Old 05-22-2000, 03:08 AM
Battlefield Earth

Okay, so I'm the only critic in all of North America who actually enjoyed this cheezy flick, but what the heck didn't all of you like about it? Or did you, and was it just the critics who were not in on the "joke"?

I was personally entertained by this movie. Over-the-top bad guys, cool special effects, pretty decent premise (humans as pets)...
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2000, 04:48 PM
The critics didn't like it because they're old and grumpy, but I'm not sure if people liked it or not. If you look at the IMDB, you'll see that Battlefield Earth has a 2.8 rating: that's lower than Supernova's! But does that represent the opinion of everybody or just the internet geeks, um, I mean, people?

The movie was fun, fast paced and entertaining. I guess sometimes movies just get bashed for no reason.
Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2000, 10:53 AM
I enjoyed this flick too. I thought that Travolta's performance was great! He chewed up the scenery. The critics totally missed the humor. BTW, I got a Terl and Ker action figure from a couple of my friends for my birthday!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2000, 01:54 AM
I liked the movie. It seems like other reviews and message boards on other sites indicate people generally like it or hate it. I don't know why you would hate it -- it is fast paced (the first 15 minutes or so are a little slow but I've seen this in a lot of good movies), the Psychlos are funny, and it has some great special effects. I thought in was clever how irony was woven into the plot (Terl training Johnny and educating him so he would eventually cause a revolution). Also the theme of human hopelessness -- how many people in this country believe that nothing can be done about bad government or kids taking drugs, etc??? This societal hopelessness has been around forever.

I give the film a 7 out of 10 also.

Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2000, 07:00 PM
Jo, I'm with you. I liked the movie. The main thing the critics seem to be harping on is Travolta's over-the-top villain. To me, his character was a riot!

And Jonnie was one of the few heroes in recent years who hasn't been a neurotic; just an honest, brave guy.

Anyway, so you don't feel so alone, some positive reviews have been posted at http://www.battlefieldearth.com in the current news section.

Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2000, 07:39 PM
It's not just a matter of you having enjoyed this "cheezy" flick, it's your going so far as to grant this steaming pile a 7 and Gladiator an 8. Do you honestly rate Battlefield Earth one notch below a great movie like that? If so...

Are you on crack?

If you really need to ask what's not to like about BE, then you really need to consider another line of work, or at the very least consider searching the pockets of all your pants for where you left that clue.

Here's a clue I'll let you borrow:

Do you think if you let your car sit untouched in your driveway for one hundred years, you could just jump in and start it up? Now, how about one THOUSAND years?

Suspension of belief is one thing, but pissing on our heads and telling us it's raining is another.
Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2000, 07:46 PM
Response to BillFyre:

I agree Bill. Travolta's character was a riot. Unfortunately, it wasn't a comedy(not intentionally anyway).

Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2000, 07:51 PM
Response to KORNROCKS:

The only irony woven into that movie was the fact that John Travolta expected to produce a good movie for 70 million dollars...

Now that's ironic!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2000, 08:02 PM
"Fun cheese" -- a direct quote from my review, and this is the impression that I had about BE after I left the theatre. It certainly was not masterpiece or sci-fi classic, but I thought it was entertaining enough to be considered "fun cheese".

Of course, that's my opinion, everyone else has a right to theirs, and YES, life does go on for everyone...

PS: And YES, I also know that I am in the minority on this one-- bigtime! Entertainment Weekly's fan exit polls had this film rated at "D" also, so obviously there are a lot of BE haters out there, but what can I tell you, I ain't one of them.
Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2000, 09:08 PM
I like Battlefield Earth. It was only part of the book which is incredible. I hope they finish the book with another movie.
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2000, 01:35 AM
B.E. was an excellent movie, well worth seeing, and I guess the fact that you enjoyed it shows that you have the ability to dig a movie that doesn't run according to formula! Sc--- the critics! My friends and I loved this movie, too!
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2000, 02:31 AM
I agree. I saw Battlefield Earth BEFORE the critics poisoned audiences. This is classic Sci. Fi. film and I think history will prove it so.
Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2000, 11:23 PM
I agree with you Jo, and many others who enjoyed Battlefield Earth. It is a very entertaining movie. OK, so the critics smashed it. The bottom line is, did you enjoy it? My family and I did.
I loved Travolta in it. I thought Terl was a perfectly evil and horrible guy, in an interesting and fun way.
Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2000, 11:34 AM
Glad to see that not everyone is influenced by the critics. I enjoyed the movie and the story. I bought the book after seeing the movie. It takes the "Rocky" buildup to the ultimate. I now want to see the movie again.
Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2000, 02:31 AM
Response to Travis Bickle:

