web counter
 

You're It Until You're Dead Or I Find Someone Better

By Guest Writer Ty Elkins | Posted Under Hangover Theater | Comments (64)

starship.jpg

Imagine my surprise when I perused the back logs of Pajiba to find that no one had written a review of Starship Troopers. Considering how many people talk about it I assumed it would almost have a place of honor. Whenever a great B-movie is mentioned, whenever someone wants to compare crap = awesome, Starship Troopers is one of those movies that earns it’s place. Would you like to know more?

Released in 1997 the film, directed by Paul Verhoeven (Total Recall , RoboCop, Showgirls), still holds up quite well. It retains it’s quotable lines (“Mobile infantry made me the man I am today.”), the graphics are actually still worth a shit (surprisingly), and the fresh cast put a lot of energy into it. I’ve never read the novel on which it is based (the screenplay was by Edward Neumeier who created RoboCop), written by Robert A. Heinlein, but my father had. When we saw the movie in theatres his response was, “It’s totally different from the book…but I think I like it better.”

It’s the cast though that sells it, from old faces to fresh ones.
The Young:
Casper Van Dien (Sleepy Hollow)
Dina Meyer (Detective Allison Kerry in the Saw franchise)
Denise Richards (Wild Things, The World is Not Enough)
Jake Busey
Seth Gilliam (“The Wire”)
Neil Patrick Harris (“How I Met Your Mother,” “Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog “)
The Veterans:
Clancy Brown (Highlander, Shawshank Redemption, “Earth 2”)
Michael Ironside (the original “V”, Total Recall, Highlander II, Scanners)
Marshall Bell (Total Recall, Dick Tracy, The Puppet Masters)

The film takes place in a militaristic future (complete with Nazi-esque uniforms). Regular people are considered civilians, while those who serve in the military are considered “citizens.” As they say in the film, “Service guarantees citizenship.” These citizens are allowed a higher standard of living. In order to serve in politics … you have to be a citizen. To have children it is easier if you are a citizen. You are given a proper degree of respect and privilege. This is the type of society that hands out public lashings as punishment, and tries, convicts, and executes murderers all in one day. The story follows a wonderful athlete (who plays a modified form of football that involves flipping over opponents), Rico (Van Dien), as he progresses from high school student to a leader of the “Roughnecks.” He joins the military to follow the love of his life, Carmen (Richards), who follows her own path on her way to becoming a pilot. Rico, in turn, is followed by Dizzy (Meyer) the friend who holds a crush on him. Throw into that mix Rico’s friend Carl (Harris), who, with minute psychic abilities, goes the military intelligence route. By doing so, infantry, pilot, intelligence, we are able to follow every aspect of the military. The main plot point is war. In this case war with the bugs. There are many different types of bugs who all like to rip our inferior little bodies to pieces or melt us with acid/fire spit.

Each act of the film is separated with a news break from the Federal Network. A lot of times these newsbreaks are not only refreshing, maintaining the pace of the film, but highly amusing. From ads in which children are handed live rounds of ammunition and allowed to play tug of war with a gun, to little kids crushing bugs while a woman laughs maniacally in the background. They also provide the exposition needed before getting back to the action. Rather than showing Rico and the Roughnecks traveling, bored (if not getting matching tattoos again that read “Death”), aboard a starship. The news tells us where they’ve traveled and why. Verhoeven deserves a lot of the credit though. Watching the film it “feels” like you are watching RoboCop and Total Recall. He’s good with the gore,(Starship Troopers still has some of the best gore in a film) especially when it comes to realistic gun wounds. He manages to include all of the elements of those classic 80’s sci-fi/action flicks. There’s violence, explosions, and random t&a. Did there really need to be a shower scene? No. Will I complain? No. Who doesn’t like the mini-nukes? How about the fact that Rico rarely blinks when he’s shooting? The scene of all the crippled ships totally looks a space graveyard. It’s also his attention to the little things that we take for granted. Like the muted voices of the recruits in the background as Rico listens to his Dear John letter. From the fresh faces at the beginning of the film, to the aged and more rugged ones at the end (none more noticeable than Neil Patrick Harris’s). To the use of “Dixieland” being played on an electric violin, in a combat zone, while troops drink beer and dance. That’s another thing the film seems to link to. Dancing=sex. The only two times Rico has sex in the film are after his prom…with Carmen, and in the field after the battle celebration…with Dizzy.

