Battlefield Earth -- Saturday Night Invasion

A note: I know we promised you The Day After Tomorrow, but this is better, trust us. Forget everything you've ever heard about how terrible Battlefield: Earth actually is. It's far worse. Much, much worse. In fact, the staff of ICBIWT refuses to believe that there are any words in the English language to describe its awfulness. But we're going to try. Apparently, Travolta yearned for years to destroy entertainment as we know it. Dead-set on making L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology primer into a movie, he shopped it around to every studio on earth, all of which passed on it (a very smart move), until he had no choice but to make it himself. The final budget was about $44m, and we're firmly convinced that half of this was spent on flying dirt and other high-tech special effects. Unfortunately, this budget, however massive it may seem, was not enough to replace the defective cameras undoubtedly responsible for the constant use of slanted angles.

Facts: spawned and subsequently unleashed upon humanity in 2000. Starring John Travolta (okay, we get it, he's crazy), Forrest Whitaker (this we don't get), and a bunch of people you've never heard of (if you watch the movie, you'll see why). Travolta planned to make two sequels to this movie. Read the following plot summary and rejoice with us that this never came to pass.

Plot summary: Humanity has been under the rule of aliens called Psychlos (we didn't make that up) for about 1,000 years. Humans seem to have two functions in this movie: either they live in cave dwellings and make flowery pronouncements that make no sense, or they're being used as slave labor by the Psychlos, who need gold for...something. Psychlos can't breathe Earth's air, so the mining operation is located in a gigantic dome over Denver. Leading the Psychlos is Terl (Travolta), who has been condemned to remain on Earth (an unappealing prospect) for some unspecified reason. Jonnie Goodboy Tyler, who lives in a cave, ends up captured and enslaved by the Psychlos. Needing some sort of human envoy, Terl, who is not too bright, enlists Jonnie to help him. Aided by a rapid learning machine which has to be seen to be believed, Jonnie learns Psychlo history and language. Jonnie, unsurprisingly, has no intention of helping Terl, and organizes a covert revolt. Despite having been enslaved for ONE THOUSAND years, in a few days, humans are able to destroy the Psychlo complex and somehow beam radioactive gas back to the Psychlo homeworld, destroying it.

Key moments of interest:
Jonnie departs on a hopeless quest and encounters a band of travelers. They end up in a mall.
Since they're idiots, they end up captured.
Ooh, Psychlo architecture is monumental and bland, much like the aliens themselves.
Jonnie delivers a stirring speech extoling the virtues of working together against the Psychlos (who, over the past 1,000 years, have not learned any English).
Terl, who is consigned unhappily to Earth, waxes philosophical about his coming triumphant return to Psychlo.
If only we could come up with some sort of scheme for regaining his status...
Jonnie leads a rebellion on a work detail...obviously he is the right choice to help Terl.
Cue the learning machine. It looks like a gigantic laser.
Terl is obsessed with his security cameras, and constantly abuses his subordinates (especially Whitaker).
We're sure this will never come back to bite him in the ass.
"Let's all get some learnin' now!" Cue the learning machine.
Oh, look, some fighter jets from 1,000 years ago. Of course these still work...
An epic battle begins, as an army of Psychlos plod like oxen through the streets.
The dome is destroyed, and the Psychlos suffocate.
Jonnie teleports the nuke back to Psychlo. BOOM! (Some crap about how the nuke reacts with the atmosphere, blah blah.)
Jonnie and his gang of misfits solider on. Terl is in a cage.

Snarky movie discussion:
CRABS: As the most public manifestation of Scientological teachings, given what you know, do you feel that this film accurately represents Scientology?
ANG: Well, if we can assume that Scientology is a pile of pseudo-scientific hokum, and I think we can, then yes. I'm not sure that we can say that the story itself, inasmuch as this movie can be said to have a story, represents actual Scientological beliefs (for instance, I don't know that the galactic overlord Xenu was a Psychlo), but it clearly indicates that upper-level Scientologists are expected to swallow an awful lot of hooey. And given the nose-dive we've seen recently in the careers of several prominent Scientologists (Travolta being one), I think we can safely say that there are some belief systems that are too crazy even for Hollywood.
CRABS: With a name like Jonnie Goodboy, the main character is clearly a representation of the American everyman. Do you think his fight against the technologically-savvy Psychlos presages an emerging neo-Luddite movement in the United States?
ANG: On the face of it, no. While it is true that Jonnie is able to retain a core of intellectualism despite his caveman existence, we must note that he uses technology to defeat the Psychlos, and in fact would not be able to take back Earth without it. For instance, Jonnie's band of human misfits are able to fly ancient fighter jets with no training whatsoever. I think that this indicates that, despite a growing frustration with how technologically dependent we've become, the soul of humanity depends on technology in order to flower.
CRABS: In today's socioecopolitical climate, avarice and greed are often talked about as being prevalent human characteristics. Travolta's character in the movie exhibits both qualities in spades. Do you think that this is meant to imply that these two attributes are fundamental properties of the universe, and will thus manifest themselves in all forms of intelligent life?
ANG: Perhaps. What I am more interested in is whether we can assume that these qualities are universally detrimental. With a name like Jonnie Goodboy, which seems a tad heavy-handed, we assume that Jonnie has a heart of gold. Though this proves to be true, we can also assume that he has motivations for human liberation that are not entirely altruistic. This is in stark contrast to Terl, who exhibits no positive characteristics. So I think the movie is a very human-centric picture, in that it suggests that while humans are able to use greed for good, other lifeforms are not.
CRABS: I find the most interesting part of the movie revolves around the Psychlo technology of interstellar telepoprtation. Given your extensive in theoretical quantum physics, what is your take on the viability of this technology? Could this represent an answer to our dependence on foreign oil.
ANG: You're too kind. You know I don't like to crow about my many, many achievements on the blog. So I'll just remind everyone of my recent appointment to the position of Distinguished Professorial Advocate at Northwestern Rhode Island State University - South Providence campus, and move to your fascinating but ultimately perplexing question. While I do feel that an invention such as the teleportation device seen in the movie would eliminate the need for oil in some ways, it falls short of doing so completely. Should a teleportation device become a reality, it would almost certainly be available only to wealthy people, leaving poorer individuals up a creek. Additionally, we use oil for far more than just transportation, so while we might not require it for cars, we would still need it for countless other modern conveniences.
CRABS: Let's talk about cinematography for a bit. In particular, I want to address the excessive use of the canted or slanted shot in the film. Do you think this is an intentional effect on the filmmakers' part meant to subconsciously implant the idea that the way in which we view this movie, and by extension the world, is inevitably influenced, skewed if you will, by our own individual perceptions or past experiences, and that as a result there can be no such thing as objective truth or reality?
ANG: It is obvious from your question that are not a student of the human mind as I am. Anyone who has studied 18th century philosophy knows that the refusal to view humanity head-on, as the movie potrays, indicates a desire to improve one's self, not a statement about objective truth. For instance, Jonnie Goodboy clearly retains a nugget of his humanity though he at first lives in squalor. However, despite his emerging sense of self, he continues to view his life askew. The Pscyhlos, since they are occupying a foreign territory, suffer the same fate. They, however, are content with the status quo, and do not feel the need to improve themselves.

For next time: Ang and Crabs watched Crossroads. Now we all have to suffer.

Rating: six sticks in the eye and the L. Ron Hubbard Memorial Medal of Infamy.