Latest
How to Find Plot Holes in Your Novel (Most Are Character Holes)Reshoring: The Factory Is the Easy PartMost of the Books I Was Forced to Read in High School Were CrapPlot Armor: Signs Your Hero Is Too Safe, and How to Fix ItShould You Sell Lifetime Rights to Your Self-Published Book for a Modest Advance?Shame Doesn’t Stop Artists From Using AI. It Stops Them From Telling You.AI Labels on TikTok and Meta Are Flagging Human WorkAuthor Richard Lowe Completes Peacekeeper, a Four-Book Science Fiction Series He Started at Age 14Fan Art Copied by AI: Glass Houses, Copyright and the Pile-OnSir Sam Neill: A TributeReal Names in a Book: Who Gets Sued, the Author, the Publisher or the Ghostwriter?When Characters Take Over the Plot, Let Them“You’re Not a Real Author”: The Pile-On Over AI-Assisted BooksDoes Human Writing Have a Soul?Does AI Have a Soul? Wrong QuestionHumor in Book Marketing: Getting Attention Without BeggingHow Long Should a Chapter Be? Manuscript Habits That Save You LaterThe Business Novel and the Companion Workbook: Two Formats Business Authors OverlookThe Back of the Book: Index, About the Author, Acknowledgments and Back Cover CopyI Build My Own Software Tools With Claude, and Some of Them Bit MeWhat Years of Buying From IT Vendors Taught MeThree Management Habits That Waste Good PeopleI Write Books for a Living. I Barely Read Them Anymore.The Coach and the Webinar That Sold Me NothingThe Work I’d Cringe At Now, and Why I’m Glad I DoPreface, Prologue, Foreword or Introduction: What Goes WhereWho Is Your Book For? Build a Reader Avatar Before Chapter OneWhy I Won’t Build a Ghostwriting Business That ScalesHow I Hire a Virtual Assistant: Do It, Script It, Hand It OffThe Mail Carrier Who Thought Flipping Houses Was EasyWhat Wedding Photography Taught Me About Pricing Creative WorkCloudflare’s Free Tier Got My Money, and I’d Pay AgainYou Can’t Edit Your Way Onto WikipediaBottom-Up, Top-Down: Why I Build Both Ways at OnceSix Months in Las Vegas and I Never Placed a BetMy Smart Speaker Took Over a Device I Never ConnectedThe Finished Movies Studios Threw Away for a Tax Write-OffReading Josephus: Pick the Right Translation and Watch His BiasResearch Your Amazon Categories Before You Write a WordThe Two Times the Desert Nearly Kept MeIs Writing With AI Theft? Stop Calling Writers ThievesAI Photo Restoration for Your Book: Fix the Photo, Keep the OriginalGrandma Isn’t AI Slop: The Pile-On Over Restored Family PhotosWhat Does AI Say When Someone Searches Your Name?It’s Not X, It’s Y: The AI Tell Shakespeare Wrote FirstWho Gets Rich From AI Data Centers? The Local, National and Global EconomyAre AI Data Centers Bad for the Environment? What’s True and What Isn’tAI Data Centers and Geopolitics: Chips, China, Spies and PowerAI Derangement Syndrome: Who Cares If the Cover Was Made With AI?How to Write a Plot Twist Readers Never See Coming

Battlefield Earth (2000) Review

TL;DR: Battlefield Earth (2000) rates 00 out of 10 on the rewatch scale. Battlefield Earth is the most completely failed film in science fiction history. This isn’t hyperbole or enthusiasm for the negative, it’s an honest.

Official trailer

Battlefield Earth (2000)-1,000,000,000 / 10

Battlefield Earth is the most completely failed film in science fiction history.

This isn’t hyperbole or enthusiasm for the negative, it’s an honest accounting of a film where every element works at a level of incompetence so consistent and so complete that the incompetence becomes its own kind of achievement. The cinematography, the direction, the performances, the production design, the script, the editing, all of them failing at the same time, in the same film, with the same thoroughness. The statistical probability of this much concentrated failure is unusual.

My rating: -1,000,000,000. The correct rating.

This movie makes me want to file a complaint with somebody.

It’s two hours of expensive people making terrible decisions with total confidence, and I think the confidence is the most insulting part. A cheap disaster I can forgive. This one had money, stars and real source material behind it, and it blew all three like a drunk at a roulette table.

The Dutch Angle Problem

Director Roger Christian made the decision to shoot almost every scene in Battlefield Earth at a Dutch angle, the camera tilted anywhere from fifteen to forty-five degrees off horizontal. The Dutch angle is a legitimate cinematic technique used to communicate disorientation, psychological instability, or the presence of something wrong in a scene. It works when it’s deployed selectively and purposefully, in contrast to normally composed shots.

In Battlefield Earth, the Dutch angle is the default. Almost nothing is shot straight. The camera tilts in establishing shots, in dialogue scenes, in action sequences and in quiet character moments. The result communicates nothing except that someone thought tilting the camera was interesting. It’s nauseating. By the twenty-minute mark I wanted to climb into the screen and level the camera myself, and I’d happily dock the director a week’s pay for every degree.

The failure is the elimination of contrast. Technique works through contrast with its absence. A tilted camera in a scene that’s been shot straight communicates that something is wrong. A tilted camera in every scene communicates nothing about wrongness, it just makes every scene tilted. The technique has been deployed so completely that it’s lost its function entirely and replaced it with visual fatigue.

For Writers Battlefield Earth’s Dutch angle problem has a direct prose equivalent: stylistic emphasis that’s applied so consistently it loses its effect. Italics used for emphasis work when most text isn’t italicized. If you italicize every third word, the emphasis disappears and the reader is left with visually cluttered text that communicates nothing about what deserves emphasis. Every stylistic technique, sentence fragments for impact, unusual word order, extended metaphor, works through its difference from the surrounding normal. Apply it to everything and it becomes the new normal. That means it’s no longer functioning as technique. Reserve your emphasis for the things that deserve it.

Travolta’s Performance

John Travolta’s Terl is a performance of such magnificent wrongness that it transcends ordinary badness into something strange. The dreadlocks, the platform shoes to increase his height, the clawed prosthetic hands, the scenery consumption that leaves nothing standing, Travolta appears to have decided that the key to playing an alien villain is to remove all recognizable human behavior and replace it with whatever this is.

The strangest thing about the performance is that it doesn’t correspond to any actual thing.

There’s no awareness in it, so parody is off the table, and a sincere attempt that failed would fail in a different way than this. Travolta seems certain of himself in ways that have nothing to do with the craft of acting. Terl made me laugh harder than most comedies do, and I’d bet good money none of those laughs were intended.

Barry Pepper as Jonnie Goodboy Tyler, the human protagonist, is fighting a different battle in the same film. He’s attempting to deliver an earnest science fiction performance in a context that’s made earnestness impossible. Everything around him is operating in tones that can’t support earnestness, and his sincere attempts to act make him look more out of place than Travolta’s total wrongness does.

The Plot and Its Failures

The Psychlos, a race of alien conquerors who enslaved humanity 1,000 years ago, are managing their Earth operations with the competence level of people who have never managed anything. Their security is trivial. Their weapons can be acquired through negligible effort. Their key planetary teleportation technology can be reverse-engineered in days by humans who, minutes earlier, were living as hunter-gatherers with no technological knowledge whatsoever.

The humans defeat the Psychlos because the Psychlos are incompetent beyond any reasonable explanation.

An occupying force grown lazy over centuries would at least be a plausible idea. These are characters who have to be beatable so the heroes can win, and the script doesn’t care how that looks. The resistance succeeds because any competence at all would be enough to beat them. I spent the last act rooting for the aliens to hire one security guard.

A story where the antagonists are incompetent is a story about someone winning a game their opponent wasn’t trying to play. The emotional satisfaction of victory, the sense that something was overcome, that the achievement means something, requires an opponent who was trying to prevent the protagonist from succeeding. Battlefield Earth’s Psychlos weren’t trying very hard.

For Writers Your antagonist’s competence determines your protagonist’s achievement. If the Psychlos are idiots, defeating them proves nothing about the humans who defeat them. Make your antagonists worthy of your protagonists. The victory is only as significant as the opposition it overcame. An easily defeated villain doesn’t provide a test that means anything. Give your antagonists real capability that requires real capability in response. The harder the obstacle, the more the overcoming of it means.

The Production Design and Its Wasted Potential

The alien technology and the post-apocalyptic Earth have moments of real visual interest that are immediately undercut by the quality of everything around them. The Psychlo home planet, briefly glimpsed, has an industrial ugliness that could have been strong if the film around it had been competent. The ruins of human civilization, glimpsed in early scenes of Jonnie’s primitive tribe, communicate the scale of loss in ways that the film never develops.

What could have been a visually distinctive science fiction film is buried under direction that makes every scene look worse than the material warrants. The production had real resources and the source material has real scope. Roger Christian’s visual choices actively work against the production design, and that waste is what galls me. Somebody built those sets with care, and the director tilted them into oblivion.

Should you skip Battlefield Earth?

Battlefield Earth deserves its -1,000,000,000 as the most completely failed film in science fiction history, and I’m tempted to add a few more zeroes.

Every element of filmmaking fails at once, with money and total certainty behind it, and the result is a historical artifact of incompetence at every level of production. See it once, in the spirit of scientific inquiry, so you know what this kind of total failure looks and feels like. Once is plenty, and it’s more than the people who made it deserved.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Battlefield Earth the worst film ever made?
Among the most completely failed major studio productions in cinema history. The distinction matters, there are films made with no resources whose failures are as complete but less instructive. Battlefield Earth’s achievement is producing this level of failure with considerable resources and real star power. That’s harder to do than failure with no resources, and the result is correspondingly more historically significant as a case study.
What does the rating mean practically?
That the experience of watching it produces negative value instead of neutral or positive value. Films rated 0 are films that produce nothing, they leave you exactly where you started. Films rated below 0 leave you worse off for having watched them: your time was consumed, your tolerance for bad filmmaking was tested, and the physical discomfort of the Dutch angle cinematography is real. The -1,000,000,000 is the honest accounting of that experience at maximum intensity.
Should Battlefield Earth be watched as camp?
Camp requires a certain kind of self-awareness, a film that knows it’s operating in an exaggerated tone and embraces it. Battlefield Earth doesn’t know. Travolta’s performance is wrong because it’s certain in its wrongness. Roger Christian’s Dutch angles aren’t campy; they’re a sincere directorial choice made with confidence. Camp produces delight. Battlefield Earth produces bewilderment. The difference is significant.

About the Author
Richard Lowe, professional ghostwriter

Richard Lowe is a professional ghostwriter and author with 113+ books authored and 54+ ghostwritten. Before writing full time he spent 33 years in enterprise technology, including 20 years as Director of Computer Operations and Technical Services at Trader Joe's. He writes nonfiction, fiction and memoir, and works with executives and experts on books that build authority.

More about Richard Lowe →

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are solely those of Richard Lowe and are based on personal experience and research. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional legal, financial, accounting, or business advice. Always consult with qualified professionals before making important business or legal decisions. Richard Lowe is not a lawyer, accountant, or licensed professional advisor, and this content does not establish any professional relationship.