Allow me, if you will, to delve away from my more straight and simplistic approach…and talk to you normally. Starship Troopers is fucking awesome. Verhoeven probably made the last great 80’s film…in 1997. There is eye candy galore. Shit gets blown up. Body parts go flying. Michael Ironside is a teacher turned squad leader with one arm. The fucking Kurgan is a drill instructor who breaks his own students arm and throws a knife through another ones hand. There are boobs, asses, and Jake Busey rubbing his junk with soap. Ignore Denise Richards and stare at Dina Meyer. Watch as tattoos and surgeries are done with friggin laser beams. The young cast in this film has done jack shit…except a lot of television…we won’t count the goldenness that is Neil Patrick Harris. This movie…has it all. It even spawned sequels! That totally sucked!

How do I end this? Go get drunk, get really high, settle down with some popcorn and maybe a candy bar…something chocolate maybe (I’m a sour patch kids fan)…if it’s got coconut in it I’ll kill you…and watch this movie if you haven’t seen it. If you have seen it, watch it again, and love it some more.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← "Harry's Law" Review | Bygones | Hey, Do Stories About Silver Foxes Count As Cute Animal Links? | Pajiba Love →









Comments

Yes, yes and yes.
I would do shots of Dina Meyer's bathwater.

Posted by: Vorax at January 20, 2011 12:16 PM

For some reason this has been showing about once every other night on one of the Showtime or Encore channels and it just seems to be one of those that I have to watch, no matter what - it's perfect for Hangover Theater.

Also, I'm pretty sure this is the first movie I saw in the theater that had nudity. I was 16 at the time and I remember wondering (for about 2-3 seconds) what the point of the shower scene was, and then just kind of basking in the awesomeness.

Posted by: Mattfactor at January 20, 2011 12:16 PM


MEDIC!!

Posted by: Murderbot at January 20, 2011 12:19 PM

This flick belongs in a library with The War of the Worlds and Alice in Wonderland (among others). Some hack screenwriter/producer/director (and yes, I'm including Spielberg in that group) decided to make his/her film more marketable by bastardizing the title of a beautiful and more meaningful novel.

On its own I agree, Starship Troopers is enjoyable and features some amazing effects, great action, repeatable dialog and insanely awesome/awful acting.

The bastardization of the title, however, still infuriates me. Had someone handed me this movie on DVD with the title Earth vs. the Buggers! I would have loved it. Unfortunately I'm reminded, whenever I watch it, that it is merely the hollow shell of a fascinating and thought provoking novel.

Posted by: lubeg at January 20, 2011 12:20 PM

Always surprised Denise Richards became the bigger star out of this film over Dina Meyer (who had already been in one or two big films). Shame since Meyer was the more attractive -- even if Richards had the bigger cans.

As for the movie, I have read the book and I separate the two completely from one another. Starship Troopers the movie is about socio-political satire. It's about how we get into a war with space bugs because our perfect society drives "Mormon extremists" (i.e. anyone who doesn't fit in) into Bug space to live -- forcing the bugs to have to defend their territory.

Starship Troopers the book is nothing like that. It's about one guy, Rico, and why he fights. And the answer is simple: girls. Because deep down, that genetic desire to propagate the species and defend it has to be answered.

Posted by: Fredo at January 20, 2011 12:24 PM

Starship Troopers rocks!

Posted by: Yesplease at January 20, 2011 12:34 PM

Great book and a great movie. Fascism never looked so sexy

Posted by: Peanut at January 20, 2011 12:39 PM

I 2nd the Verhoeven love for squibs. No one films a better gunshot wound.

If anyone ever had the opportunity, check out the Criterion version of Robocop...or, if there's been other special releases containing it, specifically for the seen in the office building introducing ED-209.

When he loses his shit on the guy holding the gun on him, the extended scene is one of the most brutal, yet artistic, gunshot sequences ever. He almost literally turns the dude into ground meat. What is 10 seconds in the theatrical release is about 30 seconds and 200 more squibs in the extended cut. There's even little pieces of gore that whip away from the body with each impact.

