> Battle: Your Wallet (8/3/2011 6:26:17 PM)

this always looked like a cash-in hot on the heels of District 9. I'l be careful since I've not yet seen it, but it doesn't look like anything new. After all the Independence Days and District 9s, this looks all too familiar and doesn't seem to have any cultural/historical context. Seems this is a very post-post-9/11 film?




seansshack -> ah crap! (8/3/2011 6:49:06 PM)

was really looking forward to this one. Time and tickets booked (which ain't easy with 4 young kids) and they messed it all up (sob).

Empire is my bible for film reviews so... After Terminator Salvation, Transformers 2.... can they still make big, high concept films?





captainrentboy -> RE: Battle: Los Angeles (8/3/2011 6:54:30 PM)

Another astoundingly poor review to add to Newman's ever growing collection.
Did any movie watching fan in their right mind think this film was going to be remotely original? I'll take a guess at, of course bloody not. So why has he chosen just to go on and on about the movie's numerous 'gigantic alien invasion' cliches? We all knew this wasn't going to have an original tale to tell, so why not keep the plot outline brief and then give an opinion on the effects, or the action sequences, or the music? Anything but the lazy ass stuff he's written about here.[&:]

I'm not saying he's wrong in his rating, it might very well be an utter turd (I'll find out Friday), I just thought a film that had been given a fair amount of coverage in the mag would get a better write up than this.






7eke -> Woot (8/3/2011 7:00:59 PM)

Since i always without fail disagree with Mr Kim 'review a film in 10 words' Newman, this bodes well for me




matty_watson -> I'm still going to see it (8/3/2011 7:02:49 PM)

The review has slightly put me off, but ill still see it, you never know Empire might be wrong but i doubt it




crimebusterofthesea -> RE: I'm still going to see it (9/3/2011 3:03:17 AM)

Where has the review disappeared off too...?

Saw it earlier now gone. Someone at Columbia get pissed off about it?

Unsurprising if it's crap. Look no further than director and cast (except maybe Eckhart).




kinomanko06 -> Not so bad (9/3/2011 9:46:34 AM)

I saw it at a press screening and believe me it's not so bad as Mr. Newman attempts to convince you. Yes, it's not original, but is well made, well shot and will not bore you for a minute. And most of all, the US heroism is reduced to a minimum. Empire has given three stars to far worst movies than this... And note to the reviewer, pls pay more attention to your verdicts, they are unnecessary long and complicated and lower the plot spoilers.




Emyr Thy King -> RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! (9/3/2011 12:39:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MatthewTPotterDotCom

Newman aint never wrong.


So you mean he's always right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kinomanko06

I saw it at a press screening and believe me it's not so bad as Mr. Newman attempts to convince you. Yes, it's not original, but is well made, well shot and will not bore you for a minute. And most of all, the US heroism is reduced to a minimum. Empire has given three stars to far worst movies than this... And note to the reviewer, pls pay more attention to your verdicts, they are unnecessary long and complicated and lower the plot spoilers.


I haven't seen the film so one can only defer to your more reasoned judgement. I'm certainly not expecting a film of the same calibre as say "The King's Speech" but that doesn't diminish the material one bit. Heck, even though it's been mooted as a sci-fi "Black Hawk Down" I don't think it'll have the same breadth and depth as that film; although one would expect it to be so given it was based on factual events. Still, it looks fast-paced, frenetic and at least there seems to be quite a bit going on in the film. What I find a little disappointing is the lack of critical analysis in the review. I'm not joining the chorus of people who do not like Kim Newman's reviews for the sake of it but it's plain to see that the review is sparse. I also have to pick up on an erroneous piece of detail in the review:

quote:

Aliens attack Earth's coastal cities with overwhelming military force.


....

quote:

Liebesman isn't interested in competing with District 9 or Monsters..just in trashing Los Angeles (a city of no strategic value whatsoever)


In the second trailer, we can see this news report:

Screenshot (click)

The reporter says: "We now know that meteors will land off the coasts of different cities"

Los Angeles is the only landing point on the pacific coast of North America. Essentially this is the 'gateway' to the west coast of America because if enemy forces capture a major transport hub such as Los Angeles. They can then fortify it and launch further attacks in-land. In addition they can control much of the roads and bridges, which can restrict the movement of armoured vehicles, convoy trucks and so forth. Furthermore, water is meant to be play an important part as to why they're here, according to the recent interview (click) with the director Jonathan Liebesman. Now, I could glean that merely from the trailer. If one has indeed seen the film and yet missed/failed to mention this point then I'm not sure whether I can take the rest of the review seriously. Thank you for the spoilers too Mr. Newman.




matty_b -> RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! (9/3/2011 1:00:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

quote:

ORIGINAL: MatthewTPotterDotCom

Newman aint never wrong.


