• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Movie Theater Battle: Los Angeles

Niles Coyote

Gunny Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Aug 13, 2007
    4,634
    1,590
    South West, MI
    Just got back from watching this and I have to say its the first movie in a while that I would pay to see twice!

    Believable and honorable characters with good character development, fighting for an honorable cause without the BS political statements of most war flicks. Definitely a must see!

    Good flick for Sci-Fi fans too.
    wink.gif


    I will keep it at that for now so I don’t spoil your viewing.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    I wanted to see this but its getting like 36 on metacritic. Ill prolly end up doing netflix instead
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    I’m always critical of movie critics reviews. It seems I don’t find there entertainment, entertaining... or mildly so.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    +1 Predictable, but edge of your seat action throughout the move.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    A good movie, a bit predictable, but great on the big screen of the theater. You'll need a big screen to appreciate this movie.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    LAME, I just got back from the Marines recruiting commercial, I mean Independence Day, I mean Battle LA.

    Come on, really this movie was a 2 hour Marines Ra-Ra flick. I thought it was way heavy on the recruitment jargon that I and every other sucker fell for in the recruiting station, even the music tracks were right out of the Marines TV commercials.

    Outside of the cheese it was actually a fun shoot 'em up movie. As usual Hollywood put a funky spin on it and the characters were pretty void of personality and chemistry but fun to watch anyway. I would see it again of course but I should have waited for Netflix...
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    Well I LOVED IT!

    The action was solid. The plot was decent and had some good thought behind it. They kept things at the small unit level to add to the drama. They also did a great job showing the stress of combat and how different people handle it.

    It was like Indenedance Day meets The Hurt Locker.

    laugh.gif


    Oh, and I <span style="font-weight: bold">loved</span> the whole Marines Corps part! My first unit was the same depicted in the film (2nd Batallion, 5th Marines) OORAH!!!!!

    And I think Trijicon bankrolled part of this film. Every rifle had an ACOG on it and they even showed a fairly accurate representation of the ACOG reticle when the camera showed views thru the gunsights.

    I'll probably go to see it again in the theatre and will also buy the DVD.

    Oh... and there was none of the PC BS. Leave your female-side at home and bring your John Wayne!!
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    ..

    Vomit inducing shakey camera director. Only part of the film that can be viewed are the CG effects as THAT group can hold a shot still. Smoke and mist and shake...fog and dust and shake...run and smoke and shake...

    They came across the universe and can be taken down with a .223....

    They can make it through our atmosphere at meteoric speed to crash into a destroyer and the ocean...only to fall into a pool after being shot with a .223 ("better drop in a grenade")

    Didn't like it at all...think watching the last 10 minutes of District 9 while on a pogo stick in a recruitment office, all the while thinking "its LA, why bother?"
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..

    Vomit inducing shakey camera director. Only part of the film that can be viewed are the CG effects as THAT group can hold a shot still. Smoke and mist and shake...fog and dust and shake...run and smoke and shake...

    They came across the universe and can be taken down with a .223....

    They can make it through our atmosphere at meteoric speed to crash into a destroyer and the ocean...only to fall into a pool after being shot with a .223 ("better drop in a grenade")

    Didn't like it at all...think watching the last 10 minutes of District 9 while on a pogo stick in a recruitment office, all the while thinking "its LA, why bother?" </div></div>


    That was my take on it as well. It's a fun movie but the shaking (no doubt done to cut down on the cost of CGI) made it feel like the camera man was having a seizure. The whole premise was flawed. The aliens needed the saltwater not the land so why even wage a ground war at all. They clearly had the tech so why not just 'alien tech' the humans to death on the land and skip the whole need for a controller unit and all that crap...?
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    Because hollywood invented these aliens not the universe and the sole purpose of these aliens is to cash in butt loads of cash and give bored mofo's such as myself something to do
    laugh.gif
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: High Binder</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..

    Vomit inducing shakey camera director. Only part of the film that can be viewed are the CG effects as THAT group can hold a shot still. Smoke and mist and shake...fog and dust and shake...run and smoke and shake...