And let's not forget the awesomeness (and kept for theatrical release) sequence where Peter Weller gets dusted to become the title character.

Viva Verhoeven!!! Showgirls was a momentary lapse of reason/excuse to see Jesse Spano's muff.

Posted by: PissBoy at January 20, 2011 12:40 PM

I agree that this is a good popcorn flick. And like Mattfactor pointed out, it was on TV recently--so I caught the last half just last week.

When I first saw the preview for this film, I hoped the bugs would win. Of course, when you're in the midst of watching it, it's hard not to root (route? I can never keep track of which spelling one uses for this meaning) for the humans.

Also, I can't believe it's been 14 years since this came out! Blah blah requisite comment about feeling old blah blah.

Posted by: tamatha at January 20, 2011 12:43 PM

Yes yes yes the film is awesome for its insanity and inanity. But my favourite scene has to be one of the news reel showing kids at home 'doing their part' in the fight against the bugs, and stomping on a bunch of cockroaches. What a brilliant mirroring of the awful treatment suffered by innocent and home grown minorities who unfortunately happen to be of the same ethnicity as our enemies abroad.

@PissBoy, those scene are also on the more recent anniversary edition of RoboCop.

Posted by: headmonkeys at January 20, 2011 12:49 PM

This was on HD Movies or something last week and I watched the last act from the fort siege on. My wife sat down and said "Don't we own this?" I answered "Actually, no." She asked "Why the hell not?!" And that is once of the many reasons why I love my wife.

I saw this twice on opening weekend and it was glorious. The second time was even better. One of the few movies that gets much, much better with a rowdy and talkative crowd. The dialogue is just a thing of beauty. From "Johnny! I'm dying, Johnny!" to "They sucked out his brains!" rarely a moment goes by that is not deliciously hilarious.

Nice review, Ty. And I reminder I have got to pick up the blu ray on this one.

Posted by: TylerDFC at January 20, 2011 12:50 PM

I like the book, too, lubeg, but like Ty's papa bear, I love the movie. Maybe it's just because I like the message of the movie more than the book, or maybe it's because I use "the only good bug is a dead bug" more often than I should, or maybe it's just because I'm a Verhoeven fanatic. Regardless, this movie is the breasts.

Posted by: RobP at January 20, 2011 12:55 PM

I refuse to call this film Starship Troopers and instead call it They Joys of Killing a Fuck Ton of Bugs. The reason behind this is because when I first saw the movie I hated it. It took a section of a chapter of the book and not only ignored, but completely bastardized the entire premiss. However, upon renaming the movie I was able to enjoy it for what it is: a fucking awesome "I'm a go kill me a fuck ton o' bugs" movie.

Posted by: Morgan LaFai at January 20, 2011 12:57 PM

I finally saw this for the first time a couple months ago. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Ty, why no movie credit love for Jake Busey? Identity, Tomcats, The Frighteners?

Posted by: Paultera at January 20, 2011 12:57 PM

The best thing about this movie is how it take's the novel's jingosistic tone and turns it satirically on itself. The movie revealing itself to be nothing more than a propaganda-filled recruitment film for what is most likely a fascist, imperialistic, future human society's military.

Uh, I didn't mean to sound so Che Guevara in this post.

Posted by: Darth Darko at January 20, 2011 12:57 PM

I thought I read a review of this on here, but maybe it was just in the comments. It was about the difference between European and American sensibilities, how the movie was loved in Europe but never seen as anything more than B-movie action in America. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Posted by: Brenton at January 20, 2011 12:59 PM

Love the book. Hate the movie. It totally misses the point of the book. If it weren't called Starship Troopers, I'd probably be okay with it.

Posted by: JGirl at January 20, 2011 1:09 PM

Totally aside, if you haven't read Heinlein's novel, you should. It's simply wonderful.

Posted by: Markus at January 20, 2011 1:12 PM

Ah. I see Morgan LaFai already pointed that out. Perhaps I could watch this The Joys of Killing a Fuck Ton of Bugs movie.

Posted by: JGirl at January 20, 2011 1:12 PM

"Everyone fights. No one quits."

This movie rocks my ASS-the boyfriend and I have watched it twice in the last month on Encore. I still get squeamish during the crazy straw bug's brain sucking scene.

