Battle of Los Angeles |
  • USA • 2011 • 92m •  • Directed by: Mark Atkins. • Starring: Nia Peeples, Kel Mitchell, Dylan Vox, Theresa June-Tao, Gerald Webb, Edward DeRuiter, Darin Cooper, Robert Pike Daniel, Tim Abell, Michele Boyd, Stephen Blackehart, Lorry O'Toole, Scot Nery. • Music by: Kays Al-Atrakchi, Brian Ralston.      In January 1942 US forces engaged an unidentified flying object above Los Angeles. Now almost 70 years later, the alien invaders have returned.
|
Trailers:
| Length: | Languages: | Subtitles: |
Review:
Edited, photographed, written & directed by Mark Atkins this is yet another 'Mockbuster' from The Asylum & as you may guess it's a right rip-off of the big budget sci-fi action film Battle Los Angeles (2011), while I haven't seen the Hollywood film I am pretty sure it's miles better than piece of crap. Every single aspect of Battle of Los Angeles is embarrassingly bad, it's one of those films that's almost impossible to describe as you really do have to see it to believe it although I wouldn't recommend you see it all. The film jumps from one puzzling moment to another, it never really stops to answer any pressing questions or flesh out it's character's or expand on it's choppy narrative. Battle of Los Angeles really is a complete mess, it's really hard to sit through in one go & it's the sort of low budget rubbish that makes me want to give up watching films altogether. There are so many plot holes & things that make no logical sense it's frightening, I mean this alien race has the technology to reprogramme missiles & use them against us but can reprogramme the fighter jets? To defeat the alien invasion they have to kill a big monster at the end but why would that in itself defeat the invasion? How could something that big build that mother ship? If all the aliens wanted was their mate back why didn't the resistance guy's free it & see what happened? Why did the aliens make a cyborg replica of a guy from 1942? It seems that you fight off alien technology with a Samurai sword, a grenade exploding a few feet from you will cause no harm & where the hell is the rest of the world while this is happening in Los Angeles? Some films are beyond redemption, some films are so bad they are good & then there are films like Battle of Los Angeles which are so mind numbingly awful & inept you you lose the will to live while watching it. Easily one of the worst films ever made, total ineptitude & boredom on all levels.
As well as conceptually terrible Battle of Los Angeles looks like it shot on a budget that wouldn't cover a round of drinks down my local, the co-called special effects are amongst the worst ever put on screen & there's so many of them. The awful effects are so blatant & stick out like a sore thumb as the makers of this crap have no shame, they don't even try to hide the terrible effects work or edit the shots down or try to make them work. The action is lame with some shoot-out on a street between the military & what looks like a robotic alien dustbin. There's no blood or gore here really & the whole thing feels very PG rated.
Actually filmed in Los Angeles, mainly because that's where The Asylum are based rather than for authenticity reasons, this has rock bottom production values with military bases that look like a few tin sheds & no regard to actual military procedure at all. The acting is poor & annoying, Nia Peebles looks quite good but apart from that forget it.
Battle of Los Angeles was made & released purely to cash-in on the Hollywood blockbuster Battle Los Angeles, the people behind it didn't care if it was any good because if they did surely it wouldn't have turned out this awful. Sure, the people on the ground making these films may care but the people with the money & who make the decision's that matter don't care at all apart from how much it will make.
Review by Paul Andrews from the Internet Movie Database.
Movie Database