    They came across the universe and can be taken down with a .223....

    They can make it through our atmosphere at meteoric speed to crash into a destroyer and the ocean...only to fall into a pool after being shot with a .223 ("better drop in a grenade")

    Didn't like it at all...think watching the last 10 minutes of District 9 while on a pogo stick in a recruitment office, all the while thinking "its LA, why bother?" </div></div>


    That was my take on it as well. It's a fun movie but the shaking (no doubt done to cut down on the cost of CGI) made it feel like the camera man was having a seizure. The whole premise was flawed. The aliens needed the saltwater not the land so why even wage a ground war at all. They clearly had the tech so why not just 'alien tech' the humans to death on the land and skip the whole need for a controller unit and all that crap...? </div></div>

    The "Shaking" was to give you a "First person" perspective, like you were actually one of the squad. They have "Steady Cams" that strap on a cameraman, and dolly shots that don't do that, but it was by intent.
    Obviously the marines and the DOD approved and signed on the script. Movies that they don't approve, like "Full Metal Jacket" and "Apocalypse Now" get filled in the Phillipines without DOD support. This one had scenes on Camp Pendleton, hundreds of Marines as extras, CH 46's, Super Hueys, Ospreys, M1A1 tanks, and even a LAV-25 (which although the guy in the gunners seat said had a full HE box of 250 rounds, never fired the Chain Gun or even rotated the turret).
    They managed to integrate all the services (the navy got sunk, except the African Corpsman who wants to be a Doctor, the Army from the 40th ID, who all got killed, the Air Force, represented by a Dike Female, and the Marines, who were victorious as usual). Notice they managed to use only one profanity in the whole movie! I assure you my marine Rifle Platoons would have been cursing up a storm, even in a Church Service.
    But it's not the first time the Marines saved L.A. It was the 1st mar Div that went in and tamped down the Rodney King Riots. The Calif. NG was called, but didn't show up.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    Was ok.. I was entertained but the shaky camera stuff did bother me a bit.

    s6
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    Dang, I was all set until we got to the 'vomit comet' camera work.

    Most times, when directors try for 'authenticity' something important seems to be lost. In this case it's what I call 'watchability'. For me it was first apparent in <span style="font-style: italic">Saving Private Ryan</span>. For me, it turned a 10 into a 6.

    Too bad, I had hopes...

    Greg
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    What's an Eff Ohh Bee?

    Oh, you mean FOB.

    /// Overall, a good action flick. I get extra point for eating pizza & drinking beer while watching it at the Alamo Drafthouse.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    I loved the air force chick. She rolls up and they're like "air force, what the fuck are you doing here? Are you even allowed to have guns?"

    Then of course she works intel (which s a kush AC'd office job with no outside interaction), she wears her helmet like a special ed, and attaches a bayonet to her M4...

    Oh Hollywood, how I loathe thee.

    Why couldnt they pick a less gay character for the AF, like, I dont know, a Combat Controller/PJ/TacP???
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    I liked it, but I could have saved some money and seen a better version of the movie--- "Aliens". Marines versus aliens with a tighter plot line.

    The Aliens go from invincible, hardened targets to clay pigeons at the end of the movie.

    The lesson I learned? Stop cleaning up the planet before someone takes an interest in it.

    SPOILER:



    UAVs with out autopilots? Damn even Aliens use the lowest bidders.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NUTT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the Alamo Drafthouse. </div></div>

    Oh man, I totally miss that place. Best place ever to watch a movie.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    Sounds like a bunch of you are Marine haters... Who wants to watch a movie where the Army saves the world? Heck, talk about science fiction... Trust me, when the world ends the only things to survive are cockroaches and Marines.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    This is a movie I would def see in a theater or if you have a nice setup at your house. Really need the big screen and loud audio to get the full impact of what's going on... especially when the SHTF instantly.

    Thoroughly entertaining.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..

    Vomit inducing shakey camera director. Only part of the film that can be viewed are the CG effects as THAT group can hold a shot still. Smoke and mist and shake...fog and dust and shake...run and smoke and shake...

