Battlefield Earth (2000) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,283 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
One of the greatest sci fi comedies ever made!
mstomaso7 February 2005
My spouse and I went to see this on opening night. We were expecting to see an extremely bad and costly film, and we were not really disappointed. It is a testament to John Travolta's genius that his career survived this disaster at all.

As they say, garbage-in, garbage out. Start with an L Ron Hubbard novel (your first mistake) featuring a completely plagiarized dark-skinned, war-like and hairy alien culture with wrinkly foreheads (if this sounds like Klingons to you, I thought so too!), and add unfortunate Barry "can't get a break" (or maybe it should be 'cant pick a script') Pepper and all you need is Travolta himself - playing the arrogant, merciless, slightly effeminate and quite under-sized leader of the alien colonists. Remove any hint of character development from the script and use the worst of the worst black box technobabble explanations for plot devices. Finally, stay true to the idiotic gibberish you based the film on in the first place, and you've got the makings of a rolling-on-the-floor comedy.

In fact, opening night, in a packed theater, people started laughing out loud about 20 minutes into the film and never really stopped. We had a great time that night. Halfway through the film more than half the crowd was actually interacting with the film, asking "Mr Worf, where's Commander Riker?" and asking troublesome questions about how many hundreds of years gas would remain viable in the gas-tank of a Harrier.

If you need to know about the plot - it's this simple - Earth has been conquered by an amazingly stupid group of Klingon-like aliens, and the remaining humans live in a large domed slave labor camp where they are taught that their sole purpose is servitude because they are stupid, weak, etc. Barry Pepper somehow becomes convinced that he's not born to be a slave, and learns to fly a harrier, etc. It's really not worth the effort of typing. There are a few not-so-subtle and not very original but good messages about ethnocentrism to be found here, but not much else. Some day when you need a good laugh, rent this or borrow it from your local bad film collector.
606 out of 697 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Please send it back from once it came!
Clive_W21 November 2020
Has to be the worst film ever made, nothing makes actually sense, the filming, framing, style, tone filters, audio, editing, just about everything in this film is horrendous. 2.5 is too high for this film, this is the moment you wished a negative would pop up magically so you could push it further down.
80 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Fear this movie!
Mr. Pulse14 May 2000
...not because Travolta is in dreds, not because of the alleged scientology subliminal messages, but because it is one of the worst movies ever made.

I do not use that term lightly. I consider myself a lover of bad movies, movies that can be enjoyed for their lack of success. "Battlefield Earth" goes well beyond that into the realm of slow torturous pain.

I saw this movie because I expected it to be bad, and even I was shocked at how bad it was. Just plain bad. In nearly every respect.

I suppose I should note that the ear-bleeding sound effects sounded pretty realistic. And they were loud. So the guy who did the sound shouldn't be ashamed. Everyone else that worked on this movie, bow your heads.

Director Roger Christian has put together one of the worst movies sci-fi or otherwise that I have seen. Loaded with uninteresting characters, a dumb plot, ridiculous gaping holes in logic, terrible direction, only so-so special effects, and a huge length for a movie this bad (over two hours), "Battlefield Earth" is already being compared to "Plan 9 From Outer Space." In my book, it's a fair comparison.

Take the direction. Sure Ed Wood had no clue what he was doing, but at least he pointed the camera directly at the actors when they talked. Christian decides he's going to be original and tilt the camera at least 45 degrees everytime someone says anything. The whole movie I was tilting my head side to side, trying to keep up.

The effects, well "Plan 9" had pie tins in strings. "Battlefield Earth" has a couple of nifty CGI effects, but the final length battle sequence is filmed in a very dark blue setting, rendering it impossible to see who is shooting who at any given moment. Of course, even if I had known it wouldn't have made much of a difference because I really didn't care about any of the characters one way or another.

