It's Official: Worst Movie Ever.
 

Battle: Los Angeles.

No matter how hard you tried, no matter what you did, if you set out with the intention of making the absolute worst possible movie in the world, you could never, ever, in a thousand years, make a movie as completely, irrecoverably horrible as this movie.

I have watched the first half hour or so of this film and I was able, within the first five minutes, to guarantee, with 100% absolute certainty, that this movie could only possibly be useful as the subject of an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000.

I don't even think we'll get enough enjoyment out of cracking smartass jokes to keep from turning this off.

You're wrong.

And here I thought "Skyline" had won that title hands-down...

Here's my question: what did you expect it to be? What about it would have made it a better, or even different, 5 millionth alien action flick with lots of explosions and noise?

What, there was no love story as a backdrop? ;)

Good questions. The movie should resemble, in SOME way, the trailer that caused you to want to see it. You shouldn't have to check the credits and then literally look the movie up on IMDB to make sure that you aren't watching a copycat movie. You shouldn't be left feeling that they produced a great trailer, FIRST, and then threw together a shitty movie to steal people's money. The badguys should look better than a 1950s sci-fi. The special effects should be GOOD, not like an old Dr. Who episode. Grenade explosions should be larger in diameter than 4 feet. Want more?

I had no great expectations of acting or plot, but I did expect it not to FAIL MISERABLY at the small list of things it SHOULD have gotten right.

Thanks for the clarification.

Of course, those kinds of movies are not my cup of tea, but I can see now why it might be a cup of tea you would ordinarily have enjoyed except for the very areas they screwed up.

Honestly, I didn't think it was possible to screw up special effects in this day and age, which is why I wondered what it was lacking. I read the budget was like 70 million. I understand your disappointment.

Thanks. :)

I love a good alien action flick. (I'm hoping Cowboys and Aliens doesn't disappoint - I have to go see it because of Daniel Craig). But Battle was simply embarrassing. My husband got caught up in the preview too. I figured it might suck so I looked up the reviews at Yahoo. There were so many 'A' ratings with 'totally fucking awesomes' from viewers, I thought maybe it had a chance. Now I'm really really wondering who put those reviews in there.

The same PR Firm that produced the inexplicable, bait-and-switch trailer?

Yup.

I knew it was going to be a sucky B- (--) movie before I went. How could a movie with Aaron Eckhart not suck? That was part of the joy of it. It was almost a throw back to the horrible movies of the '80's.

Mind you, I'm not saying the movie was good. I simply dispute the idea that it was the worst. Avatar, The Phantom Menace, and Matrix 2 were far worse simply by virtue of believing they were going to be good before I went.

It was really just a rip off, like Flint is saying. The previews lured you in with visions of electrifying CGI. But the whole movie ended being like an futuristic episode of Combat.

It was exactly like a bad 80s movie. Should have been straight-to-video on VHS.

The trailer HAD to have been produced to be intentionally deceptive. I literally checked IMDB to confirm I was watching the real movie.

Some people say it succeeded at exactly what we should have expected from it. I disagree. I think it failed WORST of ALL in those areas.

To each his own. When I saw the trailer I told mrs L that it would be a horrible movie but it would be nice to see a war/invasion/alien movie that wasn't all over the top CGI. I got what I wanted. A laugh and cringe worthy B movie that wasted a couple of hours of my time.

Thats actually what a lot of the yahoo viewers who gave the movie an 'A' said too. Basically that it was like an old-fashioned war movie.

Like, The Bridge on the River WHY?