So you mean he's always right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kinomanko06

I saw it at a press screening and believe me it's not so bad as Mr. Newman attempts to convince you. Yes, it's not original, but is well made, well shot and will not bore you for a minute. And most of all, the US heroism is reduced to a minimum. Empire has given three stars to far worst movies than this... And note to the reviewer, pls pay more attention to your verdicts, they are unnecessary long and complicated and lower the plot spoilers.


I haven't seen the film so one can only defer to your more reasoned judgement. I'm certainly not expecting a film of the same calibre as say "The King's Speech" but that doesn't diminish the material one bit. Heck, even though it's been mooted as a sci-fi "Black Hawk Down" I don't think it'll have the same breadth and depth as that film; although one would expect it to be so given it was based on factual events. Still, it looks fast-paced, frenetic and at least there seems to be quite a bit going on in the film. What I find a little disappointing is the lack of critical analysis in the review. I'm not joining the chorus of people who do not like Kim Newman's reviews for the sake of it but it's plain to see that the review is sparse. I also have to pick up on an erroneous piece of detail in the review:

quote:

Aliens attack Earth's coastal cities with overwhelming military force.


....

quote:

Liebesman isn't interested in competing with District 9 or Monsters..just in trashing Los Angeles (a city of no strategic value whatsoever)


In the second trailer, we can see this news report:

Screenshot (click)

The reporter says: "We now know that meteors will land off the coasts of different cities"

Los Angeles is the only landing point on the pacific coast of North America. Essentially this is the 'gateway' to the west coast of America because if enemy forces capture a major transport hub such as Los Angeles. They can then fortify it and launch further attacks in-land. In addition they can control much of the roads and bridges, which can restrict the movement of armoured vehicles, convoy trucks and so forth. Furthermore, water is meant to be play an important part as to why they're here, according to the recent interview (click) with the director Jonathan Liebesman. Now, I could glean that merely from the trailer. If one has indeed seen the film and yet missed/failed to mention this point then I'm not sure whether I can take the rest of the review seriously. Thank you for the spoilers too Mr. Newman.


Spoilers? In a Kim Newman review? Heaven forbid! It's not even worth moaning about anymore, because it clearly never gets taken onboard.




Emyr Thy King -> RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! (9/3/2011 1:20:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b
Spoilers? In a Kim Newman review? Heaven forbid! It's not even worth moaning about anymore, because it clearly never gets taken onboard.


I think this is the first of his reviews I've read (or at least I can remember) so on that note, not a great introduction. Regardless, whether he's a serial offender or not. I still find it irritating.




sagent33 -> (9/3/2011 2:38:47 PM)

reads basically the same as the total film review although shorter, with a more cant be bothered feel. I have to agree Mr Newmans reviews are getting worse, what with star rating rarely matching what has been said, or actually missing the point of films entirely. as always i will check the movie out and decide myself.




rich -> Where is it then? (9/3/2011 6:18:47 PM)

What review??




elab49 -> RE: Where is it then? (9/3/2011 6:35:15 PM)

Upthread it says the review was there and now it's not.[:)]

'course this is a thread to discuss a film - not a review. And a reminder to those who have a cob on for Mr Newman, irrespective of what he writes - he doesn't decide how long his reviews are. He is contracted to submit reviews of a particular length. If you're going to criticise the length of the review, choose the correct target?




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Where is it then? (9/3/2011 7:20:20 PM)

The rating made me sad. Then I remember that Empire didnt like Doomsday, Taken or Punisher: Warzone all that much either. So I will keep the faith. 




Emyr Thy King -> RE: Where is it then? (9/3/2011 7:56:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
'course this is a thread to discuss a film - not a review. And a reminder to those who have a cob on for Mr Newman, irrespective of what he writes - he doesn't decide how long his reviews are. He is contracted to submit reviews of a particular length. If you're going to criticise the length of the review, choose the correct target?


