Bias against Scientology and Travolta is why it's rated so low
-
JFByers — 12 years ago(December 24, 2013 05:21 PM)
I love the book (I read it three times, and every time I finished I wanted to start again), I don't care about Scientology, and I like Travolta, but this movie is beyond crap. The way it was filmed, the atrocious pace and plot I think is on par with Almighty Thor, from The Asylum.
-
herbsuperb — 12 years ago(December 26, 2013 11:12 PM)
It'll make me laugh, simply on the basis of how horrible it is. But that does not make it good. This movie was simply awful, awful, AWFUL film-making. Nothing more to be said. It was actually painful to watch it unfold (collapse is the better word). Sure, I do think scientology is really, really stupid (not to mention dangerous). But even if I didn't, I still wouldn't like this movie.
On Travolta. He's made some good flicks. He can act. But his performance in this 'movie' was simply abysmal in every sense of thatwell.not very often used word.
Anyway. It sucked. Nothing to do with the cult of scientology, nothing to do with John Travolta. It just sucked. That is all. The first time I saw it, I had no idea it had anything to do with Scientology. After it was over I said 'God **** that movie sucked!'. -
Norse_Sage — 12 years ago(January 13, 2014 01:32 AM)
It sucked. Nothing to do with the cult of scientology, nothing to do with John Travolta.
The movie did indeed suck on its own terms, but the suckage of the movie was in no small part derived from two things:- The suckage of the novel, which has EVERYTHING to do with Scientology.
- The movie being micromanaged by David Miscaviege personally. He is the head of Scientology.
Tesla was robbed!
-
movie_nazi — 12 years ago(December 29, 2013 03:03 PM)
I agree with you that the film is not as bad as it is made out to be. But it's not very good either. If Scientology gets a bad rap it's because it deserves it. It is a load of crap.
Battlefield Earth
(2000) - 4 outta 10 stars
My Vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur1914996/ratings -
miguelvilhena — 11 years ago(April 22, 2014 11:32 PM)
I think another big reason is that it's a sci-fi based on a book by Hubbard with John Travolta in it.
There are so many trendy cool to hate concepts there that is difficult to find anywhere else.
To me it is an entertaining movie, with a interesting although poor paced story.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." -
schlob77 — 10 years ago(January 20, 2016 02:39 PM)
I've seen it and I rated it a one because it really is god awful. The story is just plain stupid, the funniest scenes are when they find the 1,000 year old fighter jets that still magically work and that they can fly them like experienced fighter pilots. CLASSIC!!
-
Conan-1982 — 10 years ago(April 01, 2016 08:03 AM)
It is really bad, but if the Star Wars prequel can be rated around "7" I don't see why this one shouldn't.
It's the same level of incompetence but it ruined a source material that no one cares about, where the prequels ruined a franchise that everyone loved.
So the Star Wars prequels are much worse than Battlefield Earth.
What's best in life ? -
ewaf58 — 9 years ago(April 16, 2016 05:14 AM)
No it's not bad it's appalling. It is rubbish at every level - I watched it - mostly in horror - thinking it must get better soon - but it didn't.
Hubbard was a fraud who created a pseudo religious organisation which has destroyed lives by having a huge gullible following which it milks on a regular basis while feeding them ridiculous and often dangerous ideas.
Horrible at every conceivable level.