Posted by: Julie at January 20, 2011 1:18 PM

@Pissboy+1000 for the Criterion Robocop plug

Posted by: Vorax at January 20, 2011 1:22 PM

"...The bastardization of the title..."

lubeg, i couldn't disagree more.
The movie held up the ideas of Heinlein's novel better than anyone could have anticipated.
Sure, if the novel was about running around in powered robot armor suits blasting aliens with scifi-fu... then yeah, Verhoeven missed the mark.
But it wasn't.
It was about a pathologically jingoistic society battling communist alien bugs.
(Seriously. Communist. Go re-read it. i'll wait.)

Verhoeven captured all Heinlein's thematic ideas like:
* having to serve before you have any rights as a citizen - and as such the absolutely essential role of the military in society
* the weird psychotic kill-em-all spirit of the populace
(mirroring post WWII america - Heinlein's bread 'n butter)
(granted... Heinlein didn't mean it to be satire)
* A glorious unabashed love of nukes (also Heinlein porn)
* And yes, joining the military because of a girl. (Rico is an idiot in both versions)

Verhoeven's newsreel gimmick (also used extensively in Robocop) was a stroke of genius here. He managed to convey all the BIG ideas that are usually thrown out the window in scifi novel adaptations. (i.e. consider every fucking idea in I Robot)

Posted by: Scott at January 20, 2011 1:32 PM

JGirl: Fuck Ton of Bugs is a much better film. I highly recommend giving it a try.

Posted by: Morgan LaFai at January 20, 2011 1:34 PM

Thanks for revisiting this.

I think if you are able let go of expectations for an adaptation to be loyal to the source material, then it is possible to enjoy both the film and the book. Heinlein's book is subdued and heavy on philosophy. The film - as described above - manages the heights of 80s action camp and fun satire as well. As different as they are, I am happy they both exist. If I were that invested in a movie's being identical to the book, I could always just read the book again.

Oh, and Michael Ironside and Clancy Brown rock.

My mildly amusing Starship Troopers anecdote:

Opening weekend back in 1997. A high school buddy and I catch this at our small-town theater, and we hang around for the end credits. Said theater, though, has already brought the lights up and has allowed members of the next showing's audience to start seating themselves as those credits roll and Basil Poledouris' (R.I.P.) great score plays. My friend and I are chatting, and the F word and various other epithets are used several times in our conversation of normal volume, as was our usual swearing practice. (I'm only marginally more eloquent these days.)

It's then that I realize that a mother and a few kids (none could be more than ten years old) have sat down in the row directly in front of us and have been in earshot for everything we've said. Instinctively, I immediately feel contrite and nudge my friend accordingly that we should put a lid on it. It occurs to me, though, that these kids are about to watch R-rated blood and boobs galore, and my regret fades.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at January 20, 2011 1:38 PM

Scott >> Great points.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at January 20, 2011 1:43 PM

Well said DB, and well written. And really, who doesn't love hot red-heads with curly hair?

(there's a reason I married one...)

Posted by: Xtreme at January 20, 2011 1:44 PM

Scott: I disagree. The movie captured the tone of fascism okay, but it missed the tone of warfare created in the book completely. The idea that their is little difference between a state of peace and a state of war, the fact that men and women have very different roles to play in the military (which is not to say that women don't have a roll, they make fantastic pilots but don't have the physical strength to be grunts), the nature of training, even the idea that war is mostly boredom punctuated by moments of violence were missing from the film.

Furthermore, I don't think the Rico in the book join the military because of a girl. He joined because he was looking for something, though he didn't know exactly what it was. He tells his buddies it was for a girl but his internal monologue reveals this not to be the case. Though I do agree that he is an idiot in both the book and the movie.

Posted by: Morgan LaFai at January 20, 2011 1:54 PM

I love Heinlein and at the time this came out was tearing through his oeuvre. In the first five minutes I thought I was going to have a heart attack. Then, I started laughing and enjoying the RIGHTEOUS FUCKING AWESOME this movie brings. I ended up seeing it three times in the theater and it is one of my favorites. ever.

Posted by: the bees knees at January 20, 2011 1:58 PM

This movie came into my life waaaaay before the book did. I remember renting it over and over again for a handful of scenes (you know the ones).