Gaping continuity? Well, "Plan 9" had scenes in cars that began in the day, then turned to night when people got out of the cars. In "Battlefield Earth", the Psychlos can discover gold veins in difficult to reach mountains, but somehow totally miss out on Fort Knox, still completely stocked with gold 1,000 years in the future. Cavemen learn not only to speak and work together, but operate Harrier jets within a week. How did they learn you ask? Well on a Harrier jet flight simulator of course, somehow still working on electricity 1,000 years in the future. More? The cavemen communicate with walkie-talkies in the final battle. How do they still work? They found fresh batteries? Next Duracels I see, they better say "Best if used before 3005."

Is "Battlefield Earth" worse than "Plan 9"? I'd have to say yes. "Plan 9" is so cheesy and goofy you have to laugh. Just fun to watch. After about an hour of "Earth" I wanted to hurt someone. After two hours and it was still going, I wanted to hurt myself. Avoid, even for lovers of dumb movies.
13 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What were they thinking???
yulie-23 June 2001
Actually, was anyone involved with this total disaster thinking at all? My personal guess: no, and if they were, I'd rather not know about what.

None of the reviews have done BE justice. Having heard what a start to finish mess this was, my brother and I decided to watch it, just for fun. It was horrible beyond all our expectations - and not in a fun way. And so I can now tell anyone who's interested: You must see this movie yourself to realize the sheer magnitude of its badness, stupidity, and ineptitude.

I've heard that BE cost about 70 million dollars to make - though how anyone could have greenlighted it is a great mystery. Since there was nothing on screen to indicate why it had cost that much, my brother and I have also worked out how the budget was allocated:

* Travolta's salary, plus assorted managers and hangers on: 40 million.

* Special effects, film, sets, costumes, makeup and hair extensions: 25 million.

* all other salaries: $4,999,888.

* script: $112 and change.

Though that still doesn't begin to explain the end result. I give up. I'll never understand how Travolta managed to get BE made, or released, for that matter. Why is he tanking his career again? Who knows? After this, why should anyone care? Ah, well. I hope he finds something better to act in in the future; I honestly can't see how he could come up with something worse.

I never thought I'd give anything a 1, but this is indeed as worthy a candidate as I've ever seen. So, * is my vote, and I'd rate it lower if it were possible. Just... incredible. Watch and learn.
416 out of 537 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This Movie Is Painful To Watch
forrestwrs12 September 2010
This movie is a complete mess. Everything--EVERYTHING--about this movie sucks. The acting, the characters, the dialogue, the storyline, the camera angles, the tinted film, and even the very logic of it! If you want to teach someone about plot holes, pop Battlefield Earth into your DVD player. If you can find a copy; not too people have wanted to rent this movie, so copies of it are rare.

This movie is painful to watch. It hurts my eyes because everything is so tinted, it hurts my neck because everything is so angled, and it hurts my ears because the acting is so bad. Oh, and trying to figure out why someone thought this would make a good movie gave me a headache. All that being said, I cannot hate this film like some other movies, and I think it's because no one thinks it's good. I feel like it didn't do anything to me. I didn't see it in theatres and I didn't rent it, it just soaked up a couple hours of TV time. And, I have to admit, it was a lot of fun watching how gut-wrenchingly awful this movie could get.

And it got awful. People have called Plan 9 from Outer Space the worst movie of all time. I disagree. I firmly believe that Battlefield Earth is the worst movie of all time. It had a budget, so it had no excuse to be awful. This is the worst movie ever made. It's painful to watch, it makes no sense, and watching John Travolta, Barry Pepper, and Forest Whitaker act in this movie was like watching Goofy. Actually, I think I'd like to see a version where Goofy plays Terl.

0/10
57 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
worst film i ever saw
pfig5 March 2005
the friend who lent me the DVD warned me, but it beat all my expectations of lowliness. this film is unspeakably bad. don't go and see it, take my word for it:

* it has no plot.

* the 'actors' suck huge rocks. really huge.

* travolta doesn't even try.

* the most elaborate dialog revolves around the sentence 'grumble mumble'.

* special effects are the worst ever, because they pretend to be serious.

