|
Showing reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 86)
|
|
 |
Even though this move got horrible reviews I really liked the plot... but it could have been executed much much better. This could be a remake in a few years with a little more thought put into it.
6/10
14.10.2009 -
magnateataxia@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Why can't I rate this a ZERO? That option is not available. I have watched a lot of crappy movies, but I could always sit through them. This is the first movie I have ever shut off. The acting (and I love Travolta), writing, storyline, directing were all the worst I have ever witnessed. WOW, I should have given it 10/10 because it's so bad that it could almost be a "must-see". Except I couldn't make it to the end!
1/10
12.4.2009 -
casserly5@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
I rentedthis movie with a friend hoping it wasn't as bad as critics and friends said. It was worse.
2/10
8.3.2004 -
mjohnz1@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Man whoever directed this really dropped the ball big time. Totally fake scenes and only appealing action and nothing to keep your attention.
2/10
12.2.2004 -
jasonmg99@ - age: 18-25
This has to be the worse movie I have ever seen. I have watched many movies to the end when they so bad and I thought they could not get worse but they did. Battlefield Earth was a waste of an hour of my life. Because at that point I walked out. It made no sense and seemed to go no where. It was disappointing when you have someone like John Travola who does fine work, support a movie because of his beliefs. Never let your emotions get in the way of you mind.
1/10
31.7.2003 -
brendablay@ - age: 50+
I am not one of those people who give 10/10 to films they like and 1/10 to films they dislike. I try to judge movies fairly, but this one is just too horrible to be true. Extraordinarily cheesy costumes and special effects, ridiculous acting, and a poor plot place this abomination of a movie deep in the bottom of any film lover's toilet; it is probably worse than Ishtar and Striptease, other horrors of Hollywood. Unless you are paid a great amount of $money$, do not see this movie. If you dare do so, many years from now, as you lay on your deathbed, you'll be constantly asking yourself: "Why did I waste two hours of my precious life watching Battlefield Earth? WHY? ".
1/10
13.5.2003 -
japetrakis@ - age: 18-25
Not the best, but a long way from the worst!
5/10
29.3.2003 -
dougcampbell@ - age: 36-49
Not as bad as I expected. Had heard it really sucked. Going in with that expectation I was pleasantly surprised. No great acting but the storyline was kind of interesting. Good TV movie if you don't expect too much and take it for what it is.
7/10
21.2.2003 -
mchapman001@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
I really enjoyed this movie; futuristic and completely different. Must watch more than once to catch everything. I bought this movie.
8/10
17.1.2003 -
lorilee@ - age: 36-49
This was actually an ok movie. I heard the book was extremely boring, and the movie has so many bad reviews, but I thought it was alright. The acting could have been much better, but the effects were pretty good. I don't understand how a bunch of primatives could learn how to fly Harrier Jets in 2 weeks. This is one of those movies that you see once and then you're satisfied. Not really worth buying.
6/10
10.11.2002 -
god_smack9@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
Worst film ever! John Travolta sucks ass and I am glad that I didn't have to pay to see it. Cuz frankly I'd rather go see a Britney Spears concert and that's saying something.
1/10
29.9.2002 -
jarjar_bynx@ - age: 13-17
This movie was the biggest piece of crap ever flushed down the toilet straight onto the silver screen. Good Guga Muga, that movie sucked.
1/10
31.7.2002 -
agustufus@ - age: 26-35
EXCELLENT acting by Travolta. Best since the Fever. Oh, yeah - he can't act anyway and only had to be himself.
2/10
25.5.2002 -
cliffa@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
This movie is not as bad as the reputation it has.
5/10
20.8.2001 -
edur_@ - age: 13-17
AWFUL!
1/10
7.3.2001 -
lukes101@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
Well everyone seems to hate this movie. I find it strange then that I didn't really mind such a universally despised movie. It was not film-making at its greatest - or even at it median - but it was not at its worst. I can think of worse films (various genres): JAWS: The Revenge, Eye of the Beholder, Halloween III, Deep Star Six.
