In the year 3000, humanity is no match for the Psychlos, a greedy, manipulative race on a quest for ultimate profit. Led by the seductive and powerful Terl, the Psychlos are stripping Earth of its resources, using the broken remnants of humanity as slaves. What is left of the human race has reverted to a primitive state, believing the invaders to be demons and technology to be evil. After humanity has all but given up any hope of freeing themselves from alien oppression, a young man named Tyler decides to leave his desolate home high in the Rocky Mountains to discover the truth, whereupon he is captured and enslaved. It is then that he decides to fight back, leading his fellow man in one final struggle for freedom.
It's the year 3000 A.D.; the Earth is lost to the alien race of Psychlos. Humanity is enslaved by these gold-thirsty tyrants, whom are unaware that their 'man-animals' are about to ignite the rebellion of a lifetime.
&quot;Battlefield Earth&quot; makes so many missteps I don&#39;t know where to begin. Perhaps the best way would be to examine the film in the broadest of terms. Despite a potentially interesting story, the whole enterprise is plagued by clumsy scripting and poor direction. The plot holes grow bigger and bigger as the story proceeds, and what little credibility it had to begin with is extinguished by the unfortunate third act. I have not read the original novel, so I cannot compare, but it&#39;s safe to say that it couldn&#39;t have been much worse than Roger Christian&#39;s ill-fated adaptation. The idea of humanity fighting a centuries-old alien occupation certainly has dramatic potential, but little of it is realized. It plays like a bad &quot;Star Trek&quot; episode, especially since the alien race–the Psychlos–look suspiciously like Klingons. <br/><br/>The film is poorly directed and edited. Christian uses a variety of techniques in an attempt to command our attention, but he doesn&#39;t seem to know how to put them to proper use; he just throws them at us in a fit of desperation. The camera is almost always tilted; rarely is there a level shot to be found. The overuse of screen-wipes is unnecessary and annoying. Just about every image is shot through blue and green filters. He generates little excitement or tension, confusing rapid, borderline-incoherent editing with action. According to some reports, even he wasn&#39;t too pleased with the results, although he tried to put a good face on it.<br/><br/>John Travolta is the only one who seems to be enjoying himself, although delivering an over-the-top performance doesn&#39;t necessarily equal good acting. He doesn&#39;t really come off as menacing, just loud and brash. Barry Pepper is solid as the hero; it&#39;s a minor miracle he comes across as well as he does, but why did he sign up for this turkey in the first place? The same could be said about Forest Whitaker as Travolta&#39;s second-in-command. He manages to make it through intact, but I don&#39;t think he will put this thing on his resume anytime in the near future. I think bad movies like this explain why some actors are self-conscious about seeing themselves onscreen.<br/><br/>It&#39;s a bit sad though; Travolta had wanted to make this film ever since reading the novel upon its first publication twenty years ago. At long last, he had a chance to proceed with the project–only to meet in glorious failure. He actively defends the results, saying that in twenty years it will be a cult film like &quot;Blade Runner.&quot; Putting aside the inappropriate comparison, this sounds like the voice of a man in denial. That&#39;s not the end of it though; he wants to make a sequel, based upon the remainder of the book (the film only covers the first half). Might as well bring it on and get it over with; to be honest I&#39;m curious to see if it could actually be worse. Finally, I&#39;d like to hear more about what went on behind the scenes. Such an account would probably be more worthwhile than the film itself.<br/><br/>* (out of ****)<br/><br/>Released by Warner Bros.
I think it is a very exciting movie from start to finish,which I can&#39;t say about too many films.My attention was fixed on the film every second.I think it has a possitive message in the plot. e.g.people should be free,etc.It also had some good humor which is rare in sci fi.I think all the acting was exceptional especially J.T. and it had great special effects!I really enjoyed it, it was a little different. I&#39;m going to see it again this weekend!
With this kind of epic ineptitude – hell, the flick is set in the year 3000 – you go for "worst of the millennium."
Yes, Battlefield Earth is loosely based on the novel of the same title by author and founder of Scientology L. Ron Hubbard. Originally intended to be a two-part move, Battlefield Earth depicts the first half of the novel. A sequel was intended to be made shortly after, but these plans never occurred. No. While the author of the novel Battlefield Earth, L. Ron Hubbard, is also the founder of the Church of Scientology, little or no Scientologist views are presented in the book. John Travolta was intent on making this film as both a follower of L.Ron Hubbard and as a fan of the source material. However, the film focuses on the science fiction aspects of the original novel, and does not intentionally promote any religious agenda. Slight similarities between themes of the novel and film and teachings of Scientology do exist, but the connection is more incidental than anything else. Several things. The book was long and verbose, and was difficult to condense into a two-hour movie; in fact, only the first half was filmed, with the second intended to be the sequel. The pulp science-fiction plot was considered to be clunky and outdated, and despite John Travolta&#39;s enthusiasm for the film, many studios were unwilling to finance the movie.<br/><br/>Upon release, the film received a critical drubbing, with common criticisms such as the poor acting, an outrageous and inconsistent plot, and a baffling visual style employed by the director (which included an excessive use of slow-motion and Dutch angles). This led to poor word of mouth before and after the release. In addition, the often poorly portrayed image of Scientology instantly tainted public perception, and the motives behind making this movie based on a novel by Scientology&#39;s founder <a href="/name/nm0399196/">L. Ron Hubbard</a> seemed to overwhelm viewer objectivity.<br/><br/>Lastly, production company Franchise Pictures was sued in 2004 by its German investors when it was discovered that it had been inflating film budgets, including that of Battlefield Earth. Franchise Pictures was forced to pay $121 million in damages and ultimately went bankrupt as a result.<br/><br/> The British Version misses a headbutt. Approx 2 seconds are cut. Originally, there were plans to make a sequel to Battlefield Earth, since the movie covers roughly half of the novel of the same title. Shortly after Battlefield Earth was released in 2000, Travolta indicated he would move forward with a sequel. However, a year later he stated that a sequel was not in the works. Because of the poor reception that Battlefield Earth received, coupled with the collapse of Franchise Pictures, plans for a sequel failed to gain any serious traction and were abandoned.
a5c7b9f00b
The The Legend of Kung FunkActs of Vengeance tamil dubbed movie free downloadDemolition Man movie in tamil dubbed downloadA Toast to the Con-Game movie in hindi hd free downloadA Duel of Iron full movie in hindi 720p downloadDownload hindi movie The MagicianDead Space full movie download in hindiBring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia download movie freeAng Baril Ko'y Pito, ang Sundang Ko'y Siyam tamil pdf downloadStar Wars: The Last Jedi song free download