John Travolta & Kevin Costner

[JACKER]

I know when Battlefield Earth came out many critics called it "Travolta's Waterworld." Although, if I remember correctly Waterworld did have a following. There were people that liked it and hated it. I have a hard time finding someone else that liked (or will admit) BE. I think Travolta made a good comeback in Swordfish. Kevin Costner pretty much all his movies are lame. Anyway, I thought I should share that. If you have any comments on this, then by all means.

[SF_not_Sci-Fi]

ALL movies have a following... it is just that with Water World and Battlefield Earth it never reached the triple didgits...

And Waterworld was much more of an ego-fest (Costner's 'hey, I could be Mad Max too!')
then Battlefield Earth...

[JACKER]

Originally posted by SF_not_Sci-Fi
ALL movies have a following... it is just that with Water World and Battlefield Earth it never reached the triple didgits...
And Waterworld was much more of an ego-fest (Costner's 'hey, I could be Mad Max too!')
then Battlefield Earth...

Travolta was desperate to get BE made for years. I never really saw Waterworld. I should check it out. "Dry land is not a myth, I've seen it." Jim Carrey in The Cable Guy quoting. "I don't know what all the fuss was about. I've seen the movie seven times. IT RULED!" I just thought that was a funny line. But yeah, you have a point with the triple digits thing. There were kids that liked BE on ascifi.com though .

[HighWiredSith]

Waterworld was a decent film that became a test case for media/critic bashing of a film before the film even comes out. Critics bashed Waterworld based not on the film, but on the fact that it had so many production problems (many due, in fact, to Costner's post Dances With Wolves ego) and the fact that it went way overbudget. The film never had a chance. However, when all video rental and purchase reciepts worldwide were added with ticket sales, the film more than made back it's budget, which in strict terms, makes it a success. Battlefield Earth has yet to make back the cost of the sandwhiches they purchased to feed the crew. In my humble and twisted opinion, Waterworld was a decent film and at the least entertaining.

Costner has done some decent films, like Tin Cup, Thirteen Days, JFK, and Dances With Wolves, but unfortunately, it's his "bad" films (like the awful Postman) that define him as an actor.

[JACKER]

I believe Battlefield Earth was the #2 best selling DVD like the first month it came out. BE was also hated before it came out due to the Scientology ties. Isn't entertaining all a film should be asked to do? I hear that a lot. "Well, it was entertaining at least." What are you trying to expect? Something that will open your eyes and change your views on something. BE and Waterworld (although I'm yet to see that) are just fun popcorn flicks meant for harmless fun and of course not meant to be taken all that seriously. Quite frankly, because they don't take themselves that seriously.

[SF_not_Sci-Fi]

Waterworld dosn't take itself seriously?! Ha! did you actualy SEE this movie?

As for the critics: I saw it before I heard all of the Costner-trashing... I still thought that it was a weak flick that didn't live up to it's potential. as for BFE... It wasn't bad. I rather liked it... but not much.

[HighWiredSith]

Battlefield Earth was a venture from the normal and into the surreal, this movie was so very bad it was just wierd. I read the book, the book wasn't that weird, and John Travlolta's over the top acting, awful. Don't mean to bash BE in the Waterworld forum, sorry, but a few dreadlocks, some nose plugs and platform shoes dont' make a psychlo. I just can't believe this film ever managed to get released, or made for that matter. Back to Waterworld, yeah, it could have been a lot better...

[JACKER]

Originally posted by HighWiredSith
Battlefield Earth and John Travlolta's over the top acting, awful. \ I just can't believe this film ever managed to get released, or made for that matter. [i]

Well, if you can take into consideration that he's playing a manic depressive and sociopathic alien, then it can work. Also, he's a comic villan. I thought they looked enough like aliens for me. You do have to indulge yourself into the story.

[JACKER]

Originally posted by SF_not_Sci-Fi
Waterworld dosn't take itself seriously?! Ha! did you actualy SEE this movie?

No! I suppose that was a little presamptuous of me.

[JACKER]

I feel weird posting to myself, but I have a new name for Kevin Costner.

"The Una Bomber.".....................

[JACKER]

Originally posted by HighWiredSith
[Bsorry, but a few dreadlocks, some nose plugs and platform shoes dont' make a psychlo.[/b]

I'd hate to know what you think makes a human being?

[ThinWLady]

Originally posted by SF_not_Sci-Fi
Waterworld dosn't take itself seriously?! Ha! did you actualy SEE this movie?

As for the critics: I saw it before I heard all of the Costner-trashing... I still thought that it was a weak flick that didn't live up to it's potential. as for BFE... It wasn't bad. I rather liked it... but not much.

Waterworld is not a perfect movie, I agree, but it's a popcorn flick as Jacker said. It has that same thing that The Saint and Die Hard movies had. Costner is not just enough Bruce. He can't make his work with samekind of touch as mr Willis. Although I can't think anybody else in his part.

[Gorax]

I don't know about the whole popcorn movie idea, because if a so-called popcorn movie exceeds two hours, all the popcorn intake can make you fat o_O

[SF_not_Sci-Fi]

And I've eaten popcorn while watching Citizen Kane too. It didn't taste any worse then the stuff I had during Waterworld

[Seraph]

It has that same thing that The Saint and Die Hard movies had. Costner is not just enough Bruce. He can't make his work with samekind of touch as mr Willis.

Willis had the ability to make fun of the movie within the movie - he didn't take it seriously, Costner does. Any light attempts at humour fall flat on their faces.