* costumes and characterization make space: 1999 look excellent

i could go on and on and on, but i'm beginning to feel sick just for having to think about it.
398 out of 520 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Suspension of belief overload!
whstrock11 December 2004
This monster flop has an interesting story outline filled with garbage. The aliens have weaknesses that make even the non-rocket scientist in the audience wonder "how did these guys survive long enough to conquer anyone?" The next question I found myself asking is this, "How long would certain things (books, computer-dependent machinery, combustion engines) last and still be of any use to anyone?" Too many things you see in the movie are simply beyond belief. But this is science fiction you say? Of course. The point is that the basic story could have been told without any of these ridiculous questions bugging the viewer if the people making it had just thought things out for an hour or two. I understand that suspension of belief is a requirement of sci-fi fans but you have to limit it to just what is necessary to tell the story you are trying to tell.
171 out of 220 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best Worst Movie I've Ever Seen!!
CRXgoon19 June 2001
Battlefield Earth is without a doubt one of the most distasteful examples of cinema I have ever come across. That being said, I bought the DVD and have watched it about 8 times already. If you are like me, and you like sitting through a "serious" movie and laughing at how funny and bad it is, you should definitely check out this movie. Every time I watch it I find more and more hilarious plot inconsistencies, and the slanted camera angles and dialogue never cease to amuse. I guess since this film is somewhat affiliated with Hubbards hokey religion, there is no cursing to be found in the movie. Instead we get to hear how many ways you can use the word "crap." In several situations Travolta refers to specific unpleasants events as being "crap-lousy." It's hilarious and has to be seen to be appreciated. In conclusion, if you fancy yourself a MST3K type critic, you will surely enjoy this crap-lousy movie.
67 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Why is everyone so serious, this is pure B-Movie Cheese.
dcw-1215 July 2007
Taken from that viewpoint the movie is simply fun. Granted it drags a bit in parts. But the over the top cheesy performances by Travolta and Whittaker save the day. They make villainy fun again.

All these stupid movies these days take themselves so seriously. They're fantasy stop playing it so straight!

Thats why the original Die-hard worked so well, everything was done with a wink and a nod. From the over the top New Joisey hero, to the subtly comic villain.

This movie admittedly doesn't work as well as that one but everyone got wrapped up so tightly in the Scientology stuff that they didn't even give the movie a chance.

As a cheesy B-movie sci-fi film it works acceptably well.
62 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The new millennium's nominee for Worst Film of the Century
george.schmidt27 April 2004
BATTLEFIELD EARTH (2000) 1/2 * John Travolta, Barry Pepper, Forest Whitaker, Kim Coates, Richard Tyson, Sabine Karsenti, Michael MacRae, Michael Byrne, Sean Hewitt, Kelly Preston (unbilled cameo). My candidate for worst film for the new millennium: atrociously awful Travolta vehicle (who is totally to blame for his co-producing this pet project due to his Scientology ties) in bringing L. Ron Hubbard's cult sci-fi novel to fruition is just one God-forsaken mess from start to finish in what feels like the ultimate Ed Wood film with a dire need for the gang from MST3K to show up and provide apt ridicule: Travolta stars as 9 foot tall alien Terl, a Psychlo who commands his rampaging race in wiping out mankind in the year 3000 with only rebel Pepper out to thwart his nefarious plans of mining gold for his own just rewards. Ridiculous from the get go: the make-up of the Psychlos: a combination of dreadlocks a la Jar Jar Binks to the 'Coneheads' to the costume rejects of any speed metal band of the 1990s; the dim lighting and production design; the cheezy special effects (except for the climax of Terl's planet - who the HELL cares if I'm giving away the ending?!! IT SUCKS!!!) - which looked kinda cool!) and laugh-out loud dialogue: ('Rat-brains' is the often reviled retort by Terl to the 'man-animals' he despises). Travolta better get his mind straight because his post-'Pulp Fiction' comeback is running on jet vapors at this point and don't even get me started on his evil Vincent Price-inspired chortle! UGGGHH!!! (Dir: Roger Christian)
149 out of 192 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why no option to vote 0/10 ?
ozdavid8 September 2010
This movie makes you wonder why on IMDb we are forced to give a movie as dreadful as this a minimum of 1/10 when it quite rightly deserves a vote of 0/10.