Even though the opening post by Empire Admin does say "Post your comments on this article". I think it's right and fair that stakeholders are allowed to comment on a review. Particularly when part of the money they pay for the magazine goes towards paying the likes of Mr. Newman. Furthermore, I and others haven't complained about the length of the review. I don't judge a review on some arbitrary word count but on its content and whether it offers enough of a critique on the material in question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

The rating made me sad. Then I remember that Empire didnt like Doomsday, Taken or Punisher: Warzone all that much either. So I will keep the faith. 


I'd be fine with a low-rated review as long as it eluciadates on what the films failings were in sufficient detail. This review was rather shoddy because it felt rushed, superficial and simply didn't provide the reader with an adequate insight into the film. Have heart, it should be an entertaining film at least.






elab49 -> RE: Woot (9/3/2011 8:24:23 PM)

quote:

Furthermore, I and others haven't complained about the length of the review


quote:

ORIGINAL: 7eke

Since i always without fail disagree with Mr Kim 'review a film in 10 words' Newman, this bodes well for me


I'm sure most agree that one cannot credibly contest a reviewer's opinion on a film unless you've actually seen the film itself - in which case your review and your opinion is very welcome. There is no intent to limit discussion on the quality of reviews, however, and this is clearly a concern for many posters - Empire Online has specific threads that have been used for this purpose as both it, and Empire Magazine, exist to discuss content. There is also a thread to raise concerns about spoilers if you feel the review has been a problem - Helen O'Hara has commented on this previously.

What is grossly unfair to general users is having to go through all the 'this review is crap' posts from a bunch of people who mainly haven't seen the film. At its worst we've had to remove the posts (not the case in this thread of course, but some of them get unacceptably abusive). And there are some films that we await with dread because most of us can predict how the first few pages of the thread will go months before release![:)]

These threads are the principle location for the discussion, reviews and opinions on individual films. The opportunity for those who've seen the films to share their views and, yes, if they disagree with the opinions in the original Empire review be as vocal about it as they wish (within the rules!). Instead  4 posts in we start to get reviews of the review and not of the film. Except for one claim of a press screening.





Emyr Thy King -> RE: Woot (9/3/2011 11:43:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

Furthermore, I and others haven't complained about the length of the review


quote:

ORIGINAL: 7eke

Since i always without fail disagree with Mr Kim 'review a film in 10 words' Newman, this bodes well for me


All right an error in denotation on my part. Here's what I should have said: I and others have complained about the content and not the length of the review.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

I haven't seen the film so one can only defer to your more reasoned judgement. I'm certainly not expecting a film of the same calibre as say "The King's Speech" but that doesn't diminish the material one bit. Heck, even though it's been mooted as a sci-fi "Black Hawk Down" I don't think it'll have the same breadth and depth as that film; although one would expect it to be so given it was based on factual events. Still, it looks fast-paced, frenetic and at least there seems to be quite a bit going on in the film. What I find a little disappointing is the lack of critical analysis in the review. I'm not joining the chorus of people who do not like Kim Newman's reviews for the sake of it but it's plain to see that the review is sparse. I also have to pick up on an erroneous piece of detail in the review:


quote:

ORIGINAL: captainrentboy

Another astoundingly poor review to add to Newman's ever growing collection.
Did any movie watching fan in their right mind think this film was going to be remotely original? I'll take a guess at, of course bloody not. So why has he chosen just to go on and on about the movie's numerous 'gigantic alien invasion' cliches? We all knew this wasn't going to have an original tale to tell, so why not keep the plot outline brief and then give an opinion on the effects, or the action sequences, or the music? Anything but the lazy ass stuff he's written about here.

I'm not saying he's wrong in his rating, it might very well be an utter turd (I'll find out Friday), I just thought a film that had been given a fair amount of coverage in the mag would get a better write up than this.


quote:

ORIGINAL: kinomanko06

I saw it at a press screening and believe me it's not so bad as Mr. Newman attempts to convince you. Yes, it's not original, but is well made, well shot and will not bore you for a minute. And most of all, the US heroism is reduced to a minimum. Empire has given three stars to far worst movies than this... And note to the reviewer, pls pay more attention to your verdicts, they are unnecessary long and complicated and lower the plot spoilers.


quote:

ORIGINAL: sagent33

reads basically the same as the total film review although shorter, with a more cant be bothered feel. I have to agree Mr Newmans reviews are getting worse, what with star rating rarely matching what has been said, or actually missing the point of films entirely. as always i will check the movie out and decide myself.



quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I'm sure most agree that one cannot credibly contest a reviewer's opinion on a film unless you've actually seen the film itself - in which case your review and your opinion is very welcome. There is no intent to limit discussion on the quality of reviews, however, and this is clearly a concern for many posters - Empire Online has specific threads that have been used for this purpose as both it, and Empire Magazine, exist to discuss content. There is also a thread to raise concerns about spoilers if you feel the review has been a problem - Helen O'Hara has commented on this previously.


