The Difference Between Critics and Fans

I absolutely love "Battle Beyond The Stars" (1980). However, as a reviewer there are quite a few problems with the movie. Due to that dichotomy, I thought it would be interesting to look at the movie, from the viewpoints of both a fan and a critic to show how different those viewpoints can be when it comes to reviewing movies, showing that reviewers are fans but with a different perspective.

The Story

Yet another retelling of Akira Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" but in space, "Battle Beyond The Stars" tells the story of farmboy Shad's quest to find warriors to protect his space colony against the depredations of the villainous Shador, resulting in one of the best space battles in cinematic history.

The story is pretty simple: Space Warlord Shador gives Akir a simple choice: Pay him off or he'll attack the peaceful world. They are given time to get the money together. At a meeting, it's decided that they will instead seek out some mercenaries to defend the planet. Richard Thomas' Shad volunteers to find them. He eventually finds seven (depending on how you count them) warriors that will not only defend the planet but also teach the farmers how to defend themselves. Shador invades and, after a suitably epic fight, is killed in battle alongside some of the warriors.

As a Fan, It's Awesome 

There are some great designs of both the aliens and their ships, and the battle is one of the best ever filmed. John Saxon is given free rein to just be a bastard and no opportunity is lost; Saxon shows why he's one of the best heavies in the business. Hollywood vets Robert Vaughn and George Peppard having fun while Sybil Danning lights up the sky as St. Exmin of the Valkyr are grounded with rising stars Richard Thomas and Darlanne Fluegel as the young couple blunts the angst and provided the hope for the future.

There are some fun performances: The clones provide some great comedy relief, and Dr. Hephaestus' inventions are great to see; these will probably be the favorites of the kids. Nell, the voice of Shad's ship, constantly needles him and acts as his advisor, even providing a poignant scene at the end; as ship's voices go, she's exactly what you need to keep the farmboy on track. St. Exmin's exuberance nicely balances Gelt's pure angst, making for an interesting dynamic. Even Cowboy taking Shad under his wing provides some nice father/son moments.

You get to see everyone's different ships in action in the climactic final fight, with their different tactics and weapons being spotlighted; even Sador gets in on the act. The use of models and practical effects work really well here, giving the ships needed weight. This is one of those no-holds-barred fights where you get to see everyone do what they do and some even go down in a blaze of glory. Even the shoot-outs planetside are nicely epic, with heroes given their chance to shine and define their destinies.

In short, if you're looking for a solid movie that's got a nice mix of morality play, comedy, and drama, this is definitely going to hit some spots.

As a Reviewer, However…

The biggest problem is that this is pretty much a remake of the original movie. It had already been done as a western ("The Magnificent Seven"; Robert Vaughn even plays basically the same character in both movies) and the movie is intentionally trope-heavy; the idea is to look at why people fight, after all, and so you need those tropes to define the characters. That very reliance is an issue at times as characters must live and even die based on the rules of their tropes; this makes the movie extremely predictable.

The production values also need to be addressed. While most of the sets are nicely done, with a definite lived-in feel, that money was saved on building other sets is definitely apparent, with thin walls and fiberglass rocks everywhere. The costuming is definitely bargain basement, with too many people running around in simple clothes, and what jewelry there is definitely costume jewelry. Even the limited prosthetics on display tend to emphasize how cheap the movie was.

The acting is also way over the top, with actors heading toward the extremes of the emotions they are showing. St. Exmin is always gung-ho for a fight, while Gelt seems to be followed by the clouds of his past. Even Shad seems to be there just to react to everything around him and he does so as blandly as possible so as to make the other actors shine brighter. Even the stunt work suffers a bit, as people are tossed around with far more power than the weapons used against them would suggest.

Lastly, while there is little nudity, what little there is has a gratuitous feel to it; outside of having something naughty for some of the guys watching the movie, the nudity just doesn't fit in the story.

While this is a gem of low-budget science fiction, there are a lot of flaws that are hard to miss once you're aware of them. This makes the movie a hard sell to serious cinephiles.

So…What Does This Mean?

"Battle Beyond The Stars" is definitely a movie people should watch. While the movie definitely has its flaws, there is a lot to recommend the movie; it's just a fun movie with a solid exploration of why people do what they do. While it definitely has an exploitative wrapper, there is something solid under that wrapper.

However, the point here was more to show that critics watch movies in a weird double-vision: While we do want movies to be fun, the problem is that we've watched way too many of these things. This means that while we are looking for the movies to be fun, sometimes it's too easy to see the problems, especially when it's the thirtieth werewolf movie focusing on the good werewolves in a stable yet humorous family situation. Worse, sometimes we work backward: If we hated or loved a movie, we look for why we did so, and sometimes the reason is extremely technical or just wouldn't make sense to most people.

The best of us will provide a mini-counterpoint, showing the other side, but we do tend to focus on how we feel about the movie.

While this means that we tend to look at movies in terms of technical issues, sometimes we look at the significance of the movie, how well it fits with other movies, or even just how bizarre the movie was. The key here is that we're looking for something more than "technically competent"; we don't want a movie to be merely fun but to have something unique going on.

This always puts reviewers in a weird situation: While there are a lot of great movies out there, sometimes it's too easy to see the flaws,. Critics and fans want the same thing, even if they do come at it from different perspectives: Better movies that we can show to those not as interested in our favorite genres.

So…just be aware that we're fans of the medium as well; we just have a different perspective on it is all.