In all my life I have never seen such rubbish!

The alleged "acting" unbelievable.

What was John Travolta thinking when he made this pile of ......... ?

All involved with this deserve to never be involved in the movie industry ever again.

The "story" is unfathomable (is that a word?) , made not the slightest sense from beginning to end. Have not had to sit through something so silly and boring in all my life. Even if you are offered to see this at no cost , just run for the exit!!!
73 out of 91 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Plot holes like Swiss Cheese!
AshenGrey1 January 2011
Lemme get this straight: This is a post-apocalyptic film that takes place a thousand years after an alien race conquers Earth. Well, I noticed a few plot holes in this film.

-- After 1,000 years, there is apparently no linguistic drift whatsoever. Johnny Tyler can pick up a book published in the year 2001 and read it just fine. Let's see, the King James Bible was written only a few hundred years ago and is nearly unintelligible due to linguistic drift.

-- Books don't have thousand-year shelf lives. If you go to the Smithsonian, you'll find the curators go to extreme measures to protect documents that are only 200 years old.

-- Are we really supposed to believe that stone-age barbarians can learn to fly fighter jets in just one week? It takes professional pilots years of training.

-- Jet fuel does not remain stable for a thousand years. Most of the plastic components in the jest would have become brittle. The battery packs in the jets would have become unusable. The tires would have gone flat and the rubber would have disintegrated.

-- I seriously doubt that our planet actually has enough elemental Gold that a high-tech invading civilization would still be mining it after 1,000 years. They probably would have packed up long ago.
43 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The Battlefield of Shaker Heights
highclark14 January 2005
This movie should have been a 'Project Redlight'. John Travolta is out of his head and hopelessly devoted to L. Ron Hubbard. That he was able to con 10 other people into investing $80 million towards the making of this movie is the only real impressive angle I can work for this review. Perhaps Travolta wanted to work with Tarrantino again and thought the only way that that could happen is if his own career fell into the tank? Or perhaps he felt it was his duty to make the film in order to get a better seat in 'Dianetics Heaven'? Let's hope that Tom Cruise can learn from Barbarino's mistake.

I don't think it will matter too much to point out everything that is bad about this film, but the acting, the dialog, the special effects, the plausibility of the cave people's quick learning development, and of course, the hair extensions will just have to suffice.

I would have given the movie a 1 out 10 rating, but I did laugh at the movie quite a few times and that should be worth something, I think. The version I watched was on the USA network and it was modified for teevee, so I may have missed some key plot elements that were cut from the original vision of its director, but then again I may have seen some really good Levitra adds in its place. The end credits whizzed by so quickly that it would appear that no one really wanted to have anything to do with this movie except Travolta.

'In preparing a judgment of worth,

I proclaim this lame movie to be worst'

Don't forget that 'I told ya'

to blame John Travolta

and L. Ron for Battlefield Earth.

Oh, if it were only a musical. 2/10.

Clark Richards
178 out of 236 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Trashy sci-fi!
saullevy22 November 2010
I hadn't seen this one before yesterday. It is REALLY AWFUL! There is NO REALISM here. NONE! Why do all the ALEEUNS (!) look like rejects from some bad rock band?

Why do the ALEEUNS always treat humans as trash?

Oh, right, GOLD! The Universe is full of gold so there is no shortage. There was a nice pile at the end. What the ALEEUNS did with the gold I have no idea. I do have a hearing problem and may have missed some things.

Why the ALEEUNS built all those GLASS buildings I have no idea either. Seems like a lot of infrastructure just to mine gold.

After 1000 years those old planes and weapons would be junk!