It is real interesting that every action flick that I've watched in the last five plus years have ridiculous scenes in them - totally impossible or improbable. But really they are needed to make the plot work and you just go along with that. I just watched Mission Impossible 2 and Tom Cruise should have died at least 5 times in the movie. And there was at least 3 or 4 times where he could have taken action to stop the bad guys and thus end the movie early. But it was still a good movie! Battlefield Earth was a good movie in that it was fast paced, entertaining, had good special effects, humorous characters.
Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2000, 03:33 AM
Kornrocks...now there is an interesting name! Is it KORN rocks? or KornROCKS? Either way, I like it.
As for the movies, we found the same tonight.
We both loved BE, and then saw MI2 tonight. It was also excellent, in a different way. But we both said, and there weren't "unreal" scenes in that? COME ON! IT's a moooooovie.
BE is fast, fun and entertaining, as a movie should be.
Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2000, 10:18 AM
Havinfun -- It is Korn ROCKS -- I love the band KORN, I think they are one of the great modern rock bands (or metal or whatever label you want to put on them or don't put on them!).

Getting back to Battlefield Earth I was thinking that maybe part of the problem is that some of the public and critics except their action/science fictions movies to fit a certain mold and if it goes outside that mold it is not real to them so they don't like it. I've read several Hubbard science fiction books and they are certainly different than most other science fiction I have read -- he writes in a balls to the walls fashion. Actions happen so fast in his books that my head almost spins at time!
Maybe its too much for some people.
Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2000, 05:23 PM
KornROCKS- Got it re your name.
I am not a big SCi-Fi fan ususally, so I cannot say I have read Hubbard's fiction. But my husband says the same thing you did. After seeing BE, and getting interested, he has filled me in on things from the book. I am now finally reading BE, and WOW! IT is filled with cool stuff.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2000, 09:01 AM
Man, I was an asshole as a 13-year-old. Comment edited.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 08-06-2006 at 04:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2000, 07:24 PM
JoBlo I think BATTLEFIELD EARTH sucked cause I wasn t even understanding what language speak the alines and the humains.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2000, 07:25 PM
I agree with QUENTIN that movie is SHIT.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2000, 04:46 PM

I honestly don't understand what most people were thinking on this sight, Battlefield Earth just plain sucked!!!! The movie was as bad as "Virus"! The camera angles were annoying at times and the director used the same, slow "wipe" when a scene changed. The "wipe" was annoying, not because it was slow, but because the timing was bad. Good use of this technique could be seen in the Star Wars Trilogy. The good thing about it was that it directed my attention away from all the bad acting, excluding John Travolta( very good). The plot was good, but only if it was handled differently. Maybe if it was slowed down a bit it could have won me. In the beginning, Barry Pepper is riding away from the village in less than 4 minutes!! Basically this movie sucked....I can't see how you like this movie, Senor Blo.

Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2000, 07:02 PM
Just read most of the B.E. messages & it is pretty revealing. The people that liked the movie can actually use the English language & verbalize without being foul.

The critics aren't nearly as able. The last post admitted the movie moved too fast for him. he probably missed a lot of the movie & didn't know what he missed! He repeated critic phrases that have been used here & elsewhere over the past 2 weeks. What a goof!