I disagree, if the reviewer does not sufficiently eluciadate on why he/she holds the opinion they do then clearly the review has failed to inform the viewer adequately. As I've said earlier, there did not appear to be a genuine effort to provide a more in-depth critique of the film. Rather, we're treated to a rather superficial review which on the face of it may appear to 'touch all the bases' but it doesn't go beyond it. This is what I and others have found frustrating. Unfortunately the review has ceased to be! It's disappeared so I can't go into further detail.

quote:

What is grossly unfair to general users is having to go through all the 'this review is crap' posts from a bunch of people who mainly haven't seen the film. At its worst we've had to remove the posts (not the case in this thread of course, but some of them get unacceptably abusive). And there are some films that we await with dread because most of us can predict how the first few pages of the thread will go months before release![:)]


I think "grossly unfair" is a tad too strong, sure it's frustrating for those who want to see informed opinions from those who've seen the film. However, the review was posted before the film's on general release so there isn't much we can do but rely on those that have seen the film or certainly claimed to have seen it. In addition to discuss what morsel of detail we can get. Moreover, if the film's review was meant to stimulate discussion by giving an 'informed' view of it then I have to say I'm none the wiser nor more informed.

quote:

These threads are the principle location for the discussion, reviews and opinions on individual films. The opportunity for those who've seen the films to share their views and, yes, if they disagree with the opinions in the original Empire review be as vocal about it as they wish (within the rules!). Instead  4 posts in we start to get reviews of the review and not of the film. Except for one claim of a press screening.


As I've said before, the film is on general release on the 11th. Since only people who've been given 'exclusive' access through press screenings and so forth can discuss in detail the film, there's only so much the rest of can say. You may say "well then, wait until you've seen it". However, in such a case, why not post the review on the date of the film's release so that filmgoers can weigh in with a more informed opinion? If someone says they've seen a film and disagrees with the reviewer then surely there's a good deal of scope there for further discussion. We've already had one such comment.

Regarding the disparity in reviews by which some feel aggrieved. Here's something of yours I found:

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Awful and rather unpleasant film. Wholeheartedly agree with the absence of stars - but why this is reviewed appropriately and the similarly morally dodgy Man on Fire walks away with 4 stars really does stump me.


Taken review (2008) [;)]

I've read two more reviews of the film: Sky Movies and SFX.

From reading these reviews. I have to say my feeling is that while the film is clearly action-packed, the script and lack of characterisation may let the film down. I just saw the review of the film on Film 2011. You get the impression that Aaron Eckhart immersed himself into the role to make the outlandish scenario seem believable and genuine. However, if the reviews are correct then I do feel sorry for him, because the film will suffer if an important element such as the script is bare. Despite the amount of effort he undoubtedly put into the role. Cautious optimism though at this point!




spamandham -> RE: Battle: Los Angeles (9/3/2011 11:49:30 PM)

The film made be cheer on for the alien invaders.

This thread makes me hope for one IRL.




Emyr Thy King -> RE: Battle: Los Angeles (9/3/2011 11:57:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spamandham

The film made be cheer on for the alien invaders.

This thread makes me hope for one IRL.



I'm sure you'll grace us with more wonderfully cheery comments before then.




crazymoviesdude -> RE: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! (10/3/2011 8:40:15 AM)


quote:


Los Angeles is the only landing point on the pacific coast of North America. Essentially this is the 'gateway' to the west coast of America because if enemy forces capture a major transport hub such as Los Angeles. They can then fortify it and launch further attacks in-land. In addition they can control much of the roads and bridges, which can restrict the movement of armoured vehicles, convoy trucks and so forth. Furthermore, water is meant to be play an important part as to why they're here, according to the recent interview (click) with the director Jonathan Liebesman. Now, I could glean that merely from the trailer. If one has indeed seen the film and yet missed/failed to mention this point then I'm not sure whether I can take the rest of the review seriously. Thank you for the spoilers too Mr. Newman.