This one is so bad, skip it altogether!
23 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Even on video a waste of money
arie_el_kanarie4 May 2001
I knew this movie was bad, filled with hard to believe nonsense and horrible 'go America go' propaganda; so I had to see it. However this was way beyond my imagination. After returning the video I honestly asked the clerk that even when I'm very drunk to stop me from renting this movie ever again. Hopefully he'll remember that. Although the movie starts funny as we can see Travolta and Whitaker argue in their silly suits about slaves, this quickly turns to boredom. The rest of the movie is the standard very bad, short on budget Si-fi that can't interest any viewer with an IQ above sea level at all. The horrible thing is that the director hasn't even tried to convince you as the main character suddenly learns geometry (ok) and teaches it to his barbarian mates (huh?) who immediately appreciate the essence of it all (they ate raw meat as they have just learned what fire is). But then suddenly the standard IQ of these people goes sky-high: They understand atom bombs, know how to fly a Mig and work with highly cryptic computer interfaces. Check out the fact that the main character discovers the national library and finds a crisp fresh version of the constitutional law (it has been in that very same destroyed library for almost 1000 years and doesn't show any signs of decay ?) At has been a long time since I cried....
194 out of 267 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great Cornball Movie
morris97956 August 2006
The movie itself is not that bad. Yes it contains a lot of mistakes. Yes the acting is sub-par. Yes it could have been better. But if you watch the movie for the sole purpose of entertainment it will serve that purpose. Granted you won't walk away with the feeling of awe and amazement such as you would with a movie like Gladiator or Saving Private Ryan, but you may get a few laughs. On a side note our hero is the same actor that plays the sniper in Saving Private Ryan. John Travolta plays a decent villain. Maybe its just me but I thought Battlefield Earth was pretty decent. I am actually disappointed they did not make a sequel of the movie. My recommendation is to keep expectations low this way when you see the movie you won't be disappointed.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Better 20 years later
sambroadmore24 January 2023
When I first watched this movie in the cinema and the year 2000, I left thinking it was absolute trash. Focusing on all the holes in the technology, the accents, and the rushed initial storyline. Watching it again 20 years later, with lower expectations, I actually found it highly enjoyable. I liked the aesthetic, and the old school special effects. I actually found John Travolta's performance to be surprisingly refreshing, after putting aside my initial criticism of these sky Demons having American accents. If you are a sci-fi fan, you've got some time and you've watched everything else on Netflix. It's worth another go. I have a new appreciation for the movie.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Congratulations to All IMDB Members Who Voted on This Film
sburke29 June 2000
I just wanted to say "Congratulations" to all those IMDB members who voted on this movie. Your votes counted for something: "Battlefield Earth" is now in IMDB's "BOTTOM 100", ranking a very solid #97. Although I would place it much closer to number 1, it is good and proper that this piece of crud passed off as a movie is where it belongs among all films--near the bottom of the barrel.
25 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The Critics Are Right
Theo Robertson12 August 2002
What a bad film this is. I thought the critics were exaggerating when they said how bad it was but they weren`t BATTLEFIELD EARTH is one of the worst films released by a major Hollywood studio. It`s badly directed , badly cast ( Barry Pepper as Jonnie makes for one of the least impressive screen hero`s ever seen . Maybe Travolta should have stuck to his guns and played Jonnie . He perhaps would have been slightly too old for the part but at least he does have some charisma unlike Pepper) and has one of the worst scripts ever written. An alien race called Psychlos , sounds just like psychos , I bet they `re really evil and cruel . Oh they are evil and cruel just like psychos . Why do they think rats are the favourite food of humans when it`s the only thing they`ve seen humans eat ? And why do they think " Rat brains " is an insult to humans ? especially when they consider the " man animals " to be a primitive species . And am I alone in finding the term " Man animals " irritating ? Surely it should be " Manimals " ? A far sharper and clever expression . But sharp and clever is no way to describe this script . Cities stand almost intact after a thousand years since the collapse of human civilisation ! Not only that but so do large amounts of firearms , ammo and Harrier jump jets , and a flight simulator for the jump jets where the humans learn to fly within a week , and no doubt they`ll learn what petrol is and learn to put it in the jets in order to fly them . Does this sound very likely to you ? Let me put it this way: Go into a time machine and go back to the biblical times , capture a few dozen people , bring them back to the present and get them to become fighter pilots within the week. Do you think they`d be any good flying planes and shooting down enemy forces ? Me neither . Do you think they could overthrow a superior civilisation ? Me neither ? Do you think anyone involved with this film deserves to work again ? Me neither
319 out of 451 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I Need to Recalibrate My Bad Movie Meter
evanston_dad13 April 2010
Allow me a moment to pick my jaw up off the floor.