    They came across the universe and can be taken down with a .223....

    They can make it through our atmosphere at meteoric speed to crash into a destroyer and the ocean...only to fall into a pool after being shot with a .223 ("better drop in a grenade")

    Didn't like it at all...think watching the last 10 minutes of District 9 while on a pogo stick in a recruitment office, all the while thinking "its LA, why bother?" </div></div>

    Somebody posted on AR15.com, that he read a story from the director/production team and they explained that in the story, the aliens have retreated from a large battle with 'another' alien race and they're limping across space, licking their wounds when they come upon Earth, so they're not at full strength.

    The director stated that if this one does well, they have a triology in mind for the movie, so maybe a prequel and a sequel?

    Chris
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    Watched this last night.

    Enjoyed it but felt something was missing... im not sure what because I cant pick what I was that I didnt like about the film.

    I think perhaps some more up close bits with the aliens would have been nice.

    I was intrigued by the crazy looking "floating" officer aliens but again these guys didnt get much action up close.

    Also, how the hell did the alien command ship end up underground without anyone noticing?
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    the movie was nothing more than a video game trailer. think abot it. go here do this(fight aliens) go there do that(fight aliens 0 now the big mission you and small squad go here and do this while you have to fight off the aliens and wait for reinforcements.
    smells like cod in stalingrad.
    of btw can anyone see the military being worried about a few civilians when they are trying to conserve every available resource for a fight to the death with an alien race?
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    I would like to think that gov't would atleast send a small asset like they did to get the humans in distress!!!

    Also, Hollywood has to change 3 items on the uniform in order to use it it in the movie and I could not pick out any of them! Maybe the chin straps but thats all I could pick out!! very well done IMO.

    One thing I didn't like was what kind of weapons did the Aliens have? the personal weapons, not the 2 legged death machine they pulled out on the freeway. All I remember is it was surgically attached, but they never showed it!!
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    I liked it, it certainly could have been done better, and it was very "video game" story line, but i enjoyed watching it.

    Sure i wanted a bit more detail and less of the individual drama, but overall I had fun watching it.

    + 1 on more alien based details, but I thought it was smart tearing into it for weaknesses. I liked it was projectile driven and not "laser beams" energy weapons for sure, as well I liked the actual sparking of the engines to adjust flight. It had good elements just too far into the background, like the water stuff.

    Basically how I understood it, they watched footage of Marines in Iraq and built hte movie around the combat scenes of Embeds, which is why it was shaky camera heavy. They were looking to mimic what they saw.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    Overall I liked it.

    But.... Im still a little lost on what type of airstrike/artillery they called in to need a 1976 VCR looking laser designator when everybody had a designator on their rifle?
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    Rehashed "Independence Day" and "Transformers" imo. Giant robot aliens try to take over the planet, Marines save the day. This movie was a let-down to me, too cliche for me to enjoy the film much. It had more value as a comedy than an action film to me.

    First off, the whole 'Reality-TV' camera filmography is played out bad. After suffering through a decade of crap like MTV Road Rules, Jersey Shores, etc. I really cringe to see the whole Blair-Witch Project camera technique being used in box office films. The shaky camera crap leaves the audience chewing Dramamamine instead of popcorn.

