# The movie Battle:L.A. lies and more lies



## billc (Mar 12, 2011)

The movie was great, however, the marines did not torture and kill civillians for fun, they were not shown to be thugs in uniform, so the film really failed in that aspect.  You need to keep in mind as well that the aliens portrayed in the movie are no more than perhaps 10 percent of the whole alien population.  Any attempt to stereotype the entire alien race as militarily aggressive is just showing the ignorance of your typical earthling.  The rest of the aliens I am sure want nothing more than to raise their alien children and live their lives in peace.  
After all, it is probably Earth's cultural imperialism, by sending our radio waves out into space that is the real cause for the justified self-defense of the aliens.  Also, the aliens who are the soldiers are probably from the poorest parts of the alien culture, and therefore have no hope.  Perhaps if their alien civilization could provide them with jobs and a way out of poverty they would have no need to make justifiable war on the earth.

Perhaps if Earth, in the movie, offered a package of alien aid, to make up for our Earth centric imperialism, we could understand their culture better.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 12, 2011)

Say... what?


----------



## elder999 (Mar 12, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Say... what?


 
Clearly, bill wants another bunny....and I'm happy to oblige, :lfao: :


----------



## billc (Mar 12, 2011)

The movie must be good, all the liberal critics are attacking it.  See this article on the over reaction of the various liberal critics of the film.  Apparently there weren't enough atrocities committed by americans for their taste.

http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2011/03/12/is-ideology-invading-battle-la-reviews/

From the article:

&#8220;Battle&#8221; is dopey to the core, with giggle-inducing dialogue, shaky cams gone wild and a host of other structural issues. But perusing a few of the critical responses to &#8220;Battle&#8221; yields something else &#8220;wrong&#8221; with the film. It doesn&#8217;t march lockstep with some critics&#8217; ideological fault lines.

The movie brands U.S. Marines as heroes, showing how noble and brave they are in the face of an alien onslaught. It&#8217;s not the typical theme you see in movies today, especially ones with a military component.


----------



## Omar B (Mar 13, 2011)

LOL.  Ridiculous thread is ridiculous.


----------



## VegasM4 (Mar 13, 2011)

Semper Fi! It makes me proud to have served 10 years as a United States Marine!OhhRahh!


----------



## girlbug2 (Mar 13, 2011)

My dh took the boys to see this film last night despite a sad 33% tomatometer rating. He came back saying "The critics are FOS! That was a great action flick."


Looking at the link to the article, it would indeed appear that the critical disappointment with Battle Los Angeles is that it didn't have anything that lined up with ideologies of any kind other than "let's kick some alien butt".  WHY does a film HAVE to have some kind of social commentary to be a good film? People that go to the movies for pure escapism don't look for that...I think the critics have lost their ability to enjoy a film purely for fun.

I'd suggest, rather than looking for political commentary (I'm looking at you, critics), that people enjoy Battle Los Angeles as a pure action film. Isn't that how it's intended?


----------



## granfire (Mar 13, 2011)

Omar B said:


> LOL.  Ridiculous thread is ridiculous.



get out of my head and give me back the words to took...


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 13, 2011)

+1 Girlbug and thats where I agree with the OP. Film criticism seems to have a heavy "If there is not some form of political/cultural (mostly liberal in flavor) commentary the film is flawed." influence on them. Of course how many "right sided" film critics are successful in our media structures these days?


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 13, 2011)

saw it yesterday and loved it. 

But it didnt show the marines as raping baby killers, so i can see why some liberal arts hack who cant get any other job than movie reviews would hate it........


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The movie was great, however, the marines did not torture and kill civillians for fun, they were not shown to be thugs in uniform, so the film really failed in that aspect.  You need to keep in mind as well that the aliens portrayed in the movie are no more than perhaps 10 percent of the whole alien population.  Any attempt to stereotype the entire alien race as militarily aggressive is just showing the ignorance of your typical earthling.  The rest of the aliens I am sure want nothing more than to raise their alien children and live their lives in peace.
> After all, it is probably Earth's cultural imperialism, by sending our radio waves out into space that is the real cause for the justified self-defense of the aliens.  Also, the aliens who are the soldiers are probably from the poorest parts of the alien culture, and therefore have no hope.  Perhaps if their alien civilization could provide them with jobs and a way out of poverty they would have no need to make justifiable war on the earth.
> 
> Perhaps if Earth, in the movie, offered a package of alien aid, to make up for our Earth centric imperialism, we could understand their culture better.



