Battle Los Angeles

[Malsua]

Last night as we finished watching a movie, we noticed that "Battle of Los Angelos" was on SyFi (I hate that name by the way!). I am thinking to myself, how in the hell is this movie on TV? Well, it isn't the movie from the theaters. It is simply something they got wind of and decided to knock off. BADLY.

To call this movie bad is an insult to the word bad. I've seen better films by chumps on youtube. Seriously, I can't believe someone would edit this together and have the balls to show it anyone. I would be embarrassed. The "star" was Nia Peebles. Remember her? Even this movie was below her and I couldn't have imagined that being possible.

[Toad]

Yea I watched parts ofthe SciFi channel "Battle of Los Angelos" last night and was confused. So B-Grade it was possibly C-Grade.

[Ryan Ruck]

LOL! I love the knock-off SciFi channel movies. After all who can forget such classics as Transmorphers, Transmorphers: Fall of Man, I Am Omega, The Da Vinci Treasure, and Paranormal Entity. Always good for a laugh!

Those are all put out by a production company called The Asylum and The Global Asylum.

Didn't catch Battle of Los Angeles though.

By the way, if you guys want to see a horrendously bad movie, look for Alien 3000. It features what looks like one of the aliens from the Alien franchise on the cover but the cover is where any similarity ends. Lorenzo Lamas is in it by the way!

[catfish]

I'm glad somebody else noticed that shit on syfy, hate that name too btw, last night. The good old mockbuster as they are called. I first started to notice this trend in the mid to late 80's as video rentals became popular. As an astute movie viewer I pride myself on not getting sucked into these blatant traps. It really is shameful how they try to trick people into renting crap. Ryan listed off some great titles, I Lmao!

[Ryan Ruck]

I refuse to call SciFi by its goofy, new name by the way. They said they changed it for better brand recognition.

It was SciFi since I was in grade school and that's what it will remain as far as I'm concerned!

[American Patriot]

So did anyone see the REAL movie? /sigh

Was supposed to go, but ended up cooking all day yesterday haha

[catfish]

Rick, I did. I wrote a short review on page 2 of this thread.

[American Patriot]

I dont think your page two is the same as my page two. LOL

I think I only saw the stuff about the SciFi channel (who the fuck calls it syfi?)

[Phil Fiord]

The rebranding of SciFi to Syfy is an attempt to be 'cool' by using short txt like messages. As I am not a hipster and generally stay away from such hipster stuff, I figure, meh. No big deal, its just lame.

[catfish]

I was under the impression they changed the name to SyFy because they couldn't trademark the word Sci-fi.

[Phil Fiord]

Hi Catfish,

I am unaware of that actually, but the following article discusses it as a rebranding to open the market further. /shrug

Seems a silly move to me and I am still in that industry.

http://blastr.com/2009/03/sci-fi-channel-to-become.php

[catfish]

Syfy—unlike the generic entertainment category "sci-fi"—firmly establishes a uniquely ownable trademark that is portable across all nonlinear digital platforms and beyond, from Hulu to iTunes. Syfy also creates an umbrella brand name that can extend into new adjacent businesses under the Syfy Ventures banner, including Syfy Games, Syfy Films and Syfy Kids.

Emphasis mine.

[Phil Fiord]

Good catch, but it does not say anything direct about SciFi being unable to be used. Yes, it can be implied easily and it is still a rebranding in the way the positioned themselves.

[catfish]

As I read that article it kept talking about being able to include more "imagination based" entertainment, what ever that means. I always thought the channel's strengths were based on the sci fi approach. Plus sci fi is very broad and can include just about anything anyways so I guess I'm not following their logic on that one. Changing the spelling of your name so it looks faggy ain't gonna bring more viewers. Only quality programming will do that. Battlestar Galactica was a great example, hard to believe they are having trouble building off successes like that.

I wish I ran a cable network. Sigh...

[Phil Fiord]

syfy to me is a spelling to attract younger viewers.

[American Patriot]

More like attract weirdos.

/chuckles

[Backstop]

It was SciFi since I was in grade school and that's what it will remain as far as I'm concerned!

How long has that channel been up and running?

Not commenting on your age, just curious.

You gotta remember I didn't get back to the States until 1998, and really didn't watch any TV until 2000 or so.

Not sure when I noticed SciFi

[American Patriot]

SciFi has been there since... probably the late 1980s. I seem to remember having it when I was in DC (had cable in base housing, and I remember when CNN first really went "online" as I was at the White House, and the other newsies at events would chime in with "CHICKEN NOODLE NEWS" when the new CNN guys would show up).

[Ryan Ruck]

No, no, it's okay. I'm quickly getting older and refuse to graciously accept it.

Like Rick said, I'm pretty sure it has been around a while. Earliest I remember it being around was the early '90s.

[American Patriot]

Battle: Los Angeles

Went to the movie last night.

The beginning scenes of course give you an indication of what is about to happen. Then they "Flash back" some hours prior to the ride in the chopper.

Essentially this moving is about a squad of Marines that wind up getting their asses kicked and kicking asses. I suspect they came to take names and kick ass, but their ink pens ran outta ink....

Anyway, the action was relatively non-stop. The concentration on the war against the invaders was Los Angeles, but apparently there were multiple, world-wide invasion points which were only mentioned in passing, and by inference.

The movie was very, very LOUD. The battle scenes might have well been in the theater and when the shooting started I personally nearly hit the deck. They manage to capture the fire fight sounds very well, enough so I was staggered when the shooting did start.

I noted other vets in the place started as I did, so I didn't feel quite so stupid. haha.

Over all, there was one good crying scene, at least twenty combat scenes, a few hero scenes (and not all the heroes were Marines, but I won't spoil that for you). There was the "Hero's dark background" which was implied a few times, and then was a personal stomping scene later....

All-in-all, as an action movie, it was full of action and I enjoyed the hell out of it. That get's a 5

Overall, the plot wasn't much different from that of Independence Day (with Will Smith) but I think a bit more "believable" than that of ID. That get's a 4.5.

The extreme "Save the civilians" was... interesting, saving the live ones, while thousands probably lay dead at their feet was kind of weird to me. Not that I wouldn't have put as much effort into saving someone as those guys were doing, but it was pretty creepy with all the dead around the screens.

The bad guys... well, they .... just were bad guys. They sucked.

I hope they don't visit here for-real or there's gonna be some damned pissed off Marines.