    Then there are the typical action film cliches. "The helicopter blows up." (nobody saw that one coming.) Alien picks up a bouncing grenade to examine it just before it explodes in his hands. Civilian picks up a weapon and gets shot trying to be a hero. <span style="font-weight: bold">The butch female AF pilot.</span> Is this the ONLY role that chick does? Wasn't she doing the same thing in "Avatar"? Call me crazy but is she the same actress that portrayed the pilot in "Aliens"?
    Then you got the Hero-Soldier guy.
    Hero-Soldier guy is all like 'I'm gonna go out on my own and save the day, and then everyone is gonna be like yah hi-five dude WTG!' Then when the chopper leaves I'm gonna stay behind to save the day again, and the team is gonna be all like 'yah we are gonna stay too,' (but not because the last chopper blew up on us.)
    The dialogue was pretty bad in some parts. There was this intense scene they built up to in the movie, an exchange between the SSgt (hero-soldier guy) and Rufio from "Hook". Rufio's brother had been killed in Afgh. under the command of the SSgt (hero-soldier guy). After some action in the movie and resulting casualties they finally have a confrontation about it. The SSgt gives an emotional speech about the lives of the men lost under his command, but suddenly quips at the end of his speech "<span style="font-weight: bold">BUT NONE OF THAT IS IMPORTANT NOW.</span>"
    I swear I laughed so hard in the theater when I heard that line, I don't know if the comic-relief was intentional or if they just had a terrible writer.
    The alien autopsy scene...no comment. "Trust me, I'm a veterinarian."

    Then the ending, imo a bite off of "BlackHawk Down" the tired soldiers get to their OP/FOB whatever, start sucking down water. The hero-soldier guy is all like 'I'm going back out. I'm a hard-ass minister of death praying for war. Gimme those empty mags, I need to reload them." (and the rest of the team is like 'yah we're gung-ho as fk too, wait where are the stripper clips?)


    Bottom line, the movie has very little plot development, the exposition of the film is almost non-existant as it launches right into the story without even introducing the main body of characters until halfway through the film. The dialogue is pretty one-liner ish, "Welcome to Earth!" ala "Indepenence Day". Action sequences are throughout, a little difficult to follow due to the motion-sickness camera on a spring-loaded tripod effect, but entertaining enough. The back-details are sparse but they provide you with enough information to understand roughly what is going on. On a scale of 10 I'd give the movie a flat 5 for the action elements they got right, and penalized for the bad cinematography, mediocre acting, and excessive cliches in the film. Was it worth the money? If you like a good laugh, perhaps.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    Saw it and liked it. However, I really can't recommend it. Some will really enjoy it, but it does lack a lot. It's a focused movie about a squad of Marines doing a specific task during an alien invasion. I would have liked a little more alien interaction/background. The plot is workable, but the dialog is weak. The action is very good. IMO, you need to see this at the theater due to all of the action. I don't think this will translate well to your home TV screen, unless you have a great theater room.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Watched this last night.

    Enjoyed it but felt something was missing... im not sure what because I cant pick what I was that I didnt like about the film.
    </div></div>

    The complete lack of good acting might be what's missing. I laughed out loud when the civilian chick said she could help because she is a veterinarian. Good action, bad acting. Hollywood standard these days.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    Saw the movie last weekend, and I liked it. The shakey camera doesn't bother me, but almost makes my wife a daughter throw up. As for the movie I would call it "Independence Day II" only real diff is ground battles vs air battles. Or could be "Black Hawk Down" meets "Independence Day"

    And I have to say I was also thinking "really 5.56 Nato is taking these things out"
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1943m1garand</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm happy that 5.56 works on aliens and 40 mm really messes them up. </div></div>

    ROFL, Those alien-bastards better count their blessings they landed in L.A., instead of Alabama a.k.a. "Land of the .30-06!" If .223Rem/5.56NATO would do that good of a job on 'em, then they'd play Hell when Big John & Billy-Bob come by, cranked the ole' side-window down, & emptied a couple Remington M-742 "Woodsmaster's" on the mothership! E.T. would really be wantin' to 'phone home, after that shit!
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Powder Burns</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rehashed "Independence Day" and "Transformers" imo. Giant robot aliens try to take over the planet, Marines save the day. This movie was a let-down to me, too cliche for me to enjoy the film much. It had more value as a comedy than an action film to me.

    First off, the whole 'Reality-TV' camera filmography is played out bad. After suffering through a decade of crap like MTV Road Rules, Jersey Shores, etc. I really cringe to see the whole Blair-Witch Project camera technique being used in box office films. The shaky camera crap leaves the audience chewing Dramamamine instead of popcorn.