So ... wtf are you trying to say here?  Did you LIKE the film?


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 13, 2011)

Since he posted this in the study I believe it's proper to discuss what he sees as the political aspects of culture vs a film critique.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2011)

Everytime I put my swami hat on, I get in trouble, so I'm trying to ask him to be more clear about the points he is making. I don't appear to be alone in my confusion.

Thanks.


----------



## billc (Mar 13, 2011)

The film was great, the shaky cam sucked.  May all shaky cams get dropped.


----------



## billc (Mar 13, 2011)

The film portrayed the marines, members of the army and air force in a very, very positive light.   It didn't try to apologize for the enemy or make excuses for the evil they were perpetrating.  Good vs. evil, always a big seller at the box office.  The critics expose a real dislike, if not bordering hate  for the military, especially it seems, the marines.  

I don't believe that all films have to be positive portrayels of anything, even the military, but right now, especially during a period where real marines, army, navy and  air force men and women are dying and being wounded,  would it kill hollywood to show them in a way other than as thugs in uniform, or mental cases, (Friday's episode of blue blood, another homeless multi-medal winning homeless vet story), victims.   At least once in a great, great while.  

We probably all know people who have served or are serving in combat zones.  They are us.  They are not monsters, they are doing a dangerous job, for us, and deserve a lot more respect from us.  Not simply, yeah, we support you, and then every movie that is made portrays them as monsters, crazies and victims.  Yeah, real support there.  That's all.  How about one in every 20 or 30 movies, about the ratio we have now with Battle:L.A.  and Battle isn't even set in a real setting.  And yet, the critics can't even say, yeah, the marines and other american warriors are the heroes we know them to be and they are in this film.  Is that too much to ask.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 13, 2011)

I get what you are saying. I say the same thing about cop shows. Even though TV is getting better with us.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 13, 2011)

true that.
 Better, but still not great, it is clear that the people that make movies and tv shows, on a very real level, loath the military and the police


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 13, 2011)

I joined both (mil/le) because I loved my country and my community, I appreciated everything that I was given in my life because of the opportunities they provided for me and I wanted to contribute to them rather than always take or expect from them. Granted not everybody enlists for the same reasons...but MANY do. The slander that I saw directed towards what I believed to be honorable professions and people are what tilted my world to the right when I was a younger man.


----------



## billc (Mar 13, 2011)

The same for me Archangel, I know what you mean.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2011)

NOW I understand what you're saying.

Thanks for the clarification and I do agree that it's nice to see military and LE portrayed positively ... though my recent experiences with our local law enforcement have been less than positive.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 13, 2011)

Or it could just be that aside from tons of **** blowing up, the film just sucked.


----------



## granfire (Mar 13, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> Or it could just be that aside from tons of **** blowing up, the film just sucked.



Well, if the s*** blowing up is not your primary interest in a movie, chances are great...


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 13, 2011)

i liked it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> And yet, the critics can't even say, yeah, the marines and other american warriors are the heroes we know them to be and they are in this film.  Is that too much to ask.



I genuinely don't think it is too much to ask to show the members of the armed forces in a positive light, if that's the story that the tellers want to tell.  After all, it was only an over-reverence for the wishes of my father that stopped me becoming an officer in the Royal Navy; so you can tell which side of the fence I sit on .

But, for the record, just putting on the uniform of your country does not make you a hero.  It's important to distinguish between choices made in the heat of battle and those made when standing in the dole queue.  Actual heroes are few and far between.

At the end of the day, tho', fiction is not fact and altho' there are some who use their position in the entertainment industry to make political points that suit their own views, what gets made is what makes money.  It's neither Left or Right wing, it's box office.

For me, I like to believe the illusion that our militaries are comprised of Paladins, even tho' they are not.  It's one of those sneaky Liberal ideas of people becoming what you expect of them.  If we expect scum with guns then that's what we get (tho' to be fair we built an empire with an army made up of such, kicking much French butt along the way).  

