Battlefield Earth
Seen: 2002-09-14
Overall: **
Writing: **
Acting: *
Cinematography: *
Effects: ***
Music: ** 1/2
Art: **
Direction: * 1/2
Originality: ** 1/2
Enjoyment: ** 1/2
Conditions: ** 1/2
Venue: Boulder Compound
Medium: DVD
More Info
Yes, we actually watched this movie. Battlefield
Earth, dubbed the worst scifi feature film ever.
Well, actually it really wasn't all that bad in every
regard. Mediocre would be a better word. There have
been a lot of mediocre movies made, and this is among
them.
The acting, by otherwise accomplished and
competent actors such as John Travolta and Forest
Whitaker, was laughable at times, decent at others. In
the worst moments, their delivery really did resemble
the awful overacting featured in the Worst Scifi
Trilogy ever. So similar, it was eerie.
The story telling was pretty goofy. Thought the concept
might have worked if it had been better adapted to the
screen, a lot of the scenes just didn't make sense, or
were poorly edited together. At many spots, it seemed
like a lot of things were strung together in
cliché central. Continuity didn't seem to
be much of a priority. During some parts, especially
toward the end, it looked like the writing process
consisted of concluding that things will work this
way because the plot formula demands it, not because
it makes any logical sense.
Now, for the good (yes, there were a few good things
about this movie). A lot of the effects shots were
well done. I liked the exteriors of the buildings
after 1000 years of decay. Some of the ships were
cool. The flying dogfight scenes had a nice look.
(Though trying to make sense of them was another
matter.)
Honestly though, I don't understand why such
a ruckus was made about this particular movie. There
have been a lot of poor to mediocre films put out over
the years, but this one receieved far more attention
for its lack of quality than other B-grade movies. Why?
Jaeger theorized that it was because a lot of people expected
this one to be good, and so they vocally aired their
disappointment when it turned out not to be. Maybe so.
Oh well. I guess it was worth seeing once, just to see
what all the fuss was about. Nothing special though.
See it if you feel like enduring 2 hours of thrown
together footage, much of which was shot with the camera
inexplicably tilted at a 30 degree angle. Maybe that
was for "artistic" flair. Whatever.
Yes, we actually watched this movie. Battlefield Earth, dubbed the worst scifi feature film ever. Well, actually it really wasn't all that bad in every regard. Mediocre would be a better word. There have been a lot of mediocre movies made, and this is among them.
The acting, by otherwise accomplished and competent actors such as John Travolta and Forest Whitaker, was laughable at times, decent at others. In the worst moments, their delivery really did resemble the awful overacting featured in the Worst Scifi Trilogy ever. So similar, it was eerie.
The story telling was pretty goofy. Thought the concept might have worked if it had been better adapted to the screen, a lot of the scenes just didn't make sense, or were poorly edited together. At many spots, it seemed like a lot of things were strung together in cliché central. Continuity didn't seem to be much of a priority. During some parts, especially toward the end, it looked like the writing process consisted of concluding that things will work this way because the plot formula demands it, not because it makes any logical sense.
Now, for the good (yes, there were a few good things about this movie). A lot of the effects shots were well done. I liked the exteriors of the buildings after 1000 years of decay. Some of the ships were cool. The flying dogfight scenes had a nice look. (Though trying to make sense of them was another matter.)
Honestly though, I don't understand why such a ruckus was made about this particular movie. There have been a lot of poor to mediocre films put out over the years, but this one receieved far more attention for its lack of quality than other B-grade movies. Why?
Jaeger theorized that it was because a lot of people expected this one to be good, and so they vocally aired their disappointment when it turned out not to be. Maybe so.
Oh well. I guess it was worth seeing once, just to see what all the fuss was about. Nothing special though. See it if you feel like enduring 2 hours of thrown together footage, much of which was shot with the camera inexplicably tilted at a 30 degree angle. Maybe that was for "artistic" flair. Whatever.