Usually, I find that reports about something being the "worst" this or the "best" that are exaggerated. Well, I don't know if "Battlefield Earth" is the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's got to be a contender.

If I taught a film class, I would actually show a movie like "Battlefield Earth" to my students, because I think you can learn more about how important things like editing, writing, cinematography, etc. are when they're done badly. And man are they done badly in this stinker. In fact, they don't get anything right.

John Travolta and Forest Whitaker have three Oscar nominations and one win between them, which is enough to discount the value of the Oscars altogether. Whitaker probably comes off the better of the two. He may be costumed to look like Oprah Winfrey from her fat years, but he gets far fewer lines, and therefore opportunities to embarrass himself. Travolta, on the other hand, assumes a dandified, English aristocratic accent for some reason, and delivers one howler after another. It's unclear to me whether or not he realizes how bad this movie is and is hamming it up on purpose for lack of anything better to do or thinks he's really contributing to something of value.

Yikes -- you see something like "Battlefield Earth" and realize you might need to recalibrate your bad movie meter. I've seen a whole lot of crappy movies that look like "Lawrence of Arabia" compared to this.

Grade: Z (to give this movie a mere F would be an insult to other movies I've given that rating to)
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bad direction, bad dialogue, an unimaginative and over-done look, laughable plot twists and a collection of average actors struggling to stay afloat amide all the nonsense
bob the moo19 September 2004
It is the year 3000. Many years have passed since the world was conquered by an evil race called the Psychlos in order that they would strip it of its resources just as they had countless other planets. Man has been forced back to the Stone Age, slowly dying out in small, ineffective pockets of resistance around the world. Sent out from his community, Jonnie Goodboy Tyler stumbles across two other survivors who tell him of a place of the gods – a place that turns out to be a former city. While resting overnight the group is come across by the Psychlos and both Jonnie and Carlo are captured. A plot by one of the Psychlos to outsmart his bosses (who have deserted him on earth by turning down his bid for a transfer) opens the door for Jonnie to learn a great deal about his new masters and gradually he becomes the last real hope for mankind.

Being a film critic must be a hard job to do at times. Many of the films you watch will not be brilliant, nor will they be terrible – most will be OK and nothing more. Therefore when reviewers get a chance to gush, they generally take it. Likewise, when a bad film does come to the big screen and reviewers get to see it, they often will take great pleasure in putting the boot it – we see it with at least one big budget film each year (2004 was Catwoman). So I usually will try and view a really panned film because I am aware that sometimes the critics are just being unfair – however, most of the time I'll wait until it comes to TV to make that decision. With Battlefield Earth, I must concede that it is a pretty bad film – but maybe not as bad as the many critics all said, although it would be easy to just keep kicking it in the same way as everyone else does.

The film does have some very basic ideas that offer potential but these are squandered with a script that bulks out with bad dialogue, poor story development and an overall poor delivery that makes it a film that is certainly a mess, if not 'the worst film of all time™'. The story quickly goes wrong by making massive plot jumps with its two threads (Jonnie and Terl) that it quickly becomes tiresome. It is not just that major parts of it make little sense (even if you are trying to get into it) it is also that the film makes it harder for itself by taking itself so seriously. If the film had been exciting and entertaining then I could have forgiven these jumps but the way it holds itself in such high regard means we have to meet it on its own terms – something that I found nigh on impossible to do with this. Whenever we are asked to accept that planes would have survived intact over 1000 years, or that anyone could learn to fly them in a matter of days then it is really asking too much if it also expects me to take it 100% seriously at the same time.

