Wait... Didn't Battle:Los Angeles come out today?Was kinda hoping for that instead of this.oh well...
yeah seriously why did you review red riding hood of all movies when Battle:LA was out... Just a tad bit more of an important release....
I always just want to give you a hug whenever I hear you take the piss out of Twilight.
Looks like you forgot to link to intermission...
Was Battle: Los Angeles not shown to critics? Obviously I don't know this show's audience demographics as well as Bob, but isn't Battle:LA something the kind of people who read the escapist would care about much more than a film primarily aimed at teenage girls?
@ Danny: Yes and yes. While I cannot say with certainty, I am not Bob, but I can all but guarantee pretty much everyone who watches his show on the escapist and on this blog would rather him talk about Battle:LA regardless of whether he liked it or hated it. and It was most definitely available to critics.
Danny is right, I was so sure that his review would encompass Battle for Los Angeles; pretty shocked it was this. On the other hand, if they didn't screen it then there's your answer. Enjoyed the review though as always Bob!
Well this is some unexpected news. I was busy lamenting the fact that such a pretty look was wasted on an obvious Twilight cash-in, but I almost kinda want to see this now...
I was hoping to hear you chime in on this movie and the whole twilight audience pandering thing that is going on right now. Really informative and entertaining stuff.
How are the werewolf effectsin this film? I doubt it's as good as American Werewolf In London, but atleast tell me it's better than the latter 2 Twilight films
I just got back from seeing this and the wolf effects were pretty much identical to the Twilight movies.
Have you tried a Windows phone yet? The browser is fairly capable (this post was made on one).Then again, despite my gripes against Google, their Android platform probably has a great dedicated app for their Blogger service.
I simply have a talent for making a fool of myself here, especially with links. :-/
I remember this exact same review being used against Expendables.
I seem to remember the argument against Expendables was that it was bad camp.
Well... after seeing Ebert's review on Battle for LA... I don't really feel all that bad about Bob not reviewing it;"Roger Ebert panned the film, giving it half of one star, heavily criticizing the writing, effects designs, camerawork and editing, stating "Generations of filmmakers devoted their lives to perfecting techniques that a director like Jonathan Liebesman is either ignorant of, or indifferent to. Yet he is given millions of dollars to produce this assault on the attention span of a generation."OUCH! I have to wonder if that gets under a film makers skin at all... Anyways, look forward to any input Bob has on this movie. :D
I was with you Bob, until you took a swipe at the Piano God in intermission. How dare you.
@ tyra menendez The guy spent the most part of that review ranking more on the audience than the actual movie and ending with Scott Pilgrim was Better. Yet the same thing was done to put down Scott Pilgrim. With such fun quotes like "caters primarily to the younger crowd of under 30", "35 and up need not apply", " A movie made for the internet man child, slacker generation" and so on. Both movies were not bad. Just both were forgettable.
I'd like to hear about Battle: L.A., but only in hopes that it's better than it looks. Something about the film looks cheesy and for some reason gives me a sense of "Cloverfield, but shitty".Given Ebert's review....yeah. I don't think so Tim.
Post a Comment