I liked the movie & saw it 3 times. The more I see it the better it gets. The weaker points in the movie is where it departs from the book. The book is a complete universe of sci fi action...read it twice 15 years ago & heard it on tape recently. Therefore, the movie & the book sort of run together & I could follow it. But in the 1st viewing I later found I had missed a lot of subtleties.

It is artistic & literate & definitely outside the normal vehicle for Hollywood. I would rest well before you see it because it moves that fast.

Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2000, 04:35 PM

I enjoyed this movie for all the wrong reasons. I for one enjoyed Travolta's performance and the action. The plot holes made me laugh and the effects were decent.

Putting this movie in the same boat as 2001 or Dak City is unfair.

Take Independance Day for example, a film that rips off every alien film ever made, From War Of The Worlds to V. It had plot holes the size of my ass. I mean hacking into the mother ship with an apple computer! Will Smith punching an alien in the face and then smoking a cigar! Come on.... But everybody loves that turd.

I admire BE for taking a new direction with the Alien invasion genre. It comments on universal greed and delivers the action goods. Its not the smartest movie, its not a classic but its not as bad as people says it is.

I would compare this BE bashing to the Waterworld bashing a few years back. Waterworld got pissed on by everybody and it wasn't that bad. Same here. (I think the Scientologist connection encouraged the bad mouthing of this movie)

I also think people should lighten up, afterall it's only a movie.

I didn't love but I liked it.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2000, 05:00 PM
Responding to sjp88:

"The last post admitted the movie moved too fast for him. he probably missed a lot of the movie & didn't know what he missed! He repeated critic phrases that have been used here & elsewhere over the past 2 weeks. What a goof!"

First of all the movie moved way to fast for its own good, if a movie ain't paced right, it won't leave a lasting impression. Secondly I may have repeated critic phrases, but i am unaware that i did! I don't look at movie reviews. If a film looks good by its preview then i'll see it no matter what anybody says. And what i say is my own opinion and not anybody elses. Lastly, where do you come off callin' me a mother f*ckin goof! When you criticize someone elses opinions, you find a way to show the errors in their views, you definetly do not insult someone!! And what the hell is a goof!? Probably some "hick" insult....just don't ever insult me, or anybody else for that matter, k'? Moron.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2000, 08:52 PM
Sorry but re-read your post. You start off syaing it moved so fast, then you act as if you saw it all. I was merely responding to your saying it sucked, then if it slowed down it might have won you over.

This was a similar phenomenon to what I experienced & I recommend you see this movie again. I'll bet you change your mind about it.

It does seem goofy to me to say a movie sucked so badly, then say if it slowed down it would have won you over. It also seems like you may have been influenced by the critical reviews.

If that isn't the case, OK, sorry. I am no moron & you can calm down.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2000, 03:28 PM
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but... I'm going to anyway.

Okay, lets review this Suspension of Disbelief thing - In ID4 when they implant a virus into an alien ship via a laptop - thats SoD. Highly improbable, but we accept that it could happen it the world of the movie.
On Star Trek, when all the aliens speak English, we accept that this is done for the ease of the viewer.
In MI:2, we accept that Ethan Hunt can dodge bullets because he is a superspy.

None of this means that those films/shows were good, but at least they were acceptable.
Battlefield Earth, however, has the basic premise that all the armies of the earth didn't last 9 mins. in the year 2000, but a few cavemen with 5 mins of training can defeat the aliens in the year 3000, with the same 1000-year old technology. This is not Suspension of Disbelief. This is bad plot, the worse kind of bad plot. Not only is it trite and unbelieveable, but its the kind of thing I was dreaming up when I was 8.
(The Matrix is a perfect example of a movie that went to great lengths to be believeable. There is a reason for everything that occurs in the film).

As for this movie being "good" because it didn't follow formula... This movie tried desperately to follow the Hollywood formula. Almost every scene is ripped off from a better movie. Its kind of sad that most movies now do follow the same simple formula but its baffling how much BE screwed up that formula.

As for Travolta... yes the performance was hilarious, but someone made the excellent point that this movie was not intended to be comedy. This was supposed to be drama on a Braveheart scale.