5/10
18.2.2001 -
owen_drummer@ - age: 26-35
The only reason that I sat through this movie is the same reason that people slow down at accident scenes. WOW!! This is worse than Knock-Off, really. This movie has set the bar for all other crappy movies, good luck beating this one.
1/10
23.7.2000 -
brad@ - age: 26-35
Picture yourself coming out of a coma... Without the skills of a normal person... Then imagine yourself having ton learn how to pilot a jet plane in 7 DAYS!!! :)... Gimmmy a BREAK!!! The book was at least 10 times better then the MOVIE!!! Jesus.
3/10
13.6.2000 -
marcaurele@ - age: 26-35
Very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very... . BAD!
1/10
12.6.2000 -
micol@
The worst storyline EVER! The movie made no sense in more then one place and actors were superficial. A definite flop...
1/10
10.6.2000 -
massive_retreat@ - age: 18-25
I saw the movie and IT SUCKED LIKE SH**!!!
1/10
2.6.2000 -
zhangminli@ - age: 18-25
DON'T!!! Rather go and see Gladiator 20 times!!!
1/10
31.5.2000 -
innovation@ - age: 18-25
Well, it could have been worse. It's too bad that the people who write these scrips have no clue about science. If time lines had been changed and such it would have made at least more sense. I'd recomend this movie as a rental. The acting was ok, and there were some funny parts at least.
5/10
31.5.2000 -
cwhelly@ - age: 36-49
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
1/10
29.5.2000 -
ocamet@ - age: 18-25
This movie sucked big time, what a bunch of hoopla just cause it was made based on a "best sci-fi seller of all time" book.
2/10
28.5.2000 -
dirge@ - age: 18-25
I want to see Gladiator three times and for Battlefield Earth, I can only say "I want my money back. "
1/10
27.5.2000 -
dalaohu@ - age: 18-25
It is GREAT!! Don't miss your chance to see it!
10/10
26.5.2000 -
cshiu@ - age: 1-12
I cannot believe John Travolta actually accepted a part in this ridiculous movie. People next to me couldn't stop laughing because of how stupid it was. If you are having trouble sleeping, rent this movie and I guarantee you that you'll fall asleep within the first 10 minutes.
1/10
26.5.2000 -
abisakowski@ - age: 26-35
Woah... take one of the worst sci-fi books of our times and then turn it into a really bad movie and PRESTO! You just wasted 8 bucks! Now for my NEXT trick...
1/10
26.5.2000 -
astuart@ - age: 26-35
That's a very very good film, but... IIIITTTTTTT''''SSSS GGGGGGGGOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDD!!!
8/10
26.5.2000 -
renecharles25@
| | | | |
Just a little note here to save people from the vicious bite of the ironic psyclos: the most advanced stupid species in the universe. I had to laugh when I read the note that commented on the "quest for fire" cast learning to fligh harriers, because it's true, they are possibly the thoughest planes to fly; and watching them get the better over skilled psyclos in their flying things after seven days of trainning is funny. Reading along many of the positive critics, I realized two things: 1. Most seem to think that a film based on a book cannot be understood if the book has not been read. Well, there is an expression for that and it is "crap screenwritting". If a movie is made from a book, it is often to reach a vaster audience than its litterary twin ever could or to express it in a more accessible shape. Following that, it is quite improbable that the makers of that film taught, jeez, why not make a stupid film that nobody will like and then they will read the book and be enlightened! Give me a break! Taste is not unvariably tied to comprehension. 2. A question breaks: To all those who read the book and "UNDERSTOOD" the insipid film at hand, tell me: if, like many of us, you had not read the book, do you think you would sit, mouth agape, not understanding what you just saw? Come on, there is nothing great to understand. Yes it's tong and cheek, and the psyclos act primitively, and the film is not too serious. We all got it, that doesn't make it good. Go in peace and praise your book, because the movie is quite the waist of film rolls.
1/10
26.5.2000 -
jeansebastien,piquette@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
I saw Battlefield Earth last night, after reading the many disapointing comments about this movie. I also had read on the net that John Travolta had wanted to make this movie for many years now; maybe that is why I believe that this movie came out in the wrong decenny... The style of this film, the effects and the plot reminded me of the sci-fi that they used to make back in the early 80's. I'm sure that if it had come out back then, it would have received better ratings. It wasn't a bad movie, but I couldn't get into it; it felt empty. I didn't feel the suspense nor any anticipation. I didn't feel "creeped out" by the Aliens, even thought they were interesting looking. Forrest Whittaker and Travolta played well together and the rest of the cast did a good job too, but it was like I was throwned in a story that had started a long time ago and I couldn't catch up with the characters. I cannot suggest to go or not to go see it, it's definetely not the rawness and the technology (special effects Ă la Matrix... ) that we are so used to see today, but what you see from the trailer is what you get... a survival story of the human race Ă la Independance Day...
6/10
25.5.2000 -
martinnem@ - age: 26-35
There's nothing more to say than the movie sucked. We should boycott John Travolta's movies after making mankind look so stupid.
1/10
24.5.2000 -
hotcurlz@ - age: 18-25
If your thinking of going to see this movie don't, It's the worst movie ever.
1/10
24.5.2000 -
havealife@ - age: 26-35
Good, but not great. Should have tried for less book content (less that 500 of the 1000 pages), which makes for more movie content, otherwise good see.
6/10
24.5.2000 -
testfactor@ - age: 13-17
Very surprised at how good it was... Only 1 scene was way far fetched and shouldn't have been included since it didn't contribute to the plot. Overall a Good movie and worth the watch. Just don't expect too much. Just go and be entertained.
7/10
23.5.2000 -
errol@
| | | | |
Very bad movie! The actors were good at what they did but they had nothing good to do! Very poor story and too many special effects... Maybe a rental if there's nothing else...
3/10
23.5.2000 -
danlq@ - age: 18-25
Again, John Travolta as badaXX alien? Not bad. But where's the space dogfight? This movie didn't satisfied my expectation. Why every Hoolywood movies shot in Montreal suck?
5/10
23.5.2000 -
tangochoi@ - age: 26-35
It can not call it a movie, lots of contradictions you could find in the movie, sound effect was not good at all, and the idea and development of the whole story was like imagination of a 5 year old boy. Tip: never ever see any other movie of the director of this movie.
1/10
23.5.2000 -
ajdalir@
Honestly I expected far worse seeing this movie is getting an average of 3.1 on 10... I think it deserves at least a 5. Might be a better idea to see it on video...
5/10
22.5.2000 -
boombaclak@ - age: 18-25
One of the lousiest movies I've had to pay to see.
1/10
22.5.2000 -
denis,fournier@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
(... plot elements revealed... ) Let me get this straight... the guy that made this movie wants me to beleive that some humans that can't read or write; that beleive that mannequins are men and women frozen by angry gods; that don't even know what a triangle is; (never mind the genetic improbabilty of 1000 years of inbreeding), learn to fly Harrier jumpjets in 7 days, which have been in storage for 1000 years (I want that anti-rust treatment on my car! ). I'm also having difficulty trying to figure out how an advanced civilisation can't figure out something is wrong when a bunch of primitives with hammers sent out to mine gold return with gold bricks. Or how about these aliens that can't figure out what a human likes to eat, or whether or not humans can fly. No, some people say it's science-fiction; it doesn't need to be realistic, but I'm just sorry to say, my suspension of disbeleif has it's limits. A three on ten because the floppy rubber fingers and rubber double chin made me laugh.
3/10
21.5.2000 -
catses@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
I wasn't expecting much when I went to see this movie. In fact, the only reason that I went is to see how bad can it be since the movie trailer looks okay, of course after reading all the bad reviews about the movie. It was not good. I got dizzy after just 5 minutes of watching the tilted screen. I've always like Barry Pepper, even though it was not his best performance, he looks okay for playing the good guy. I was very disappointed with John Travolta though, and Forest Whitaker. But, the movie is not all bad. I agree that I was loosing concentration during the film but some of the special effect is good, such as the Psychlos' ships and the final battle scenes. But, the backdrop of the ruined earth city look incredibily fake. I would not recommend this movie, maybe if you really want to watch it, rent it when it come out of video. In the mean time, go see the Gladiator which is a movie worth every penny of the money spent to watch a movie in a big screen.