The book put me on a huge Heinlein kick.

They are not the same thing. They are very not the same thing. And you know what? For once, that doesn't kill me.

Just goes to show the power of boobs, I guess.

Posted by: coryo at January 20, 2011 1:58 PM

I saw this at the theatre with my then girlfriend. The screening was pretty crowded so we were forced to sit in the 5th or 6th row. At one point fairly early in the film, with Denise Richards' mug towering over us, my girlfriend turned to me and said "This girls come-fuck-me-face is really starting to piss me off". And in the 3rd act, when Richards gets skewered by the soldier bug? Fist pumps and cheering.

I fell a little more in love that day.

Posted by: Groundloop at January 20, 2011 2:05 PM

I hear ya, morgan.
Methinks you and i disagree what the book was about.
Thats certainly the markings of a classic, innit?

Of course Verhoeven didn't get everything in the book. My point is that he hit a lot closer than he needed to with an "80's action flick." (great point, TK!)

I would never argue that this is a good movie.
But i sure do like it.

Posted by: Scott at January 20, 2011 2:11 PM

I saw the movie first... and was like... what in Hades is this crapfest! Saw it again, and got the satirical edge and message but had a hard time getting past the craptastic acting... Then, I read the book last year, and even though I thought they weren't even remotely the same, I got it.

Cool review, actually made me want to revisit the movie, one mo' gin.

Posted by: NGG at January 20, 2011 2:16 PM

Sorry to get technical and film school but no one seems to mention the subtext and subsequent foresight the film provides.

I always felt that the film was intended to be presented as a recruiting film for the fascist society presented in the movie. In this respect it has more in common with the Sands of Iwo Jima than Independence Day. In my interpretation, the war was not a war against aggression but one to support the existing government and the expansion of its empire.

The reality of perceived aggression, the attack on Rio by an asteroid launched by the bugs, could only exist as propaganda to bolster the cause. The explanation provided in the film, that is was an attack where the asteroid travels across the galaxy would require the asteroid to be launched before man left the trees.

The film in this context is almost a primer to the W. Bush years in Iraq. Use a major event to justify the creation or expansion of a preexisting conflict, even if the focus of the national enmity had nothing to do with the justifying event.

Posted by: haleonearth at January 20, 2011 2:17 PM

haleonearth, sometimes a boob is just a boob.

Posted by: Scott at January 20, 2011 2:20 PM

1. Earth vs. The Buggers! or Shit Ton of Bugs are a blast to watch. I never claimed otherwise.

2. Scott, I will agree that the film did capitalize on the indictments of fascism/blind politica/military service and inequitable utopias quite well. Likewise it touched upon some of the elements of war, as Morgan already stated. I'm not fascinated with power armor and, for the record, don't feel it is necessary to recreate an accurate film portrayal of the novel. What I find most disappointing about this interpretation of the book is the complete underdevelopment of the themes related to a young man actually growing up in service to his country - whether for the right reasons or wrong, whether his country is right or wrong (a very topical theme in the United States right now, I dare say). The film also ignored a significantly important emotional message in Rico's father's change of heart after his wife is killed by the buggers and he chooses to join the Mobile Infantry and eventually they fight side by side as platoon leader and sergeant/chaplin.

3. I confess - it has been nearly 16 years since I read the novel and I will not, therefore, attempt to argue the points regarding Rico's choice to serve. I do recall his reasons being along the lines stated by Morgan, but will reconsult the source material (I just bought it for Kindle) and recant if I'm wrong ;)

Posted by: lubeg at January 20, 2011 2:22 PM

These conversations always remind me that sci-fi fandom is insanely susceptible to group-think. In this case, it's the pathological love for a mediocre book that pings my bullshit meter.

Fundamentally, Heinlein doesn't understand human nature. He identifies all the things wrong with populism and communism but fails to understand that the other side of those coins are also flawed. He indicts the society of privilege with very good reason, but doesn't create a compelling case for replacing it with military oligarchy and a thin veneer of meritocracy.

Furthermore, there are no character arcs and no real story. At least the characters in the movie visibly grow up a little. The book has not even that. It's just a vehicle for his philosophy, which is deeply flawed. It's intelligently proscriptive, but juvenile in its prescription. Unfortunately, it seems he thought the prescription was the smart part.