The rest... Special Effects - 20 years old, Camera angles - What the hell where they thinking?, Dialog - I've heard better from Tickle Me Elmo.

This movie doesn't even deserve to be on a scale of 1 to 10. Well, that's just being harsh. I guess it deserves a 1.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2000, 03:34 PM
JoBlo, how can you call yourself a critic? Have you even taken 1 film class? What kind of credentials do you have?

You're not a critic just because you have a website.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2000, 03:59 PM
In response to cmoose:

You made some good points about MAJOR plot holes in "Battlefield Earth" but I can honestly say that they didn't bother me so much because I just didn't take the whole movie so seriously. I'm not exactly sure why EVERYONE decided that this was supposed to be a super-serious flick, but Travolta himself was selling it as a POPCORN film...nothing more, nothing less.

The director was also comparing it to a comic strip, and I think that on that front, with a little bit of cheese added on top...it worked.

Travolta also didn't take his role too seriously and even noted how one critic called Terl the "best comic villain in literary history". Mind you, I'm not exactly sure I agree with that, but it just goes to show you that the project was supposed to be humorous on a certain level.

But as per usual, we all have a right to our opinions, so there you go!

And in respect to your query about my "critical credentials"....well, hehehe...that's the WHOLE POINT of the site, dude...I AIN'T a real critic, I haven't taken any film courses, and I don't intend to study the intrinsic value of character development vs the cinematrographic intentions of the filmmaker. That ain't my shtick.

I love movies...I have certain opinions about them, and people come here because they are obviously able to gauge their own movie-going habits according to some of the stuff that I say. If you don't like the reviews, you certainly don't need to visit the site.. [img]/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

Incidentally, here's a little WHO AM I page for ya: /whoisjoblo.htm
Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2000, 05:39 PM

Ok, I admit I got the wrong opinion of you. Thanks for pointing out your Who is Joblo page. I thought you were calling yourself a real critic. I don't mean that to sound condescending. I just mistook the purpose for this site. For what it is, its pretty good. I especially applaud these topic discussions.

Anyhoo, I've become much more of a critic in the last year or so. I work in the movie biz (probablly the lowest spot in the biz) so I am constantly exposed to critics, film reviews, etc. I probablly know a lot more about film history than is healthy for one person.

I'm glad to see that you've created a place where everyone can talk about movies.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2000, 09:42 AM
I got to add my two cents. You don't have to have taken years of film school to be a REAl critic. You don't need credentials. All you need is to know the alphabet and watch movies. What the fuck is a REAL critic anyways? Joblo is a real critic. Just because his style of writing or is taste are not the norm, that doesn't mean he's any less of a critic than fucking Ebert. A movie critic is just some dude that gives his opinion...that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2000, 12:20 PM
Critic: 1. one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique
2. one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances

I guess it depends on what you call a "reasoned opinion" and how you define "analysis" and "evaluation."

My definition of a movie critic is one who examines each aspect of the movie - cinematography, screenplay, editting, plot, acting, etc. - and makes a judgement based on how well each of those things are done. No you do not have to have taken a film class, but you do have to understand all of those things and be able to recognize when they are done well. But that's just my opinion of what a critic is.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2000, 01:55 PM
Horse shit. Yup. Plain and simple - that's horse shit. I'm sure lots of people saw the Matrix and walked out not knowing ~why~ they liked the visual aspects of it. They just saw in awe of it all (unless you're one of the few who didn't like the Special FX). As the saying goes, I don't know art, but I know what I like. How many times do you see movies that the critics hyped up as a 'monumental achievment in movie history', and blah, blah, blah, blah, fucking blah. Then when you see it, it sucks ass. It's a totally unrealistic, stupid movie that nobody likes. If Kubrick's final offering was so fantastic, why do (and I'll ESTIMATE here) 80% of everyone say that 'Eyes Wide Shut' is terrible? Anyone can be a critic. How ~good~ of a critic you are is defined by how many people are willing to listen to you. I'd say JoBlo has a far greater gathering here reading his reviews then you do (or probably ever will). So keep your bullshit to yourself. This site gives a ~real~ perspective of films. Basically, I want to know what the average Joe Blow (pun intended) thinks of a movie before I go to it. This site gives that. It's the opinion of the masses. Sure, we're not all going to agree on everything. Nobody is EVER going to ALL agree on EVERYTHING. Frankly, this is about as close as it gets though. I'll get off my soap box now.