    Then there are the typical action film cliches. "The helicopter blows up." (nobody saw that one coming.) Alien picks up a bouncing grenade to examine it just before it explodes in his hands. Civilian picks up a weapon and gets shot trying to be a hero. <span style="font-weight: bold">The butch female AF pilot.</span> Is this the ONLY role that chick does? Wasn't she doing the same thing in "Avatar"? Call me crazy but is she the same actress that portrayed the pilot in "Aliens"?
    Then you got the Hero-Soldier guy.
    Hero-Soldier guy is all like 'I'm gonna go out on my own and save the day, and then everyone is gonna be like yah hi-five dude WTG!' Then when the chopper leaves I'm gonna stay behind to save the day again, and the team is gonna be all like 'yah we are gonna stay too,' (but not because the last chopper blew up on us.)
    The dialogue was pretty bad in some parts. There was this intense scene they built up to in the movie, an exchange between the SSgt (hero-soldier guy) and Rufio from "Hook". Rufio's brother had been killed in Afgh. under the command of the SSgt (hero-soldier guy). After some action in the movie and resulting casualties they finally have a confrontation about it. The SSgt gives an emotional speech about the lives of the men lost under his command, but suddenly quips at the end of his speech "<span style="font-weight: bold">BUT NONE OF THAT IS IMPORTANT NOW.</span>"
    I swear I laughed so hard in the theater when I heard that line, I don't know if the comic-relief was intentional or if they just had a terrible writer.
    The alien autopsy scene...no comment. "Trust me, I'm a veterinarian."

    Then the ending, imo a bite off of "BlackHawk Down" the tired soldiers get to their OP/FOB whatever, start sucking down water. The hero-soldier guy is all like 'I'm going back out. I'm a hard-ass minister of death praying for war. Gimme those empty mags, I need to reload them." (and the rest of the team is like 'yah we're gung-ho as fk too, wait where are the stripper clips?)


    Bottom line, the movie has very little plot development, the exposition of the film is almost non-existant as it launches right into the story without even introducing the main body of characters until halfway through the film. The dialogue is pretty one-liner ish, "Welcome to Earth!" ala "Indepenence Day". Action sequences are throughout, a little difficult to follow due to the motion-sickness camera on a spring-loaded tripod effect, but entertaining enough. The back-details are sparse but they provide you with enough information to understand roughly what is going on. On a scale of 10 I'd give the movie a flat 5 for the action elements they got right, and penalized for the bad cinematography, mediocre acting, and excessive cliches in the film. Was it worth the money? If you like a good laugh, perhaps. </div></div>


    I dunno about you guys but for my money this has got to be the all time best review of a movie... EVER!

    Bravo!
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: High Binder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


    I dunno about you guys but for my money this has got to be the all time best review of a movie... EVER!

    Bravo!</div></div>

    +1,000!

    I'm just not cut-out for the movie critic job. Usually after I've sat thru a turd of a movie(especially a movie I had high hopes for), I'm so pissed-off & disgusted about spending that much $$$ to go see it on the Big Screen, that I couldn't bring myself to put forth the effort & thought required to right a review, especially not about a movie that I thought sucked that bad.

    Evidently, most movie critics(at least the newspaper/Entertainment Tonight, Siskle & Egbert-types) must be alot more cultured & refined than this dumbass, ole' redneck, 'cause I usually have the exact opposite opinion than they do.

    That's what I've come to appreciate about reviews from 'Hide-members. 9 times outta 10, all I gotta do is get the concensus "Go/No-Go" from here, & I don't have to worry about wasting my money on a shit-eater, or be sorry for I missed a good one!

    I'm glad some people do tho. For 1, to keep me from wasting $12-$14(x2) on tickets, & also, 'cause it's nice to know that I'm not the only who thought it blew! Ha.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Snape315</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well I LOVED IT!

    The action was solid. The plot was decent and had some good thought behind it. They kept things at the small unit level to add to the drama. They also did a great job showing the stress of combat and how different people handle it.

    It was like Indenedance Day meets The Hurt Locker.

    laugh.gif


    Oh, and I <span style="font-weight: bold">loved</span> the whole Marines Corps part! My first unit was the same depicted in the film (2nd Batallion, 5th Marines) OORAH!!!!!