If we expect our militaries to live up to the attributes applied to them by most of us here at MT, then, just maybe, we might get fewer breaches of the articles of war and more people we can genuinely look up to.  Of course, what also needs to be said is that, given the tens of thousands in service, the real bad apples are very few in number.

As to the movie in question here, sounds like one I'd like to see :tup:.  I've just finished re-watching Space Above and Beyond and am still re-reading the Honor Harrington series - even after that my thirst for the heroic is still unquenched in these troubled times ... especially with the international inaction on what is going on in Libya .


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 13, 2011)

I don't know. There are many films out there that definitely don't appear to have been made to "make money" as much as they were made to push a point. Not all movies are made to be "blockbusters". 

I think that there are many in the entertainment industry that presume to push "newspeak" on the masses. Present the same image often enough through the media and people believe it. Hell even in the LE/Mil fields there is a school of tactical thought that many LEO's/Soldiers succumbed to survivable wounds because the media had ingrained the mental attitude that all bullet wounds are fatal so they gave in and died of shock.

Im not above believing that there is more than money involved in the media message.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 13, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> ... especially with the international inaction on what is going on in Libya .



Side question. Do you think the USA should get involved? And be accused of interfering in yet another mid-east conflict?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 13, 2011)

:grins:  Aye that is a tricky one.  

I reckon the US's past foreign policy record in recent decades would more or less ensure you'd get stick for whatever you did, especially as Libya has oil.

The situation is rather different in some aspects tho', as Libya actually has a popular uprising that is being crushed miltarily in a fashion that is no longer acceptable in the present political climate.  The line between civil war and oppression has gotten awfully blurred, sad to say .


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 13, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> :grins:  Aye that is a tricky one.
> 
> I reckon the US's past foreign policy record in recent decades would more or less ensure you'd get stick for whatever you did, especially as Libya has oil.
> 
> The situation is rather different in some aspects tho', as Libya actually has a popular uprising that is being crushed miltarily in a fashion that is no longer acceptable in the present political climate.  The line between civil war and oppression has gotten awfully blurred, sad to say .



Im all for letting the UK enforce a no-fly zone. You folks are closer.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 13, 2011)

A movie that a lot of people enjoy does not always make for a good movie. I'd probably enjoy that movie, because I like stuff blowing up. But it won't surprise me if the script is weak, the dialogue sucks and the actors couldn't act their way out of a wet paper bag.


----------



## billc (Mar 13, 2011)

The majority of Libya's oil goes to Europe, so perhaps they could form a coalition and enforce a no fly zone.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 13, 2011)

I enjoy a film if its good. Now and then I'll see a film and Think Those fudder muckers. Look what they did. like if they portray thew military as bad when they should be shown as good and vise versa. Ditto with pro america is great and the russians are bad cold war flicks. However, I still enjoy them cause the movies are good. I try ignore biases - at least, too much.


----------



## granfire (Mar 13, 2011)

Sometimes you are better off if you don't know too much about the subject matter...
or you end up nit picking at all the mistakes. 
(Kind of like 'Days of Thunder', they left no cliche out according to the 50th anniversary documentary about NASCAR, when we watch it we always wonder how the guys in the sport look at it....'Man, that's a cheesy scene!')


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 13, 2011)

I know, I loved unstoppable. I have a friend who is a train enginner. He thought it sucked balls because of how fake it was.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Mar 14, 2011)

> Im not above believing that there is more than money involved in the media message.



I would agree, that it's not always directly involved in the message, but ultimately the media message is indirectly pointing to money.

Some films are made to push propaganda and not directly be huge at the box office yet the propaganda they are trying to push ultimately leads to bigger dollars for the filmakers or someone or something close to them.


----------



## billc (Mar 14, 2011)

This is John Nolte's review of Battle:L.A. He is my favorite critic and my go to person for reviews. Keep in mind, I'll see a movie if it gets my interest, but his take is always enlightnening. After you see this review, check out his review of the movie "Kick ***." That review may surprise you.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/j...ldly-entertaining-subversive-the-anti-avatar/

The opening paragraph of the review:

You want to know how clueless too many of today&#8217;s lock-step thinking, left-wing critics are? They&#8217;re so blinded by ideology and partisanship that their number-one complaint about the thoroughly entertaining, engrossing, exciting, edge-of-your-seat &#8220;Battle: Los Angeles,&#8221; is that it&#8217;s somehow lacking in important themes, subtext, a social conscience and meaning. Okay, it&#8217;s Lent and there&#8217;s a Swear Jar right here on my desk, which means that the following is going to cost me a dollar &#8212; but it&#8217;s worth it: Every word of that criticism is complete and utter ********. These critics and their many counterparts are either lying or they&#8217;re so blinded by partisanship that they can&#8217;t see the forest for the trees they&#8217;re hugging.