And it's so far to the Right it hasn't discovered fire. Absolute Faith in the State is pretty bedrock to making his system work. I'm not sure if it's utopian, but it sure as shit isn't practicable.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at January 20, 2011 2:23 PM

Methinks you and i disagree what the book was about.
Thats certainly the markings of a classic, innit?

Actually, I don't think Morgan and I disagree with you. I think we may have also appreciated other subtext/themes that were included which may have been superficial to your enjoyment. Because I won't argue that fascism, brutal jingoism and patriotism are significant to the story, you're absolutely right. Where we differ, I think, is that in my reading those elements served to take the story into one of men surviving in war. In your reading the war existed to prop up those attrocities at home.

Posted by: lubeg at January 20, 2011 2:27 PM

Heinlein almost certainly intended the atrocities to be in the war and the philosophy at home to, in fact, be morally praiseworthy. But as written, that society couldn't exist for long without a war, so the oligarchy would be perennially encouraged to make sure one was going on.

It would be brilliant if I thought he was trying to satirize the Military-Industrial Complex by simply folding it straight into government without the sideshow, but sadly I think he wasn't trying to be ironic.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at January 20, 2011 2:33 PM

NGG...my thoughts exactly, except the book part, never read it.
I thought this was the biggest piece of shit movie ever when I first saw it. Saw it again recently...and got the sarcasm and humor, but still kind of shitastic.

Posted by: Whorish Mouth at January 20, 2011 2:34 PM

read the book this summer and loved it. Heinlein is one of the best out there; besides Asimov and Bradbury.

I then watched the movie and was quite disappointed. I haven't seen the two sequels or the spin off tv series yet, but I can say from the first movie, that i was disappointed.

Posted by: Lordninja at January 20, 2011 2:36 PM

Starship Troopers 3 has giant mechs, a brain bug the size of a planet, a huge plot point about religion...and a 3 minute scene of some naked people just standing around. For no real reason.

And the graphics are worse than SyFy Channel graphics. Just...terrible.

Although Van Dien came back for it.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at January 20, 2011 2:40 PM

I came back to add something else, and ZombieScientist touched on it a little bit.

Perhaps one of the reasons that I'm willing to give the movie so much latitude in being so different from the book is that the book was not heavy on characterization at all. What was it - three whole chapters that did not advance the story at all and were simply Heinlein philosophizing on the merits of fascism, the state as the absolute good, etc.? If the book had stronger characters and plot - that's not to say that I don't think it's effective for what it is or does not achieve its intent - then deviations probably would have bothered me more. In a sense, by going so freestyle in narrative and style, Verhoeven takes up the spirit of Heinlein's very freestyle ramblings.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at January 20, 2011 2:40 PM

This movie came out when I was elevn. My dad loved to take me to gory, blow shit up movies even then (anything with what he called "cartoon violence"), so we went the first weekend it was in theatres. Unfortunately, neither of us realized that the movie really earned its R rating with that shower scene. If my mom had been there, she would have covered my eyes and tut tut'd when the naked people came on the screen(like she did during Titanic, which was mortifying). Instead, my dad leaned over, told me he was out of popcorn, and disappeared for about ten minutes, leaving my eleven year old self alone in the theatre with some soapy, naked soldiers.

Posted by: badkittyuno at January 20, 2011 2:47 PM

Come to think of it, I should probably rewatch this movie because that is literally the only scene I remember...

Posted by: badkittyuno at January 20, 2011 2:48 PM

I think the whole movie is Verhoeven's giant in-joke. He just wants to prove to himself that he can make an audience root for the Nazis. This is also the man who made Swartboek, or WW2: mit Boobies!

Posted by: alone in the dark at January 20, 2011 3:22 PM

As ZombieScientist and DarthCorleone have both touched on, I think that the big question about the book is whether or not Heinlein wrote it as a satire.

I read it after having watched the movie, and remember being totally surprised at how serious Heinlein seemed to take the whole thing. Which is a problem because, if you take him at his word, it's a pretty repre-fucking-hensible philosophy being espoused.

Also, the book is not that great. Like a B-minus or C-plus.

The movie kicks ass, though. "IT'S AFRAAAID!!"