[This message has been edited by stefanb (edited 06-27-2000).]
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2000, 03:24 PM
I'm not disagreeing that this site provides great insight into what people like and don't like about movies. JoBlo gives great advice on which movies to see or not to. I was jst saying (and JoBlo himself said) that he is not a real critic. That is the appeal of this site. It's why I come back. If you want a critic's opinion, you read Ebert. If you want to know what the average film goer thinks, read JoBlo.

FYI - critics were split on EWS. Most critics praised Matrix's FX.

Also, I have never professed to be a critic, though I do profess to know a little about what makes a good movie.

I think JoBlo is great at what he does. He doesn't analyze movies, he just gives his honest opinion. When I first came to this site, I expected serious analysis. Obviously that was a mistake. Upon learning more about what this site is all about, I now appreciate it for what it is.

I think this all comes down to semantics. Some of you say that a critic is anyone that writes about movies. I say its a person who writes an informed analysis of a movie.

Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2000, 03:55 PM
I think JoBlo's reviews are fantastic. JoBlo tells you all you need to know, no more, no less. He doesn't reveal detailes of the plot, but he gives you a general idea of what the movie is about. He never bores his readers with long descriptions, he always gets right to the point.

Not only are his reviews great, but he also has an awesome taste in movies, and that is why I care about what HE thinks, more than what all the other movie critics put together think.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2000, 04:50 PM
csmoose, are you illiterate? Go back up and read the VERY FIRST SENTENCE OF THE VERY FIRST POST by JoBlo... And I quote:

"Okay, so I'm the only critic in all of North America who....."

He wasn't saying he's not a critic. He was saying he's not one of the anal retentive film geeks who feel the need to over-analyze everything to death. Forget the artistic meaning and all the stupid crap you always read in the ~real~ critic reviews. He's a critic who actually watches a movie the way the rest of us do.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2000, 04:54 PM

Read JoBlo's post from 06-22-2000 03:59 PM,
"I AIN'T a real critic" - JoBlo
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2000, 05:05 PM
Frankly, after getting a chance to read some of Jo's reviews, I mostly agree with him. I just think he's a little softer on movies than my taste. He's willing to overlook problems that I'm not.

JoBlo, again (just in case the rest of you didn't see it the first time), I apologize for judging you rashly.

Stefan - why are you so defensive? Can you not have a discussion with calling people "illiterate" and their comments "horse shit"?
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2000, 05:40 PM
Ok, first off, he said:

I'm not a REAL critic.

I just sort of interperate that as not a critic like all the other ones. Anyone with an educated opinion is a critic. In order to have an educated opinion on movie quality, all you need to do is see lots of them. I think he qualifies. Let's assume he must think he is, or he wouldn't have started this thread be calling himself one.

As for coming on too strong, and being defensive, well look at where this started:

Originally posted by csmoose:
JoBlo, how can you call yourself a critic? Have you even taken 1 film class? What kind of credentials do you have?

You're not a critic just because you have a website.
You walk right into someone's forum, and blatently tell him that he isn't what he claims to be.

I come across to strong. I know. It's my nature. I love a good argument, and I get way too into it. I had a gooder with Jaden and Tuukka over Gladiator:

It's all in good spirit. I do respect anyone giving their opinion as long as long it's more intelligent then simply posting a one liner like




That smart-as-a-shovel crowd might as well just stay off their computer and leave the rest of us alone.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2000, 05:51 PM
I agree. And you're right - I was a little agressive on that initial post. I also enjoy a good argument.

I think it's time to tuck this discussion in and kiss it goodnight.

Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump