It’s bad form to quote the reviews of others, but I think the late Roger Ebert summed up the public’s feelings succinctly when he described Roger Christian’s infamous turkey Battlefield Earth in the following way: It’s like “taking a bus trip with someone who has needed a bath for a long time. It’s not merely bad; it’s unpleasant in a hostile way.” Indeed, if one were to visit Rotten Tomatoes, they would find that only three critics mustered up enough enthusiasm to vote Battlefield Earth “fresh,” and they all acknowledged that the reasons to enjoy it were camp reasons at best.
Indeed, Battlefield Earth has become a weird sort of high-water mark for bad movies. As Ebert went onto to predict in that same review, people indeed began to use it as a reference point by which to compare other bad movies. It won multiple Razzie awards, and it is seen as the low point in John Travolta’s already rocky career. And if all that wasn’t enough, Battlefield Earth also tanked severely at the box office, having made about $21 million to date on a $73 million budget.
Everyone hates it? It was a failure? It seems to me like no film needs more defense from the likes of CraveOnline‘s Trolling than Battlefield Earth. We’re going to sit down, boys and girls, and contradict everything. We’re going to take a look at the maligned and find how it succeeded. Let is postulate the following: Battlefield Earth RULES. You are wrong, and we are right. Let’s delve a bit.
Sure, Battlefield Earth does drag, the design is awful, the plot is a little goofy, the sound is less than slick, the climax goes on for too long, and a lot of people can’t get past the numerous dumb plot conceits, but I would argue that it is an old-fashioned space adventure film that was wholly successful in what it sought to do. It’s boldly entertaining, and perhaps even fun to watch. It’s rollicking sci-fi fun.