User reviews

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.

You don't need to see this movie. You always know how the story goes!

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

After 15 minutes you just hope that all characters die in the disaster.

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.

Terrible acting terrible effects take my word for it do not waste your time who ever rated this so high must of been watching a different film too me

I actually thought this was okay. I love disaster movies, and I found this quite watchable. I did find it absolutely hilarious that they chose to re-use a solid 4 minutes of footage (the girls at Marcus' concert) only 20 minutes apart, and played it off like it was two separate events.

You definitely know what you're getting into when you watch a movie like this. It's like San Andreas Quake (2015), which is the NON Dwayne Johnson B-movie version that came out the same year as San Andreas (2015)

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.

It a low budget disaster film. It's not JJ abrams . But it's kinda fun for 90 minutes. Why so negative when it's free!,

The makers of this movie shall get some bragging for daring to touch the disaster genre on seemingly low budget. there are many holes in the script and a pretty chaotic timeline. there are some good visuall effects but also some very primitive,pre-80's stuff. the plausability meter sways from 3 to 7 to 10 to1 to3 amd so on,and the end are weird and abrubt. so what did really happen.

the acting are b-movie like, not bad,but also not top notch. the score are merely terrible, but some of the sound effect are spot on to the natural sound of an earthquake and erupting volcano. its heavy weight stuff to make a product that appreciates the squemish viewer. i give it a max of 5.

I have seen a lot of movies stealing my time, but this movie is beyond the worst. Script and acting sucks, the actors didn't put any quality and emotion. The whole movie didn't touch the toe of reflecting the whole situation if such disaster will happen in reality. But I must admit that some scenes made me laugh loud, what a nonsense!

The total volume of LA's botox is in these actors lips and faces . They look like a school of Carp . No idea what the film was about I thought it was a prelude to Aquaman the city - above sea level

I've seen a lot films lately and some of them was very poor. All of them beaten by this film. The data animations do not work at all. The actors should not get money for doing this. The story should never had reached the screen. Look, this is only one example of how poor this film is; Not only once the actors looks the least dirty even though the pretend to walk around in a really dirty environment with a lot of ashes in the air.

WHY is it always Los Angeles ?? Werewolves, vampires, seismic quakes, fires, aliens, even terrorists and North Korean invaders ! And it always happens within a stone's throw from a Hollywood studio ... This yarn is no exception, plenty of CGIs, robotic unknown actors struggling with a terrible script written by no less than SIX hacks !!! Very deep indeed ! This is ameture night folks, so please don't waste 2 hours of your life watching this garbage ....

I have to be honest, i'm a junky for low budget films in the schi-fi, post-apocalyptic and dystopian genres but I have to say, when they don't have the big names stars and a zillion dolars for CGI (which always helps) but I find that with a small "suspension of belief" I can usually look past the bigger flaws and hapily enjoy what's been made.

Yes, some of the actors suck (and blow!) especially the son who played such a vague charcter I didn't know if he was meant to be playing someone with a disability or not, but it was the editing that captured my notice.

Most small budget films don't have the abiltiy to shoot extended sequences in chronological daylight order due to time and budget constraints. But compared with the latest Transformers movie (that whole chapter at the farm when the feds arrive) and the daylight goes from early morning, to late afternon to midday sun all within a minute it was so confusing!

The editing in this film however, (despite the corny ending), somehow became the star of the show in a way I haven't noticed before with other low budget films.

If you're going to watch it for the first time, just keep that in the back of your mind and see if i'm right. I couldn't edit a movie if my life depended on it but, i'm pretty sure I can spot it when it's done right.

That's my 2 cents.

Yes it is not a movie, some kid took his mobile phone, start filming asked moving by people for acting and this is how this movie was made. It is completely horrible and stupid. For the start you can see some idiotic filming and with D grade acting and all. A complete torture. Dont even waste any moment. DELETE.

There are far worse movies but this is not that bad. The acting was chill and even something that would happen irl. Although the special effects arent great at times it didnt really consern me.

You think you've seen it all before: the requisite estranged family experiences a disaster in Los Angeles.

But no, this is different. This time the disaster isn't traffic jams and overpriced theme parks. This time it is a natural disaster. Not one disaster, two disasters! We're breaking all the molds here.

The acting is different than the usual B-movie as well. Some of it is surprisingly passable for a movie with this kind of budget. The kids are the usual one who grow up to be mall security guards, but some of the adults actually evidence the ability to recite their lines and emote at the same time!

The extras are different. They are all over the place, literally. Some run away from the disaster. Some run towards it. Others just stand around waiting for the craft services truck to bring their promised free lunch.

The CGI is different than the standard fare. There is no rhyme or reason to it. Volcanic bombs rain from the volcano, then they don't. Hot ash falls but ceases once the lead's jacket is burned. Actors ostensibly stare at the mayhem taking place, only they're looking in the wrong direction.

Five stars for making a different terrible B-movie. One star for the two women holding a conversation in a pool while wearing their street clothes with bathing suits underneath. Six stars.

Yeah there were some unbelievable moments and i don't quite understand the ending but i wanted to watch a disaster movie and it delivered.

The actors are not the problem.

The writers are.

I had to skip a few scenes.