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.

Savage Planet - a beary bad movie (groan)...

Facts: The year was 2006. Special effects were at their zenith, but you wouldn't know it from this movie. From the depths of Hell came a movie so awful that Ang & Crabs had to hold their eyelids open with duct tape to get through it. The writer's strike was a year away, and we hold this movie solely responsible. The existence of a script as awful as this one may have caused it. Starring nobody worth remembering or mentioning (and nobody with a career today, except maybe the bears).

Plot summary: (Note: the term "plot summary" is in this case a relative term, and all of the characters' names are made up because none of them are remotely memorable). In the hazily defined future, some sort of virus or plague or something threatens Earth and the survival of humanity. Bad boy special agent D.B. McGee is called in for a perilous and top secret assignment. Turns out he'll be working for evil billionaire George W. Bush. George's previous crack team of cronies has discovered a secret planet with miraculous properties that may well hold the key to the resurrection of the human species. After some high-tech tomfoolery, our heroes (McGee and his team) are transported across the universe by a transporter that would've looked shitty on the old Star Trek, and land on Mystery Planet X. What ensues is a heart-stopping race against time, mutant bears, and their own internal demons culminating in a completely forgettable climax which is sure to leave audiences with jaws agape in a suicidal stupor.

Key moments of interest (well, key moments, at least):
Surprisingly the future looks like circa 1993.
Tree, meet hand. Hand, meet machete.
There's bears in them thar caves.
This antifreeze is magical!
The team is assembled: we've got D.B. McGee, Annoying Nerd Guy, Comic Relief Clown, Serious Military Man, George W. Bush, Hottie Scientist #1, and Hottie Scientist #2.
Step inside this concoction of PVC pipe and tinfoil and prepare for the ride of your life!
On Planet X, the transporter breaks down. We're trapped!
What was that rustling in the bushes? Probably just the squirrels.
Some guy (Comic Relief Clown?) is decapitated. By a bear. Really.
Wander, bear, die. Wander, bear, die. Repeat.
"You've been lying to us this whole time! You son of a bitch!"
Hottie Scientist #2 is cut in half. By a bear.
Annoying Nerd Guy takes off to find a mythological second transporter.
The planet is (somehow) tearing itself apart.
Surely there aren't any mutant bears in this cave! Cue bear decapitation.
Hottie Scientist #1 has had enough and grabs a gun.
What's left of the bunch tracks down Annoying Nerd Guy at the transporter pad.
As they're trying to escape, George W. Bush attempts to foil their escape.
GWB is sacrificed to the bears.
Due to the heroic sacrifice of Annoying Nerd Guy, Hottie Scientist #1 and D.B. McGee make it back to Earth with the Serum of Life.
D.B. and Hottie give a passionate speech about saving humanity and hope for the future and whatnot.

Special to today's conversation, the ICBIWT crew would like to welcome Dr. Ned Slandesky, distinguished professor of sociology and cryptozoology at the University of Southern Maine -- Pemberton campus. Per Dr. Slandesky's request, the theme of today's discussion will be "Savage Planet as a catalyst for the abolition of cinematic conventions and redefinition."

