The director made the camera dizzy from the very beginning, trying to create a documentary-style documentary style. Unfortunately, the final effect is that not only the documentary effect is completely useless, but also often makes people unable to see their faces. I want to learn this kind of sci-fi documentary. Style, the reference "Ninth District". But the director seems to want to think that this film is a war film, so his photography style is more inclined to "Lebanon", but this kind of camera shake is not even a pseudo-documentary, because there is no attitude that a documentary should have. Not to mention the close-up that the director gave to the American Army Gao Daquan, even the original ferocious alien creatures became face B in front of the protagonist, and then they were accidentally knocked out of their nests. It seems that the director's shaking of the camera is to pay tribute to "Bourne's Identity". Greengrass shakes it fiercely. Although every action scene of Bourne is brief, every action, strategy of Bourne, and attack of Bourne's opponent The route, Bourne's escape route, the firearms and equipment used are all very clear, plus the hand-held photography, it is completely reproduced on the spot.
Let's take a look at the action scenes in this movie. The sound of gunfire is messy and noisy. Compared with the sounds of various firearms in "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving the Private", the sound of various firearms can be distinguished. You can hear it, and the fall of the Black Hawk clearly captures the firepower gap between the enemy and us, the difference in equipment and the offensive route strategy, giving people a sense of being on the battlefield. In this film, only the aliens are known to have ferocious firepower, often from various The place sprang out, and there was no formation at all. There is a passage that I remember quite clearly. On a certain highway, aliens were condescending, and there were actually two idiots lying on the top of the car, completely exposed to the firepower of the aliens. Are they mocking the marksmanship of the aliens?
The plot is the main theme. I feel that the director engraved the essentials of the bento directly on people's faces. The so-called bento phase has been fully reflected in this film. The high-gloss shot is about to rotate 360 degrees for N weeks. The director doesn't understand. The most powerful sensation is to leave blank, leaving the audience to resonate with the sensation. The director's sensationalism is so-called too much.
The thing I don't understand the most is what to do with this movie. The first half of the film is like a low-budget horror movie. Suddenly monsters rush out and fire, and suddenly there is something in the dark. You made a war movie like this. Is this interesting? There is also that stupid dissecting alien. It is clear that he is studying "Independence Day", but the final result is too stupid. How many centimeters are in the right part of the heart. May I ask, at the juncture of life and death, who has the time to aim? They were all knocked down and swept the corpse directly, and the director seemed to think it was such a fool. Except for the unlucky ghost who was dissected, no alien was really beaten to this deadly part and died...
This movie Overall, it's a textbook-level film, and it should be called "Plot Content Scenes That Good War/Sci-Fi Movies Should Avoid". Finally, I will spit out the groove and summarize it: the camera shakes without a sense of documentary sharpness, the sound of gunfire has no sense of layering and direction, and the actors are professional in action, but the battle scenes are confused. It can only be said that the director is too impetuous.
View more about Battle Los Angeles reviews