The film has clearly had money spent on it, and it isn't that the effects look bad, it is more that they feel over-designed. The Psychlos (cr*p name) look like nobody knew when to stop adding bits and they do look a bit absurd – like a Klingon but with more bits! Similarly the transport craft and alien sets all feel like somebody has just ripped off other films and then tried to combine them; the end result is the look of a cheap sci-fi that looks like it is a sci-fi film as opposed to a 'real' futuristic world. It is hard to describe and maybe I'm doing it badly but to me the film looked like the alien future's of a thousand sci-fi movies, not an alien future that exists outside of late night TV and, as such, it was even less engaging. Of course it didn't help that the direction was so ham fisted that Christian should be asked to return his Oscar out of good will. The opening action scene is delivered in a terrible slow motion that sucked all the potential out of it – a technique that is sadly used for most of the action scenes. The stuff with the harriers near the end is so silly that even a good director couldn't have saved it; but Christian is not a good director here and he makes it worse and robs it of any excitement or pace it may have had.

With such a poor product to sell to us, even an all star cast would have struggled – so imagine the trouble that one fading star and a collection of minor support actors have with it. Travolta tries hard but he can find nothing of value. He looks terrible and his performance is just so…obvious and easy – there is nothing to watch here, partly due to him but also to the wider failings of the film. Pepper was a very strange choice for such a big role and, try as he might, he cannot get past the absurdity of the whole thing and he comes across as part of the silliness, taking his character way too seriously for the material – but I suppose he was only matching the mood of the film. Whitaker has nothing to do and even an appearance from the likable, low-rent baddie Kim Coates brought nothing to the film. I don't even know the rest of the cast by name but suffice to say that none of them can do anything worth seeing.

Overall this is a very poor film and, although I don't wish to join the mob by just kicking it, I didn't find any reason not to. The direction is awful but is at its worst in the action scenes. The effects are not awful, they just feel like generic, overdone sci-fi fare with little or no imagination – a big surprise when you consider that the director was nominated for an Oscar for Alien and won one for Star Wars for the very discipline of art direction! The script is clunky and the story full of moments that are, at best, illogical and, at worst, silly, stupid and laughable. The end result is a product that is a real mess with almost nothing of value in it. It is relentlessly shoddy and I almost wish the 'worst film ever' hype would drop off just so that this film could slowly fade from our memory and be lost in time.
150 out of 210 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Benihana School of Editing!
Tracer21 May 2000
Oh, God, who edited this thing?! A bunch of people who were fired from MTV because they chopped the shots down TOO short even for the MTV crew, no doubt. And the plot is totally ridiculous. You'd think that a science fiction writer who invented his own religion out of whole cloth could do a better job of -- hey! Who are you?! What are you doung breaking into my house?!! Get away from my keybWE ARE THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL WATCH BATTLEFIELD EARTH.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This movie will lower your IQ 30 points
mjurado23 June 2002
This is truly a horrid movie. But (maybe..) worth watching once because it's an instant, modern camp classic.

Now, if you notice, I only submit bad reviews to this site, but that's because bad movies are a hobby of sorts for me. I'm one who thinks you can learn more about film from bad movies than good ones, and if there is any thuth to that, every film student's thesis should be written about Battlefield Earth.

You don't just wonder what they were thinking. You're amazed that so many people had to be so incompetent for this movie to get released. It defies comprehension. They had the budget, some (well, ok.. ) 'capable' (servicable might be a better term) actors.. so how could any outfit fail so miseraby?

It's an amazing film in all the ways that it sucks. It combines all the elements of a horrid film - employs characters which don't develop in any way, that you don't care about (or even root against), who act in very irrational or excessively stupid ways for the purpose of lengthening the film or serving the plot. The very worst part of all (and how you can do this I've no idea) is that the movie is boring and abrasive at the same time. It's like repeatedly being stabbed while still being in that place between sleep and awake where you don't really care about anything.

The crawl at the beginning, as well as the constant screen wipes, are a complete rip-off of Star Wars. I hesitate to even mention that film in this review. Worse yet, the script spends about a third of the film playing out things that you already know from the crawl! That aliens or whatever took over earth and killed most of the humans, the ones who still live are living in mostly tribal cultures. But, you're still subjected to quite a lot of them 'discovering' what is going on... which you were told before the movie even started. Why waste my time like that?