3/10
20.5.2000 -
jn_liu@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
This movie was a waste of money. I wish that I had never seen it. I have never before fallen asleep in a movie until I went to go see "Battlefield Earth" I have never seen such a bad movie in my life. I would've rather gonne and seen "The Flintstones". David
1/10
20.5.2000 -
dev_2002@ - age: 18-25
What a horrible movie! I was, at one time, anticipating the release of this film, then began to see a few of the clips, and thought I was expecting too much, so lowered my expectations a great deal. Was not going to go see it, but things fell into place, and I was there at the theatre... And I WAS BORED OUT OF MY MIND! It started off slow and boring, and never really changed... except the ideas were so far fetched, it left you wondering... Why would someone make a movie that is supposed to be futuristic and not come up with some plausible scenerio. The thing was so impossible, it made the movie even worse!
2/10
20.5.2000 -
mike_lips@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Compressing a book in two hours of movie is never easy, so I didn't expect much from this one. The scenario tries to stay true to the book (mostly), but its biggest downfall is to reduce a story more than a year long in a few weeks. It would have been more believable with some "a few months later" cuts. Travolta's portrayal of Terl is still remarquable. Yes, Terl is that stupid even in the book. In the caracter's psychology (and that of Psychlos at large), anything that has nothing to do with mining, money or suffering is unimportant, especially when its about "puny animals". The worst mistake of the movie is having the humans finding fully operational Harrier fighters. The scenario should have stayed true to the book and have the humans use the Psychlos own craft against them, even if it would have made more confusing battle scenes. Finally, those who made the same mistake as Eibert and expected a Scientology message in that movie, or worse those who think they saw one, get a clue. The fact that Hubbard wrote both Battlefield Earth and Dianetics have nothing more in common than E.T. and Jurassic Park (both by Spielberg). Hubbard was a great story teller, which caused me great surprise when I learned years ago that the man responsable for Battlefield Earth and Mission Earth (another Sci-Fi series he wrote) also wrote Dianetics. Which by the way only became a sect later, which I doubt was what Hubbard intended. The book itself is about unleashing the power of one's mind, something that people shunning his whole work on the basis of this one book are far from doing. In conclusion, not a bad movie all considered, but I encourage everyone to read the book. And also to read Mission Earth, after which you'll really wonder if it's really the same Hubbard that wrote Dianetics...
7/10
20.5.2000 -
sebastien,emond1@ - age: 26-35
Its the crapiest movie I have ever seen... its a total waste and believe me I was just wishing that the tape catches on fire so that we all can get a refund to see another movie like The Gladiator...
1/10
20.5.2000 -
sabeen@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
The underlying concepts and ideas this film addresses certainly hold great potential. However, Battlefield Earth's objectives do not converge with the modern movie industry's requirements which demand a 2 hour product comprising a blend of action, violence, drama mystery and sex. In such conditions, it was impossible to appropriately develop in a convincing fashion the psychological as well as philosophical facets which rested beneath the tale. "Planet of the Apes" is one of the most outstanding series ever, as it depicted our kind in its contradictions and sinful nature; there was an additional moral to it: great stories are never short on time. And this modern remake of the Classic fails miserably to ponder this consideration. Beneath its Futuristic Universe, Battlefield Earth is rendered sour and foul by the format it is presented in and by both bad directing and movie editing. Travolta's commenting this film as the best Sci-fi ever really puzzle me, but a man is entitled to an opinionÂ…and mine is both negative and minus.
4/10
19.5.2000 -
lmcsber@ - age: 18-25
I thought that the movie was quite bad. The special effects were a bit cheesy, I honestly don't think they had a good budget to work with. Some of the scenes were quite unbelievable, the flying scenes, mankind being so primitive, some of the things that Terl had the main character do. I expected better from John Travolta. Don't waste your $11. 00. Rent it!!
3/10
19.5.2000 -
malti_chaitan@ - age: 18-25
|