Also:

*3. Lacks interesting political implications to chew over:*
See 1 & 2 and then see the movie again without partisan blinders. This Marine platoon epitomizes the American ideal of _e pluribus unum_ &#8212; &#8220;Out of many, one.&#8221; Most every race, creed and color is represented in this group of men and it&#8217;s never any kind of issue or even mentioned. These men are _Americans _and they don&#8217;t see each other as anything more or less. They are brothers brought together by the values they share in common. The evil of multiculturalism, the shallow differences the Left uses to divide us have no place among these brave Marines &#8212; including one who enlisted to earn his American citizenship. 
Chew on that.

*4. Empty sci-fi:*
Of course the film is empty to the same Leftists who have turned nihilism into a theme and narcissism into a virtue. How could the mentally ill possibly recognize the rich thematic fullness and meaning found in a story that explores themes such as bravery, honor, valor, country, self-sacrifice, brotherhood, forgiveness, and what it means to be a man? Themes such as these are kryptonite to the Left and so their only defense is to make us feel uncool for being affected by them. That&#8217;s why instead of using the word &#8220;country&#8221; they use the word &#8220;jingosim.&#8221; &#8220;Valor&#8221; becomes &#8220;corny.&#8221; &#8220;Self-sacrifice&#8221; becomes &#8220;hokey. &#8221; &#8220;Honor&#8221; is twisted into &#8220;old-fashioned.&#8221;

Let me put it this way: &#8220;Battle: Los Angeles&#8221; is the most subversive film to come out of Hollywood since &#8220;300.&#8221; It&#8217;s also not partisan or political in any way. We are watching a brutal alien invasion of Los Angeles from the point of view of a platoon of United States Marines &#8212; men who love their country, each other, and stand for the finest traditions and values America and our military has to offer. Director Jonathan Liebesman honors these men and writer Christopher Bertolini is true to them.

And a cautionary note from the review:

P.S. There is one moment that took me completely out of the movie. While running through Santa Monica, our heroes pass a store with a &#8220;Support the Troops&#8221; sign in the window next to an American flag. There&#8217;s no way you&#8217;d ever see such a thing in Santa Monica without the word &#8220;fascist&#8221; spray-painted across it. Aliens I buy, but that went too far.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 15, 2011)

billcihak said:


> While running through Santa Monica, our heroes pass a store with a Support the Troops sign in the window next to an American flag. Theres no way youd ever see such a thing in Santa Monica without the word fascist spray-painted across it. Aliens I buy, but that went too far.



Lying again, I see.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 15, 2011)

i suppose you can PROVE thats a lie?

particuarly when it is a continued quote OF THE REVIEW???


you owe bill an apology


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 15, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i suppose you can PROVE thats a lie?
> 
> particuarly when it is a continued quote OF THE REVIEW???
> 
> ...



The hell I do.  I worked next door to Santa Monica for 6 years in Westwood, and spent a lot of time in SM eating, going to the beach, visiting friends, or just driving through.  There was never anything like that in all the time I spent there, and any number of American flags and military recruiting stations.  None were defaced, protested, or anything of the sort.  Bill is making **** up out of the fetid recesses of his imagination, based on his stupid politics, and obviously knows nothing about a city he feels free to slander.  In other words, lying.

ETA:  It is never clear from Bill's posts what are his words and what comes from someone else, since he feels no need to use quotation marks consistently or indicate what is what.  If he doesn't feel that way about Santa Monica, then he should make that clear.


