Who is rating this so low?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Battlefield Earth
mikeb-510-532818 — 13 years ago(October 23, 2012 06:49 PM)
I don't know beep about scientology or the book this is based on but as a fan of sci-fi movies I thought this was a pretty cool concept for a movie. It definitely could have been done better and had less plot holes to be more believable but a 2.4 rating? I have seen complete beep movies way worse then this that are rated 3 - 4 on here lol. There are a lot worse sci-fi movies I have seen that have higher ratings too (almost everything on netflix under sci-fi for example). I guess since Travolta was in it and it had a decent sized ad campaign a bunch of people that hate sci-fi to begin with are rating it. If you like sci-fi or post-apocalyptic type stuff and can ignore a few stupid oversights (not nearly as bad as an average sci-fi channel movie) I think you will enjoy this.
-
mojorecords — 13 years ago(February 01, 2013 08:36 AM)
Several reasons why people hate this movie:
- Every close-up is shot on an angle.
- Every time the close-up changes, the angle reverses.
- Every scene ends with a wipe.
- The movie is full of stuff that makes no sense (Why are cavemen able to operate Harrier jets? Why are they able to use these jets to defeat the aliens when actual trained soldiers weren't? Why does jet fuel still burn after sitting for thousands of years? And so on.)
- The acting is mostly bad.
- The pacing is terrible, and the movie drags on for way too long.
- The plot makes no sense.
I'm guessing that if you had actually seen the trailer and went to see it in the theater when it first came out, you'd probably want your money back.
The cinematography is so bad that adding alcohol to it made me nauseous. Three beers and an hour into it, I had to stop drinking. I like watching bad movies with Rifftrax commentaries, but even with those guys riffing, the movie became extremely boring well before its end.
-
VirtualMark — 11 years ago(April 11, 2014 03:00 PM)
Wow, are you so dumb that you can't even follow the plot to this movie? The humans had a learning machine(flight simulator), and the main guy used the alien learning machine. That's how they learned to fly jets. Duh.
The camera angles are clearly for effect. I like it, it's different.
The plot made perfect sense, but I guess that you couldn't follow it. -
Aloft — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 03:29 AM)
And that's saying something right there. The book itself was a steaming pile of pulp sci-fi trash; the worst of the "golden age" dime novel epics all strung together into a rambling undisciplined semblance of storytelling. The first half of it had a decent background universe going on, but was hampered by badly dated stereotypes, cardboard characters, sexism, eyesore grammar and childish exposition. As for the latter half of the book, the less said of that the better (not even the film bothers).
-
zenithon — 11 years ago(June 21, 2014 09:02 AM)
So you're saying that a man with the knowledge of a caveman can get into a flight simulator for a week and know how to fly a military jet and fly it well enough to defeat a greatly advanced civilizations weaponry piloted by the aliens trained military personal? I also liked how the guy in the flight simulator kept saying "piece of caKe", I kept thinking, he doesn't even know what cake is! Let's also not forget that those jets and the jet fuel had been sitting around for a thousand years, but somehow still worked. The story had almost no believability and that is why it has a 2.4 rating on IMDB and did so well at the Razzies. Simply put, it is recognized as one of the worst films ever. For the record, I watched it and gave it a fair shake before I had any idea how bad it was and only came here on IMDB to see if others thought it was as bad as I did.
-
mojorecords — 11 years ago(October 22, 2014 11:12 PM)
BECUZ HUMANZ DIDN'T HAVE FLIGHT SIMZ WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY CREATED THE HARRIERZ, YO!
Either that, or you didn't understand the point that INTELLIGENT HUMANS weren't able to defeat the aliens with the EXACT SAME HARRIERS AS THE CAVEMEN USED. Because the cavemen were OBVIOUSLY MUCH SMARTER. BECAUSE FLIGHT SIMS, DUH!
My so dumb! -
Sidewindr — 10 years ago(June 12, 2015 04:53 AM)
Wow, are you so dumb that you can't even follow the plot to this movie? The humans had a learning machine(flight simulator), and the main guy used the alien learning machine. That's how they learned to fly jets. Duh.
Where did the power come from to power this learning machine which had been sitting there for 1000 years and looked brand new.
Do you think you could learn to fly a jet in less than 7 days with no instruction and only a simulator??
Duh. -
KesMonkey — 10 years ago(February 08, 2016 01:24 AM)
"The humans had a learning machine(flight simulator), and the main guy used the alien learning machine. That's how they learned to fly jets."
It takes pilot candidates
years
to train to fly conventional jets, never mind the much more complex Harrier. Flight simulators are only part of training. Two other very important parts of training are ground school, and actually flying the real plane with an extremely experienced instructor pilot sitting in the back seat (yes, there are 2 seat training versions).
And of every 10 people that apply, only 1 is good enough, i.e. only 10% of pilot candidates are good enough to complete training. And those that do qualify are still regarded as rookies until they have years of service under their belt.
And we are expected to believe that these savages became proficient pilots in a couple of weeks? Please.
Add to that the fact that a Harrier can only hover for a total of 90 seconds per flight, and that it can't hover at all when it has a full fuel and weapons load. Also, there's no way a Harrier is going to fly after sitting in storage for 1,000 years. These extremely complex machines require huge amounts of maintenance and TLC to operate.
What we saw in the movie just wasn't believable to anyone who isn't completely ignorant of such things, like you are. -
stevehoyland — 9 years ago(August 24, 2016 02:18 AM)
If you look at the Global ratings and many professional critiques about this Garbage you'll realise that you are In a minority (i.e. those requiring a brain). To "shoot-down" (haha) your comment, have you never heard of erosion and the other effects of time and environment? Even aircraft that are not being used still need to be maintained on a DAILY basis - and you think It's possible to fly a pile of rust after 365,000 days without It?
Do you think you'd make a good fighter-pilot after even YEARS on a simulator without the help of Instructors and teachers and many hours of real-flight training? Of course not! Yet you are so nave as to think "Human animal" cavemen could fly their piles of rust expertly.
The cities, by the way, would be far more decayed and deeply entwined with vegetation to the point that the few partially-remaining buildings would appear to be afforested hills who's Interiors would likewise be choked with vegetation. Even If you could chop and slash your way Into one, It'd Just be an empty carcass open to the elements. All the books long since eaten by bugs, NOT gracefully aging. All those tiny electronics long-since ruined by age, damp, Insects, never to work again. I suggest you educate yourself by watching this great documentary, "Earth without people" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyEUyqfrScU
As for the film Itself, I'd clearly be wasting my time If I listed all the points that make It total crap. You'd be unable to grasp It anyway so why bother. Diagnosis - Brain transplant urgently required -
esmad3-216-475224 — 9 years ago(January 20, 2017 04:36 AM)
That wouldn't work. Do you really think you could put a person who have never even seen a plane into a simulator and they would just get it? It's still only one point on the list. The plot is not too smart to get, it's too dumb.
-
starwolf — 13 years ago(February 04, 2013 08:40 AM)
I love science fiction and can sit through a lot of dreck and enjoy it simply because it's science fiction.
This movie is abysmal, so you're wrong in your "I think you will enjoy this" or "it's science fiction haters who rate this movie low."
It's schlock, and not entertaining schlock.
Someone else in this thread posting some excellent reasons why it fails as a well made movie. It fails as science fiction because it's crap. -
stephenmonachello — 12 years ago(April 20, 2013 10:43 PM)
Everyone that has seen the film. I can careless about Scientology but this movie sucked plain and simple.
http://www.imdb.com/board/22604794/