Definitely not that bad.

[fgadmin]

FridayOnElmStreet — 12 years ago(June 16, 2013 12:42 AM)

Well its bad but not one of the worst films I have ever seen.

[fgadmin]

Deceasedaccount — 12 years ago(July 02, 2013 08:35 AM)

Yes. It's enjoyable in a way. I sat through the entire movie recently with my dad. I actually got through the Faults just fine and even my dad enjoyed the movie too because it's so wierd.

[fgadmin]

HumanTheONLyRace — 12 years ago(July 25, 2013 06:12 PM)

A horrible thing is that ppl follow the crowd.
Of course the movie could've been better but it wasn't as bad as many horribly existing films.

[fgadmin]

Deceasedaccount — 12 years ago(July 25, 2013 07:20 PM)

Exactly, there are worse films out there. I'm just saying that I can endure bad movies, yet I do agree that they're bad.

[fgadmin]

teoalcantara — 11 years ago(August 21, 2014 03:52 PM)

My thoughts exactly. I remember having enjoyed this movie when I saw it at the theater.

[fgadmin]

johnsonium — 11 years ago(March 10, 2015 12:37 PM)

If only there were more people with bad taste then the movie might have turned a profit.

[fgadmin]

MeganCraft — 12 years ago(September 05, 2013 02:16 AM)

I've seen far worse. Hell, I'd go even as far to say that this movie is mildly entertaining. I've seen it a few times.
I agree. Everything I had ever read about the movie makes you think this movie is one of the worst Sci-Fi movies ever made, and not worth watching after the first 5 minutes. I was entertained by it, and never during the movie did I feel it wasn't worth watching or became just another forumula movie. I have seen many movies that are far far far worse.

[fgadmin]

jgrayson_au — 12 years ago(September 14, 2013 07:09 PM)

I'm with you AnimeMog.
I've seen far far worse movies (BTK Killer springs to mind), and Battlefield Earth is the type of movie that if it happens to be on TV and nothing else is on, it's a good time filler. Sure it's got flaws, some large flaws, but it's still entertaining.
Oh and I love the thing they do with the language to use English but not. That was kind of smart.

[fgadmin]

inframan — 12 years ago(September 26, 2013 07:22 PM)

I agree. I just saw the original Total Recall & that was far cheesier than this. Schwarzenneger with his heavy teutonic accent trying to emulate Clint Eastwood's expressions & quips, the heavy-handed "action" scenes, the awful acting, cheapo sets & effects - how did they rate such a high rating???

[fgadmin]

inframan — 12 years ago(September 26, 2013 07:46 PM)

I agree. I just saw the original Total Recall & that was far cheesier than this. Schwarzenneger with his heavy teutonic accent trying to emulate Clint Eastwood's expressions & quips, the heavy-handed "action" scenes, the awful acting, cheapo sets & effects - how did they rate such a high rating???

[fgadmin]

NoseofNicko — 11 years ago(November 02, 2014 07:35 PM)

How the hell does the original Total Recall have cheap effects? It has better effects than 80% of movies today, you fcking retard.
CG GORE IS THE WORST THING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED TO THE HORROR GENRE!

[fgadmin]

FrankG47 — 12 years ago(October 07, 2013 01:05 PM)

If you enjoyed this you might as well go next in line with the rest of L Ron Hubbard's insane terrible Sci Fi that started the creepy cult that these beep celebrities carry on.

[fgadmin]

ranierwolfcastle — 12 years ago(March 18, 2014 01:13 PM)

imo its about a 5, pretty average with over the top action and travoltas overacting.

[fgadmin]

I_never_sleep — 11 years ago(June 15, 2014 02:46 AM)

I thought it was no worse than say, an episode of Stargate (series score 8.5).
The low ratings will be just be due to people not being a fan of L Ron H.

[fgadmin]

NoseofNicko — 11 years ago(November 02, 2014 07:36 PM)

No, the low ratings are due to the movie being total fcking sh!t.
CG GORE IS THE WORST THING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED TO THE HORROR GENRE!

[fgadmin]

Anorensic — 10 years ago(June 12, 2015 01:02 PM)

Like some said, it should be at about rating 5-6, plotholes, bad acting included but the ratings further go down because

1. It apparently didn't live up to the high hype created for the movie back when it was released.
2. The book it was based on had too much of it's material crammed into just the 2 hour movie (let's face it, this is no Harry Potter nor was there a Emma Watson).
3. Scientology..
   Final verdict, 2.4 (rating of a porn movie).I would have given it a 6 (definitely no less) but instead gave it a 8.
   wat are you lookin' at

[fgadmin]

ryto_69 — 10 years ago(January 21, 2016 04:46 PM)

Whoever thinks this has bad acting has no idea how to interpret the setting or the characters.
It's easily a 6/10.

[fgadmin]

IMDb User

This message has been deleted.

[fgadmin]

shaun_you — 10 years ago(February 01, 2016 08:01 PM)

Yeah, certainly not a 2.4 bad. More like a 4.5 because it is only a little worse than After Earth, which is rated 4.9 here.

[fgadmin]

Conan-1982 — 10 years ago(April 01, 2016 07:59 AM)

We've all seen worst but this one was hyped and it had John Travolta so it's funnier.
The Asylum makes a horrid movie every month but they have no longevity, they're forgotten as soon as they come out.
Battlefield Earth has a status, after 16 years people are still laughing at it and enjoying it as one of the accidentally funniest movies ever made.
This movie made it's mark in cinema history and pop culture because usually movies this bad go straight to DVD and don't even make it to the big screen.
They are supposed to be obscure movies that only people with an insatiable craving for bad movies are aware of.
Instead they wanted the big money so they released it in theaters and this is the result.
Thank God for that.
What's best in life ?