----------



## Omar B (Mar 15, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> The hell I do.  I worked next door to Santa Monica for 6 years in Westwood, and spent a lot of time in SM eating, going to the beach, visiting friends, or just driving through.  There was never anything like that in all the time I spent there, and any number of American flags and military recruiting stations.  None were defaced, protested, or anything of the sort.  Bill is making **** up out of the fetid recesses of his imagination, based on his stupid politics, and obviously knows nothing about a city he feels free to slander.  In other words, lying.
> 
> ETA: * It is never clear from Bill's posts what are his words and what comes from someone else, since he feels no need to use quotation marks consistently or indicate what is what.*  If he doesn't feel that way about Santa Monica, then he should make that clear.



Yup.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 15, 2011)

HE IS QUOTING HE REVIEW, if you tyhink it is wrong, TAKE IT UP WITH THE PERSON THAT WROTE THE REVIEW

YOU called Bill a LIAR for posting a QUOTE

if you cant see how you owe him an apology, you need to seek help



Empty Hands said:


> The hell I do.  I worked next door to Santa Monica for 6 years in Westwood, and spent a lot of time in SM eating, going to the beach, visiting friends, or just driving through.  There was never anything like that in all the time I spent there, and any number of American flags and military recruiting stations.  None were defaced, protested, or anything of the sort.  Bill is making **** up out of the fetid recesses of his imagination, based on his stupid politics, and obviously knows nothing about a city he feels free to slander.  In other words, lying.
> 
> ETA:  It is never clear from Bill's posts what are his words and what comes from someone else, since he feels no need to use quotation marks consistently or indicate what is what.  If he doesn't feel that way about Santa Monica, then he should make that clear.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Mar 15, 2011)

When one is consistently attempting to pass BS as fact, then there should be no apology.

That's also why quotation marks come in handy, what needs to happen is for Bill to start using quotes effectively as well as being clearer in his writing which many times is confusing and doesn't make much sense. Then he needs to start seperating the facts from his opinions, distortions and rationalizations.

This isn't an attack on Bill, it's simply a standard that he should raise his posts to if he wants to be taken seriously on here.

And if he doesn't then he should just keep doing what he's doing.

I believe that Bill functions on the premise that if you can't beat em with brains, baffle em with BS.

Unfortunately that doesn't work for sensible discussions.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 15, 2011)

and that is one long rambling ad hom attack, and a violation of the TOS


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 15, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> HE IS QUOTING HE REVIEW, if you tyhink it is wrong, TAKE IT UP WITH THE PERSON THAT WROTE THE REVIEW
> 
> YOU called Bill a LIAR for posting a QUOTE
> 
> if you cant see how you owe him an apology, you need to seek help



That wasn't clear to me.  If Bill refutes the point, then I will apologize.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 15, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> ETA:  It is never clear from Bill's posts what are his words and what comes from someone else, since he feels no need to use quotation marks consistently or indicate what is what.  If he doesn't feel that way about Santa Monica, then he should make that clear.



If someone is plagiarizing and you have proof, you should report the post, include the evidence and let the staff handle the matter.

And, FWIW, the ignore feature works GREAT!


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 15, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> That wasn't clear to me.  If Bill refutes the point, then I will apologize.



fair enough


----------



## billc (Mar 15, 2011)

Uh...I refute what you said.  Is that what you wanted to see?


----------



## billc (Mar 19, 2011)

Here is an interesting review of the movie. I know it has been out now for what, two weeks, but this is a great take on the movie.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/decent/2011/03/19/battle-los-angeles-go-see-this-movie/

From Bill Whittle, the reviewer:

Missing are all of the clichés we have come to expect from movies that depict our fighting men and women. There are no brooding loaners bemoaning the futility of war, no racist loud-mouth adrenaline junkies itching to kill anything they don&#8217;t understand, the troops aren&#8217;t victims of nefarious political posturing or trying to steal from the third-world&#8230;
Even the relationship between Aaron Eckhart&#8217;s battle-hardened Staff Sergeant Nash and the fresh-faced, just-out-of-school, naive Lieutenant is respectful and authentic. When the Lieutenant breaks down from his first exposure to the chaos of battle, there is no condescending moment of the wise-old enlisted man rising up to take command. Instead, Eckhart reminds the younger man of his responsibility, pulls him out of his own head, prompts him to make a decision, and then says &#8220;Yes sir.&#8221;​


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 19, 2011)

This film is sounding pretty good I have to say - a senior non-com doing what they have done for their junior officers for centuries ... I faint in disbelief to see it in a movie 
.


----------