Yeah, I'm not really sure about that. The east coast of the USA is 2000 miles long, LA is about 120 miles from the bottom. If you want to take the country, and I'm no tactician, surely you'd start in the centre of the coast, so you can spread out more effectively? San Francisco would have been a better fit if that was the argument, though even Frisco isn't in the middle. Obviously attacking a small beach-side community, or a forest wouldn't be all that interesting and a tad one sided.



Also, why's everyone whining about the review? It's 4 paragraphs long and explains that it's a very formulaic movie. Some people want a critique of the effects and the set pieces, and that's probably fair, but if you dislike something, must you explain in every way why you didn't like it?

There are several attack options for the average forumer who was looking forward to a movie. The first is to flat out say the critic is wrong, despite not having seen the film themselves. The second is more sly. Rather than appear like an idiot, slam the review for not being long enough. This is basically the same as the first because most people seem to be calling bullshit on the rating and review because not every little thing was discussed in the review. They hope beyond hope that if Mr Newman had mentioned the action and effects, that he'd have to concede they were obviously fantastic and the best he'd ever seen and would have to give the film another star. Obviously, that's not the case. He thought it was a 2 star film and didn't feel like wasting server space on a movie that didn't deserve it. I know it's his job to write reviews, but it's not the intensity of excitement about the film that dictates the length of a review, it's the quality of the film, and I don't think a 2 star film warrants more than 4 paragraphs.




juangaz -> Reviews! (10/3/2011 8:44:00 AM)

Not seen the film yet, some interesting comments here though. Firstly I would say Empire gets it right 9 times from 10. Although I'm still shocked at the 3 stars 300 got, clearly a much better film- perhaps a bird reviewed that one? Bbut can't remember. This does feel like a can’t be arsed review, Kim’s obviously bored of watching all action no story films, I haven't seen this yet but I’m guessing it will look and sound great but have no real story, oh well that’s o.k. to be honest I don’t always feel like a mind bogging head fucker of a movie so low maintenance viewing is o.k., now again,

Lets watch and review.




crazymoviesdude -> RE: Reviews! (10/3/2011 8:55:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juangaz

Not seen the film yet, some interesting comments here though. Firstly I would say Empire gets it right 9 times from 10. Although I'm still shocked at the 3 stars 300 got, clearly a much better film- perhaps a bird reviewed that one? Bbut can't remember. This does feel like a canít be arsed review, Kimís obviously bored of watching all action no story films, I haven't seen this yet but Iím guessing it will look and sound great but have no real story, oh well thatís o.k. to be honest I donít always feel like a mind bogging head fucker of a movie so low maintenance viewing is o.k., now again,

Lets watch and review.



I like that you too are someone who agrees with Empire mostly which is why you are still here. Everyone who says Empire are always wrong should stop wasting their time on their forums and go find someone who agrees with them.

I have to say though, why are you guessing it'll look and sound fantastic? You assume that based on the trailer? I thought the film might not be a retread of the past and break new ground, but all the reviews I've read have told me the opposite, so my assumption is that it doesn't look as good as I thought it would because it fails to deliver on other fronts so why not this one. Also Film 2011 told me it doesn't look too good and has a very boring tone.




Emyr Thy King -> We dare not utter a word of protest (10/3/2011 10:10:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazymoviesdude
Yeah, I'm not really sure about that. The east coast of the USA is 2000 miles long, LA is about 120 miles from the bottom. If you want to take the country, and I'm no tactician, surely you'd start in the centre of the coast, so you can spread out more effectively? San Francisco would have been a better fit if that was the argument, though even Frisco isn't in the middle. Obviously attacking a small beach-side community, or a forest wouldn't be all that interesting and a tad one sided.