    And I think Trijicon bankrolled part of this film. Every rifle had an ACOG on it and they even showed a fairly accurate representation of the ACOG reticle when the camera showed views thru the gunsights.

    I'll probably go to see it again in the theatre and will also buy the DVD.

    Oh... and there was none of the PC BS. Leave your female-side at home and bring your John Wayne!!</div></div>

    Oh my God....
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    For all the time this movie was in the works, one would think it would have been the Blockbuster movie of the century! Sounds like Hollywood stayed true to their SOP with this one, too. It seems like Hollywood only turns 3 types of movies hese days. They either decide to fuck-up a sequel/remake of an older movie/series, a typical lame-ass chick flick, or they recycle past action/adventure/shoot 'em up to which they pay a writer to spend all of 10 minutes on the plot & script then drop the film plus a few million bucks to glam-it-up with 1 gigantic, ridiculously loud explosion after another to use as filler for the remaining 105-110 minutes of their 120min blockbuster. Idk if it's just a case of every human being on the planet catching writer's block, or they just don't give a fuck about anything but ticket sales anymore. I'm leaning toward the latter. I think they've just figured out they can recycle the same basic action-movie plot, plug-in different characters & locations, package it up, & send it to the theaters. Hollywood still gets rich off the ticket sales, & the theater-owners can keep-on raping us with their $20 soft drink/rubbery-ass popcorn combo's.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    This was the kind of movie that has to be watched on the big screen. I had a great time watching it.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    They had IR laser on thier rifles and NVGs
    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ren</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Overall I liked it.

    But.... Im still a little lost on what type of airstrike/artillery they called in to need a 1976 VCR looking laser designator when everybody had a designator on their rifle?

    </div></div>
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    dang... trailer looked good, maybe next one
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    It wasnt bad, but the special FX and some of the acting sucked. When the female came into the picture, everyone in the theatre starting laughing.... Too much going on at once and not enough aliens. It would have been badass if it was like War of the Worlds, but with marines.
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    Which female actor played the butch AF chick? I haven't had a chance to blow any money on it yet, & the only actor from the commercials I can remember recognizing is the blonde-haired guy(can't remember his name/what I've seen him in) that plays the main USMC character. From the descriptions I've heard on here, it sounds like the AF She-Man role was written for that Michele Rodriguez(I think that's her name) heifer from SWAT & Fast & the Furious fame. I think she finally got kicked-off the island on "LOST" for alcohol-related problems/DUI's, after some pics of her waisted, & putting-on an impromptu, XXX-rated, lesbian-version of Coyote Ugly's bar-top, linedancing show with some half-dressed, skanky bitch. Good to see she's back on the Big-Screen after her trip(s) to Re-Hab, tho. Idk if she really is a lesbian, or if she just like to play one on TV, but either she's a damn-good actor, or she missed her calling, 'cuz her previous movie-roles make her look gayer than Rosie O'Donnell or Ellen. It's a damn shame if she is, 'cause that lil' philly can look sharp, SHARP when she gets fixed-up. Hell, I'd prolly let her use me for a training-aid for the SWAT 2 movie. I'd could at least give her some MMA tips on her ground-game, like how-to mount/dis-mount a big di...uh, I mean...a big-ger opponent! Ha
     
    Re: Battle: Los Angeles

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ren</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Overall I liked it.

    But.... Im still a little lost on what type of airstrike/artillery they called in to need a 1976 VCR looking laser designator when everybody had a designator on their rifle?

    </div></div>

    Because a PEQ-15 isn't a SOFLAM and they operate on different power/wavelengths. In a perfect world if be nice if a PEQ-15 could guide in a projectile, but then you'd have twenty different IR tracks for one projectile....try getting twenty Marines to focus on the same target when shit is blowing up around them.

    The copperhead (laser guided arty round) also looked a lot like a cruise missile - at least in the movie. Regardless it was cool how they incorportated a rather unknown asset into the mix.