I think it’s the best thing Verhoeven has ever done (which I realize isn’t saying much)–its over-the-topness seems much more clever, stylized and self-parodying than in his other films. I liked the video-game framing device, which was matched by the video-game quality of the acting. Obviously it wasn’t true to the book (which I don’t remember that well since I haven’t read it since I was nine) but its exuberant celebration of the nihilistic appeal of total militarization, a totally demonizable enemy, and casual sex seemed in keeping with the themes of some of Heinlein’s work.
If I thought Verhoeven were capable of it, I might even argue that the film was a cautionary tale. Walter Benjamin argued that film was the essential medium of fascism. Verhoeven seemed to be saying that while film is great for fascism, video games are even more suited to it–being placed in a regime of instant gratification in an invented moral universe is so much fun, we should be careful of its appeal. I mean, isn’t the film prophetic of the U.S. Army’s use of a videogame to recruit for a war against terrorism?
Of course my argument would be more interesting if the film had actually been any sort of cultural event. Instead, it was something that most people weren’t interested in. People hated it for the very reason I found it interesting: the almost total lack of characterization. The videogames that were Verhoeven’s inspiration (Doom, etc) were some of the most popular of all time, and also completely lacked characterization. I think Verhoeven thought he could bring Doom-like thrills to a wider audience, but perhaps everyone who appreciated that kind of thing was already getting it from video games, and was looking for something different when they went to the movies. I guess people cling to the nostalgic idea of characterization even in films that exist principally to depict cathartic violence.
The film definitely has a message that most reviewers and moviegoers didn’t appreciate. Maybe because they realized it was too close to home…
I thoroughly enjoyed the film both for its spectacle and its cautionary message. It does what good sci-fi should do, entertains while it analyzes human behavior in a plausible but futuristic setting.
Verhoeven is a very talented director, though most of his films have flaws. Having seen ST, Robocop, Soldier of Orange, (most of) Flesh and Blood, Basic Instinct, and Hollow Man, I would say Robocop is far and away his best film. In fact I’d say it’s a borderline masterpiece within its genre.
I respect ST – it’s a very clever film with some good satire – but it didn’t quite work for me. I guess I felt the text was less interesting than the subtext. Whereas in Robocop, both were right on.
I will say this for ST. Any movie that has Michael Ironside delivering the line “they sucked his brains out” can’t be all bad.
I loved ST, bought the DVD way back when and listened to all the commentaries - Verhoven actually goes out of his way to tell everyone the message of the movie is “Facism is bad.”
Not the bet movie of all time, but a very entertaining distraction from time to time :)
I liked it. It was definitely over-the-top, and he really hits you in the face with the “fascism is bad” hammer, but it was fun for all that. If you go into it with the right spirit, looking for something campy and fun, it’s a good movie. It has some really funny lines. If you go into it looking for a serious film or subtle commentary on politics and the human condition, you’re bound to be disappointed.
Another thing that will lead to grave, grave disappointment: reading the book first. The book is so much better than the movie that it’s not even funny.
Basic Instinct, Troopers, Robocop, Total Recall were all good popcorn movies. Hollowman was mostly a victim of the script and copy write problems (supposedly HG Well’s estate was ready to step in and sue them to doomsday which limited what they could do with the characters and ideas when they made the movie.)
The only thing I hold against him is Showgirls; when you make a movie even excessive T&A can’t save, the director has to take a heavy share of the blame.
The failure of Showgirls and Hollowman shut a lot of Hollywood doors Verhoven said in an interview I read recently. Dont expect to see him direct more american movies any time soon. Whether that’s good or bad is up to you.
Wow. I thought the the theme of the book was about taking responsibility for your actions. I guess I never realized that fascism and libertarianism were that closely related. :?
I thought the movie was unwatchable.
We pretty much agree there, although I thought the starship effects were nicely done. Too bad there weren’t more scenes of the Rodger Young in action.
I agree. I don’t think the book is a satire at all – I think Heinlein was a loon.
But that’s why I much preferred the movie, which made the subject into a clear satire. I gotta give the movie points also for having people punished for their stupidity by dying horrible, over-the-top deaths. Giant monsters tearing people to pieces is always a gas.
If you were ever wondering how big your tits have to be before they alone can get you into movies, the answer is Denise Richards.
What infuriates me is that Verhoeven put a shower scene into that movie, and managed to keep Denise Richards out of it! Clearly there were script problems from the get-go.