When the allies invaded France during Operation Overlord in World War II, they effectively faced a front of 3000 odd miles termed the 'Atlantic Wall'. If one followed your logic, then the landing zone should've been much further east, somewhere in the Netherlands or Denmark for instance. Even landing at Calais would've 'made more sense' if you're concerned with the distance one would need to cover. It's not simply just down to the most central location although that may figure into one tactical/strategic planning. It's more to do with what one would achieve by securing a landing zone. LA is a major transport hub on the west coast, it has numerous roads, bridges and other transport links which connect to it. Furthermore, perhaps there are more military bases in that area than near San Francisco? In addition, the other landing sites were New York and New Orleans. It would be easier for the LA invaders to link up with their New Orleans counterparts than it would if they were further up north. A classic 'pincer' movement. The point that they chose LA makes the city one of a major strategic value. If one captures the city and is able to fortify it and entrench their positions. Then it's going to make it that much more difficult to dislodge them.

quote:

Also, why's everyone whining about the review? It's 4 paragraphs long and explains that it's a very formulaic movie. Some people want a critique of the effects and the set pieces, and that's probably fair, but if you dislike something, must you explain in every way why you didn't like it?


It's not "whining" or whinging. Some here clearly voiced legitimate concerns over the quality of the review. A review of a film which has had considerable coverage by the magazine and so it's natural one would expect a more thorough or comprehensive review. Many here are paying customers, we have a vested interest in how the magazine writes/edits its reviews and in particular the content of them. For instance, there was no mention of the soundtrack. Did it work or not? How was the editing? Was it intrusive or too frantic? Did the cinematography hold up well? Just because one doesn't rate a film very well, does not negate the need to go further into detail. Regardless of whether you like a film or not, surely each film deserves the same attention?

quote:

There are several attack options for the average forumer who was looking forward to a movie. The first is to flat out say the critic is wrong, despite not having seen the film themselves. The second is more sly. Rather than appear like an idiot, slam the review for not being long enough. This is basically the same as the first because most people seem to be calling bullshit on the rating and review because not every little thing was discussed in the review. They hope beyond hope that if Mr Newman had mentioned the action and effects, that he'd have to concede they were obviously fantastic and the best he'd ever seen and would have to give the film another star. Obviously, that's not the case. He thought it was a 2 star film and didn't feel like wasting server space on a movie that didn't deserve it. I know it's his job to write reviews, but it's not the intensity of excitement about the film that dictates the length of a review, it's the quality of the film, and I don't think a 2 star film warrants more than 4 paragraphs.


Once more, this not about how many paragraphs or words that have been written in the review. If you read some of the above comments you would've seen this. Rather than blindly wade in and assume people are taking a dig at Mr. Newman because he didn't reach some empirical figure. I don't care whether he wrote four or five paragraphs. I and others would've simply liked more of a rounded review of the film and not the tidbits that we got. If he had rated the film as a one star film but had reviewed the film more fully then I'd be fine. This is a highly anticipated film and with that comes expectation, if we're disappointed with the review then we have every right to voice our disappointment. To accuse others of being spiteful because of a negative review is rather churlish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazymoviesdude

I like that you too are someone who agrees with Empire mostly which is why you are still here. Everyone who says Empire are always wrong should stop wasting their time on their forums and go find someone who agrees with them.


In that case we may as well close down the forum, let's not bother to dissent or debate a subject. I don't always agree with Empire's reviews and there have been times when I've vehemently disagreed with a review. However, it's always interesting to have a counter-point. If we always agreed with Empire, the discussions wouldn't be so entertaining and you'd have a lack of debate on many of these threads. Nonetheless, Empire usually has very well written reviews and that's why many of us are here.

quote:

I have to say though, why are you guessing it'll look and sound fantastic? You assume that based on the trailer? I thought the film might not be a retread of the past and break new ground, but all the reviews I've read have told me the opposite, so my assumption is that it doesn't look as good as I thought it would because it fails to deliver on other fronts so why not this one. Also Film 2011 told me it doesn't look too good and has a very boring tone.


One can always get a 'sense' of the film from the trailer and certainly reading reviews that elaborate on various points. From what I've read, the effects hold up pretty well as there seems to be nearly an incessant number of set-pieces in the film. As before, it should still be the spectacle that I've been expecting since I learnt of the film's existence but it'll be rather "Black Hawk Down" lite when it comes to the characterisation and dialogue. Besides, there was a fair bit of hype for "The Fighter" and "The King's Speech" which made me think those films would have very well written dialogue and fleshed out characters. I've seen those films and that's the exact impression I had after viewing.




robcas20 -> Battle LA (10/3/2011 1:16:03 PM)

For those saying that the review is gone, it isn't. You can still access it though the homepage.

Here's the link: http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=136916 




Emyr Thy King -> RE: Battle LA (10/3/2011 1:42:23 PM)

Yes it's re-appeared now but it had disappeared last night.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.078125