CRABS: Thank you for joining us today Professor Slandesky. I know you just got back from delivering the keynote address at the twenty-third international symposium on the state of modern man.
ANG: Yes, your address was exceptional. I particularly liked your comparison of modern soccer players to the deconstructionist ideas espoused by Derrida. Congratulations also on your recent award.
CRABS: Oh yes, of course. The Walter J. Beakman honorary award for contributions to the human dialog. Quite an achievement.
DR. SLANDESKY: Oh, thank you. The award is nothing to sneeze at, even though this is my second time winning it. I'm just glad to be here today. Strasbourg, the site of the conference, is a lovely city, but I find it a bit provincial for my tastes.
ANG: Don't you have a book coming out soon?
DR. SLANDESKY: Yes, of course. But let's not be trite. We're here to discuss the movie. We can talk about my book, Existential Musings and Things I Know: Epistemology in a Modern Age, another time.
CRABS: Clearly Savage Planet subverts every convention of modern film making. Let's begin our discussion with plot. Specifically, do you think the "plot" of the movie was a subtle attempt to mock and vilify our country's political underpinnings?
DR. SLANDESKY: A good question with an obvious answer. In my mind, plot is the most fundamental component of movie-making. Considering the complete absence of coherent plot and the intrinsic stupidity of the events portrayed in the film, I am led to the conclusion that the plot in this movie is an obvious allegory for our federal government. The ineptitude, corruption, and lasciviousness displayed by the characters have obvious parallels in Washington, and their bumbling, fumbling, and ultimately humbling escapades are clearly analogous to what we see in Congress.
ANG: Dr. Slandesky, as I understand it, you are one of the world's foremost Plato scholars. Is this correct?
DR. SLANDESKY: Why, yes. I studied at the University of Central Alberta.
ANG: Ah, very impressive. So let's discuss the philosophical implications of the film. I think they are considerable. The characters in Savage Planet do not understand the nature of their own humanity, and as such, are destroyed by it. Do you feel as if the movie hearkens to Plato's allegory of the cave?
DR. SLANDESKY: Ignoring the rather obvious inclusion of cave scenes and cave-dwelling bears, I do agree that the allegory is present, but I find it rather subtle. The bears represent the collective internal demons of humanity. When the characters are confronted by the bears, they lose in an often spectacular and gruesome fashion. A more prescient and apt metaphor for the internal struggle of good versus evil has never permeated my consciousness. In this way, the characters look to the cave walls for guidance on their life's paths but find only shadows, much as in Plato's masterwork. The regenerative substance found in the cave ultimately redeems them and all of humanity.
CRABS: Since you brought up the bears, let's continue on that topic. You've mentioned your interpretation of the symbolism of the bears, but I would like to offer a contrasting viewpoint.
ANG: But Dr. Slandesky is an expert on bears. He spent two years studying them in the Yukon. He lived in solitary confinement on Kodiak Island.
CRABS: Well, excellent then. Respond to the following statement. The bears, which are, lest we forget, mutant bears, represent the future. Their struggle against the characters represents the human quest towards the unknown and thirst for knowledge. And yet almost everyone is ultimately destroyed by the bears. Therefore, one must conclude that we are destined to destroy ourselves via a dystopic future of our own creation.
DR. SLANDESKY: Well, that's obviously preposterous. Anyone who has studied modern cinema as I have knows that bears are clear Oedipal references and as such cannot be harbingers of doom and despair. I refuse to answer such a pedestrian question. Ludicrous!
ANG: Apologies for the insult, Dr. Slandesky. Clearly we do not possess insight such as yours. One final question. We don't want to keep you too long. We know you have responsibilities to the National Society for the Furtherance of Modern Study of Paradigm Shifts. Let's discuss the dialog in the film. On the surface, it seems simple, even pedantic. And yet upon further study we find that every possible instance the dialog acts to reinforce the existing character archetypes. Do you think this was intentional or just purely coincidental?
DR. SLANDESKY: Well, it's funny you should ask, as I was actually selected by a group of my peers to edit the original screenplay. I took particular interest in the dialogue of the movie and essentially rewrote it to reinforce the stereotypes present in the film and to create a subtextual personality study highlighting the six dominant personality types as illustrated in my seminal book The Modern American Consciousness: A Codification Strategy for Adults.
CRABS: Well, I think that's about all the time we have. We'll let you get back to your studies, and we look forward to working with you on future projects.
ANG: Yes, you've been very insightful. We're pleased to have a scholar of your caliber to share his wisdom.
DR. SLANDESKY: Yes, yes. It's been a pleasure. I'll send you both copies of my book.

For next time. Armageddon. Oh, happy day.

Rating: nine sticks in the eye and a couple more for good measure. Really, really bad.