Oh yeah, Doogie Howser in a Gestapo outfit was worth a laugh too.
It was nothing like the novel. If this was the intention, it failed. However, I presume the intention was to lampoon Heinlein more than to follow his lead. Not that I want to defend Heinlein’s politics, but I really think the filmmaker fell into the trap of thinking that everything a Heinlein character says is supposed to be a political statement by the author. Rather than in any way sympathizing with any part of the author’s characters’ opinions, this film mocks them, and does so ineptly.
The snide “look at how stupid Heinlein is” approach was really sophomoric and unpleasant. Assuming that the fascistic portrayal of the Earth government (with that irritating Gestapo outfit whatshisname was always wearing) was intended as a “look how sophisticated and liberal we are” dig, it didn’t work at all. Similarly, the combination of gratuitous “exploitation” scenes like the shower scene and various over-the-top violence cannot be played off an attempt at sophisticated sneering at the audience for appreciating it. Either they are trying to make a violent movie that appeals to the LCD, or they aren’t. In this case, the filmmaker tried to make a standard stupid sci-fi action movie and at the same time tried to sneer at the genre, and he winds up just looking stupid, IMO.
The acting sucked. That’s all. Just bad work all around. Not that this movie could be expected to have good acting, so no surprise there, but better acting could have improved the film.
The plot was inane. To be expected, but still, it was inane.
OK, OK, the special effects were pretty nice, at least as of that date. But if all I want is nice graphics, I can watch a WinAmp visualizaton studio for a couple of hours.
Whenever I look at a film adaptation of a book, I don’t think the question of whether it was anything like the book is really relevant. Either it’s a good film on its own terms, or it isn’t. If I want something true to the book, I’ll read the book. So Miramon’s first objection doesn’t mean much to me – except of course for the question of, “does the satire work”?
The acting is generally pretty bad, though not uniformly so. I thought Jake Busey did a good job, and Michael Ironside – well, you know what you’re getting when you hire Michael Ironside, and he delivered that. Denise Richards can’t act, but that didn’t stop Wild Things from being a fun movie.
I don’t even think you necessarily need to read the film as saying “Heinlein is a fascist.” That’s an interpretation you can bring to the film, having read the Heinlein and looking at what the film does with the source material, but I don’t think it’s really Verhoeven’s point. I’m not sure what Verhoeven’s point is really, except that he is poking fun at the audience by turning the “good guys” into Nazis, and also he enjoys showing us incredibly lithe, nubile, sexy athletic bodies, and then disemboweling them in creative ways. Maybe his revenge for never having been allowed to decapitate Elizabeth Berkley in “Showgirls.”
Whether the subtext of ST is “brilliant” or “idiotic” seems to be a matter of much debate among cineastes. I guess I fall somewhere in the middle.
Do you mean critics missed that it was at least in part a satire of Heinlein’s original? If so, then you should read some of the reviews archived at rottentomatoes. Whether they like the movie or not, virtually every reviewer mentions the satirical aspect. It’s possible you’re getting Starship Troopers on a much deeper level than what’s entirely obvious to anyone who’s watched it, though.
Verhoeven is a very talented director, though most of his films have flaws. Having seen ST, Robocop, Soldier of Orange, (most of) Flesh and Blood, Basic Instinct, and Hollow Man, I would say Robocop is far and away his best film. In fact I’d say it’s a borderline masterpiece within its genre.
I respect ST – it’s a very clever film with some good satire – but it didn’t quite work for me. I guess I felt the text was less interesting than the subtext. Whereas in Robocop, both were right on.
Robocop is undoubtedly a superior film–a classic within the sci-fi genre. I don’t think that should count against Starship Troopers, however. While it’s definitely not a classic, it’s easily worth a dozen of your garden variety throwaway summer scifi extravaganzas… eg, “Armageddon”.
Starship Troopers, like The Fifth Element, was far more stunning on the big screen. Those that only saw it at home, really missed out. The subtext of the heroes essentially being nazis is a strong one, but on the small screen, the film loses the impact of the bugs sheer size and some of the incredible effects work. The scene where the troopers creep up over a hill to witness the bugs firing that icy stuff out of their butts toward the incoming spacecraft was awe-inspiring in the theatres. It doesn’t have the same punch at home.
All this talk makes me want to sit down and watch it again though. :)
