Skyline

U

Utopia

Ok, I'm trying really hard not to rag on this movie too hard,

but why was it that from the first shot I saw of Skyline I knew I was going to waste the next 2 hours of my life?

I mean, the visual effects? The sound? The dialogue?

It also looks like it was shot on a DSLR - anyone know what type of camera it was that they shot it on?

What did everyone else think about this movie?
 
I saw the trailer on the day it finished its run.

Would have gone, even though it looked like it was a rehash of ID4 & every similar flick mashed together.
 
I saw it on opening day. It just completely lacks tension. No reason to give a crap about our stock characters, and the action sets just didn't do much. Yeah, not such a great movie. Not sure what they shot it on, but it was definitely low-budget.
 
Thanks guys ;)

I think Cracker sums it up better than I could ever think of. It's so true, the characters are just so cookie-cutter with no feelings and you really don't have any attachment to them.

Boy did they spend a lot of money on advertisement, though.
 
ROC said:
Boy did they spend a lot of money on advertisement, though.
Click to expand...

Yeah they did. Looks like it paid off. Suckers like myself, who feel an undying urge to watch all that is Sci-Fi of course watched it. And it ended up grossing $21mil domestic, for a total $67mil worldwide, and that's with a $10mil budget. Not a bad profit. And stupid movies like this tend to have a second life in DVD, when people tend to become less-scrutinizing.

ROC (and anybody else), I'm probably going to begin tweeting, within a week or so. My alterior motive is that I'll occasionally use the tweets to promote my films, but as an attraction, I'll post quick reviews of every movie I see (and I see many, usually very close to opening day, if not opening day). So, be on the lookout -- my tweets might save you the wasted time of watching a crappy movie. :)
 
@Cracker I am definitely going to subscribe.

@ray thanks for that! They must have done something wrong with the camera because somehow, District 9 looked like a movie, Skyline looked like a TV show.

And was Battle:Los Angeles similar in quality to Skyline? Say it aint so :(
 
I have not seen Skyline and will wait until that thing hits cable. However, I have seen Battle: Los Angeles and it was a really solid movie. The effects were well done, the aliens were great, the action was well executed, but the greatest surprise was that the actors and teh story were solid. Battle is a pretty good movie.

I went in with very low expectations thinking that I just paid for a cold serving of Skyline 2 (my kids wanted to see it and I went along reluctantly). But I was really impressed with this movie - well thought out and well executed.

So to answer your question ROC - it so ain't so. :)
 
ROC said:
@ray thanks for that! They must have done something wrong with the camera because somehow, District 9 looked like a movie, Skyline looked like a TV show.

And was Battle:Los Angeles similar in quality to Skyline? Say it aint so :(
Click to expand...

You're welcome.
I think it falls into the category of "Shakespeare's Pen": If you had Shakespeare's pen do you think you'd write like him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle:_Los_Angeles
B:LA cleaned up at the BO.
Since critical reviews were twice as good <cough, cough> (AKA half as sh!tty?) this might make for a good study of exactly what made the difference.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1217613/technical
Cameras:
Arriflex 235, Panavision Primo, Lightweight and PCZ Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL, Panavision Primo, Lightweight and PCZ Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Platinum, Panavision Primo, Lightweight and PCZ Lenses
Sony PMW-EX3

Ahem... you might like this more betterer. ;)
http://www.theasylum.cc/product.php?id=182
:lol: But I respect these guys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asylum
This sh!t's great!

Last night at WallyWorld I saw in the five-buck-bin GIANT SHARK VS. GIANT OCTOPUS, nice, but then smirked at SHARKTOPUS.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1619880/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/U87zVkIXNI0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Pfft! LOL! Love that cheese.

I love this shtuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asylum
According to Latt, "I'm not trying to dupe anybody. I'm just trying to get my films watched. Other people do tie-ins all the time; they’re just better at being subtle about it. Another studio might make a giant robot movie that ties into the Transformers release and call it Robot Wars. We’ll call ours Transmorphers."

Production
The Asylum work schedule is typically four months from decision to create a title to finished product. The script will take from an hour to a few weeks to write. Pre-production is afforded only a few weeks, production is "a couple of weeks" (In the case of Mega Piranha, it took longer because it was shot in Belize).

The Asylum's usual budget for a production is reportedly "well under a million dollars", and it typically breaks even after about three months. The Asylum have never lost money on a film.
IF I grow up I wanna be just like these guys.
 
Last edited:
ROC said:
And was Battle:Los Angeles similar in quality to Skyline? Say it aint so :(
Click to expand...

They really don't even belong in the same discussion (except that they're both about alien-invasion). The overrall production values are incomparible.

The criticisms of "Battle: LA" are true -- it doesn't have much of a story, and some of the dialogue is weak, and there's no real emotional attachement to the characters. But as a straight-shoot-em-up War Movie, I think it's done pretty well, actually. Yeah, I'm in the minority, but I think that if you go in expecting nothing more than a cliched-John-Wayne-WW2-type movie, except in modern times, with space aliens, it's an entertaining ride.
 
Good point, Gonzo. I'm a fan of sci-fi for sure although I think a lot of these epic alien invasion films border on the creature feature war genre as opposed to inventive and mindful science fiction.

I'm (mostly) all for the big budget bombastic bonanzas, they can be fun, but I also very much welcome the smaller more human scale stories like BLADERUNNER, THE CELL, MOON, THE BOX and TRON 2 even. Yes, T2 had tons of money behind it, but it wasn't another "the end of the world is coming and it's coming from the sky in the form of spaceships and angry aliens" films; there were some amazing visuals along with some classic sci-fi concepts.

Just a few peanuts from the peanut gallery. ;)

Oh, and I've seen Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus. Twice! :D Oh boy is that fun.
 
Kosh said:
I have not seen Skyline and will wait until that thing hits cable. However, I have seen Battle: Los Angeles and it was a really solid movie. The effects were well done, the aliens were great, the action was well executed, but the greatest surprise was that the actors and teh story were solid. Battle is a pretty good movie.
Click to expand...

Battle: LA was honestly one of the most God awful films I've ever seen...

I can appreciate that if you really like sci-fi you might've enjoyed the special effects but to heap any praise on the acting and story (story?) is a leap too far!

Didn't see Skyline.
 
Well... as usual, I found the commentary more interesting than the film itself.
Not bad for what it was.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/...RGApIp129MXwT-Xyk/edit?hl=en&authkey=COjJ5LUG


Edit: Just watched The King's Speech. Consider King George VI's delivery as being not magnificent, but considering how far he had come from such beginning's he did well with his first war-time speech.
Likewise, considering how far The Brothers Strause had pushed their craft from the assets they had they did well with their first indie prod.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen either. But to review this thread, Battle LA decent movie made with a big budget?, Skyline crummy movie made on the cheap but highly profitable.
My question, which was more profitable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top