Immediately, the cheese in this movie starts to get thick. You get the Hero (tm) riding a white horse, his love interest, the crotchety old tribal elder, the Hero knowing the truth though no one believes him... blah blah blah.

Soon you start to notice that the screenplay is completely offensive to watch. In an effort to be 'cutting-eduge', a lot of the film is short from these tilted camera angles, what you would see if you tilted your head 45 degrees to one side. When it's not giving you a neck cramp from the camera angles, ripping off Star Wars with screen wipes, ripping off John Woo (poorly) with rapidly changing camera angles during combat scenes, you are treated (ahem) to gratutious use of slow-motion. Yes, there is more slow-motion here than in a whole season's worth of Monday Night Football. It's all part of a directorial scheme that really seems very patronizing to the viewer.

Details in virtually ever scene evoke that "yeah, right" reflex from the viewer. Such as, in the shopping mall where the glass is still relatively clean (after 1,000 years), characters using 20th century phrases such as "the grass is greener on the other side" or "piece of cake", which have apparently survived 1,000 years worth of dialect evolution and humanity's near extinction. Or, when Ker doesn't notice the "hidden" camera (obviously in view of anyone with half a brain, and on top of that, it makes loud noises when it zooms!). But, good thing Travolta just-so-happens to have placed these cameras in the city sewers (we all know how much excitement there is down there), or he never would have seen our hero escaping. Other intelligence-insulting garbage occurs, such as when the cave-people learn to pilot fighter jets in a week, nuclear warheads are found in still-working order 1,000 years in the future,

The alien costumes are pretty retarded, but I can't really complain because that fits the aliens, who have to be the stupidest race ever to conquer a planet and enslave a race. For example, the aliens are very intersted in gold, but didn't seem to locate Fort Knox. Or worse yet, when the enslaved humans are sent to mine gold (which, in this movie, is found in big chunks in the ground), and they come back with gold bars, the aliens think nothing of it. huh? The slang the Psychlos use is puzzling too. They call humans "man-animals", but just call dogs "dogs". They refer to air as "breath-gas", and the hidden cameras not as cameras, but "picto-cameras". Oooh! How high tech that sounds!

You get the idea. Picture a movie that tried to be Star Wars. Now, subtract any sort of compelling storyline, any well-done action scenes at all, any characters that you care about their survival. Make the hero(s) stupid and the villians even more stupid. And still, the whole comes out to be less than the sum of its parts.

Run - don't walk - away from this piece of crap. And if you like bad movies - don't bother. You can't laugh at this. It's just unwatchable. To borrow a phrase, this smacks of the Yiddish theatre in space.

To be accurate with my overall rating, I might have to use negative scientific notation. But, I'll just leave it at 0/10. I could actually feel myself becoming stupider with each passing minute.
28 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't waste your time watching this
adeewuff18 September 2002
When I orginally watched this film I was unaware of the Dianetic / Scientology background that surrounded this film and pretty much saw it from an neutral standpoint. The fact that after I had watched it I felt disgusted and frankly scared that a film like this could be made in the first place made me dig a little deeper into the films background.

After doing a bit of research I came to the scary conclusion that apparently this piece of cr*p that is this film is actually taken seriously by Scientologists, not unlike Christians with regard to the Bible.

Yes, ladies and gentleman, people actually believe this happened - the awful storyline, the 2D characters and the ludicrous mindbendingly stupid conclusion is taken as the word of god.

So now I feel terrified that this 'cult' has the influence to finance and convince Hollywood to waste so much money. I do have to say the Hollywood does produce some god awful flicks, but none so highly publicised or with such big names starring in them.

So avoid this like the plague, don't give distributors any excuse to produce anymore copies of this rubbish and don't waste another second of your life actually watching it.

I give it -10/10
194 out of 279 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is a sick joke, right?
Ripe Peach8 February 2001
I can't be the only person who believes that the crew just pointed some lights and cameras in the general direction of the sets and then went off to the pub, while the cast just goofed around and made up their lines as they went along. It's the only possible explanation for this travesty.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed