Destruction Los Angeles (2017) Reviews

• Worse than passing a kidney stone.

  psxexperten2019-01-23

  This movie is total crap, terrible acting and bad computer disaster effects. High score rating is obviously from friends of the cast and crew. Absolute rubbish and wasting time to watch this B movie.

• a Disastrous Disaster movie

  hampersnow-289052019-01-22

  Los Angeles is hit by a natural disaster in this ludicrous low-budget bomb that I can only assume was produced for some obscure TV channel. With mediocre special effects that are at least better then the script and acting, this gets 2 stars instead of 1 because it is at times so bad it is funny. Conversations take place that would never happen when you are running for your life. Characters range from annoying to "die already". The actors are so bad they might as well be played by cardboard characters. I've seen more emotion displayed in cartoons. The type of silly disaster film that might entertain an 8 year old on a snow day because there isn't any gore or anything adult here. I feel sorry for the people who starred in this, I assume they are actors but after watching this, I'm not sure.

  More

• Disastrous destruction

  TheLittleSongbird2019-02-11

  Just in case anybody wonders or is wondering, there is no personal bias against low-budget films. There never has been regardless of what people might think reading past reviews that have seen me be quite critical. There are good ones out there. Nor is there bias against disaster films, again there are some good ones, despite what has been said about some in the past. Even when taking it for what it is and what it tried to be, 'Destruction: Los Angeles' just does not work on any level. Not even for novelty value, because one is left feeling bored and insultingly frustrated to be getting any unintentional entertainment. Had absolutely no problem with it being made on a low budget with hasty time constraints and was expecting the production values to not be great as such, there has never been the mentality of if a film is low budget it is immediately bad. Not the case at all. It is when it looks and feels like those involved didn't try and that no effort, care or enthusiasm went into any of the components when it bothers me. That's how it felt watching 'Destruction: Los Angeles', when watching it on television during a "have nothing else better to do" period when the weather was too bad to go out. When a film is low budget and done in a short space of time, yet either may lack a little visually but comes off surprisingly well in most other areas or works on most levels and still also looks good (and there are numerous examples of both), it is proof to me that a film's budget shouldn't be an excuse for how the film overall turns out. Was expecting the production values to be wanting, and was more than willing to forgive that, but not this wanting. Describing it as amateurish is an understatement and it is painful to watch to the point of being physically ill. The editing induces nausea, the camera work is drab and the special effects are horribly fake and look like an afterthought. The music tends to overbear, both in instrumentation and how it's recorded, and instead of adding to the action, let alone enhancing, it's discordant with it and is completely generic. The direction indicated someone completely at sea with what to do, despite the fact that he had done many films before 'Destruction: Los Angeles', his direction is not indicative of that and instead looks like severely underachieving film class student level. The story is truly ridiculous a lot of the time in an impossible to take seriously way and in places vague to the point of confusion, the too-many-loose-ends and rushed ending being one of the bigger offenders. The pace never comes to life and coupled with the lack of surprises, even less suspense, even less than that thrills and excessive predictability it constantly feels very run of the mill. On top of that, the ham-handed and stilted dialogue is an embarrassment with the worst of it inducing cringing and toe-curling. The characters have no personality, behave irritatingly and illogically and lack any kind of development. They are severely under-acted too to the point one is wondering whether there is any acting at all, even Cynthia Watros whose performance is far removed from her Libby from 'Lost'. To conclude, disastrous. 1/10 Bethany Cox

  More

• Wrecked by horrible special effects and generic characters...

  paul_haakonsen2019-01-27

  Well, truth be told then I had very little expectations to "Destruction Los Angeles". So why watch it, you might ask. Well, because it is a natural disaster movie and I have something for those movies. There is just something primordial in the forces of nature, and I do enjoy watching movies where nature runs rampart and wrecks destruction on our world. However, "Destruction Los Angeles" turned out to be a rather weak movie in the genre, and it didn't take more than maybe 20-30 minutes before my attention started shifting from the screen to my mobile phone. The characters in the movie were just flaccid and one-dimensional. It was somewhat of a nice surprise to see Craig Sheffer in the movie. I actually don't remember seeing him since "Night Breed". Disaster movies are bound to have proper special effects and CGI in order to be convincing. Yup, that wasn't the case for "Destruction Los Angeles". No, the special effects and CGI in the movie were mediocre at best. At least they tried, but it just wasn't convincing. And that was a horrible blow to the movie. If you enjoy natural disaster movies, then you might want to give "Destruction Los Angeles" a wide berth.

  More

• Cheap made

  timowens-845812019-01-27

  The terrible special effects take you out of any potential the movie may have had. It's so cheaply made it distracts you the entire movie.