That was just a tabloid rumor.The fact he wanted to be emancipated was what put it over the line for me.
That was just a tabloid rumor.The fact he wanted to be emancipated was what put it over the line for me.
Well, io9's reviewer found it to be halfway decent, at least compared to everyone's low expectations.
Judging from the reviews of this movie, and the general reputation of Battlefield Earth, these movies aren't doing Scientology any favors.Oh, and the movie may be a Scientology commercial.
There is no "twist" here, any more than there was in The Last Airbender. People keep forgetting that Shyamalan didn't conceive or write this film -- he was just brought in to direct someone else's project. Sure, he did do a draft of the script, and as the director he had the final say about its content, but one theme I'm seeing in a number of those Rotten Tomatoes reviews is that Shyamalan's direction seems phoned in because he wasn't sufficiently invested in a concept that wasn't his.
So while this is a film directed by Shyamalan, it is not a "Shyamalan film" in the sense of following the formula he's known for.
Judging from the reviews of this movie, and the general reputation of Battlefield Earth, these movies aren't doing Scientology any favors.Oh, and the movie may be a Scientology commercial.
So I guess Star Trek 2009 is scientology propaganda as well, because it features the Kobayashi Maru which is clearly explained to be a test of facing fear of certain death, and Abrams is friends with Tom Cruise.Casual students of Scientology may find their ears pricking up at those maxims because fear and its overcoming receive a lot of play in Dianetics, a foundational text by the creator of Scientology, the pulp science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard."
I think you see the world differently than they do.I'm starting to think Will Smith picked MNS to be the fall guy just in case the movie flopped.![]()
From my understanding Will Smith character is hardly even in the movie, so that would explain why it's not watchable.
I like this quote from a reviewer....
"You know you're in trouble when you find yourself feeling sorry for one of the world's wealthiest teenagers. And you're definitely in trouble when you wish the mess of a movie he stars in could be as entertainingly rotten as 'Battlefield Earth.'"
People keep forgetting that Shyamalan didn't conceive or write this film -- he was just brought in to direct someone else's project. Sure, he did do a draft of the script, and as the director he had the final say about its content, but one theme I'm seeing in a number of those Rotten Tomatoes reviews is that Shyamalan's direction seems phoned in because he wasn't sufficiently invested in a concept that wasn't his.
So while this is a film directed by Shyamalan, it is not a "Shyamalan film" in the sense of following the formula he's known for.
Typical Apologist said:Well, actually, Irving Mogul only farted in the general direction of the studio two years before it was created by a horde of anonymous trained rhesus monkeys with iPads trapped in Funk & Wagnall's basement and shouldn't be blamed for the shitfest it became even though his is the only name on all the production credits, cause the studio just likes to give innocent people credit as a goof.
Okay, maybe "parable" would have been a better word. The Scientology themes/parallels may not be explicit, and might not have been intended, but they certainly seem to be there.Judging from the reviews of this movie, and the general reputation of Battlefield Earth, these movies aren't doing Scientology any favors.Oh, and the movie may be a Scientology commercial.
And this is a witch hunt. It's not like you walk into the film as a Christian or Atheist or Muslim and suddenly walk out of thinking "Maybe I should join Scientology".
Smith is friends with Cruise, and so suddenly a science fiction film has to be Scientology propaganda. That is ridiculous.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.