Posted by: Erik the Shred at January 20, 2011 3:58 PM

Michael Ironside is in this? I may have to see it now, as his presence in a movie is an automatic upgrade: he makes great movies classics (The Machinist) good movies great (Total Recall) so-so movies good (Scanners) lousy movies watchable (V: The Final Chapter) and raises infected shit to the level of mere shit (V: the series -- nothing was gonna save that one).

Posted by: Irving Washington at January 20, 2011 4:17 PM

Meh. It's not entirely repre-fucking-hensible. It's a mish-mash of good and horrific, much like our current system. It just picks a different set of black and white worldview blinders to put on.

For example, the notion of earning the right to vote by something beyond breathing for 18 years holds some appeal (especially since most people don't have a mature frontal cortex until 24-26, and far, far too many lack a basic understanding of the system). I just don't think Heinlein lays out a necessary and sufficient system for earning that right.

Plus, there's a yawning gulf between being required to earn the right to vote and deifying the State, and Heinlein skips right over that gulf without so much as a how-de-do. That's straight up original definition fascism (right-wing nationalist ideology featuring an authoritarian and hierarchical structure), not cable-news-show fascism, which means "any government we don't like."

Posted by: ZombieScientist at January 20, 2011 4:29 PM

This movie makes me want to vomit ALL over the place. I can't take the gore, particularly all the dismemberment going on. That said, when it's not making me nauseous it IS incredibly entertaining. A really sleek, funny, disturbing vision of the future.

Posted by: valerie at January 20, 2011 4:40 PM

MattFactor, I'm in complete agreement - this film is perfect Hangover Theater fodder. No need to think, just drink plenty of water and stay sprawled out on the couch, letting the craziness wash over you like a tidal wave of filth until you finally arise, refreshed in body and soul, and ready to poison that upstart liver again.

Posted by: The Wanderer at January 20, 2011 5:41 PM

i think i love zombiescientist

Posted by: idleprimate at January 20, 2011 5:53 PM

I remember a friend of mine recommending this film because of the over-the-top gore and the rampant nudity. He didn't think the message had anything deeper than the average film starring Ahhnold. However, when I watched it, I couldn't get past the subtext. Verhoeven's message (as I perceived it) was so stupid and cliched that I was totally turned off, and couldn't appreciate the movie as the simple blood and guts theater that my friend enjoyed. Basically, I hate this movie, and I hate most of the stuff Verhoeven's ever done. Maybe that makes me a philistine.

Posted by: jmag at January 20, 2011 5:57 PM

Came for the satire, stayed for the boobies.

p.s.- I love that I was just completely sucked into a comparative literature/analysis discussion like it was surprise sex.

Posted by: Formiga at January 20, 2011 6:09 PM

I still think of this movie every single time anyone says "Would you like to know more?" and I'm like yes, I do, and want to click on something.

Posted by: figgy at January 20, 2011 6:19 PM

lubeg: "we don't disagree... we differ."

Nice.
See, IMHO - Heilein isn't that concerned with "men surviving in war" as he is in crafting a world where war is the only way for men to survive.

Oh, and the bit about his father struck me as a weak coda to the book.
It's Heinlein smirking over a liberal wuss eventually seeing the light.
(your wife's dead pinko, now dance for me, puppet!)

As for his reasons for joining... sure he got all introspective later in his life. But as we agreed, dude isn't so bright - and i always read that as Rico self-aggrandizing. He was a directionless douche, and followed some tail into the service. Whatever the way he chooses to rewrite the decisions of his past, he was still a twit.

For anyone that's interested, Joe Haldeman's The Forever War is an excellent companion piece to Starship Troopers.
Where Heinlein's military can do no wrong, Haldeman's military can't do anything right.

(think - Heinlein : WWII, as Haldeman : Vietnam)

Posted by: Scott at January 20, 2011 6:35 PM

I remember seeing this for the first time when I was 14 or so. At that time it was the greatest thing I'd ever seen. I got the satire, but I still hated those damn bugs! Also Denise Richards was just absolute perfection.

I'd like to revisit the film, perhaps as a part of hungover theatre, but I'm afraid my image of it would be destroyed.

Posted by: wrevilo at January 20, 2011 6:42 PM

I am already long on the record as loving the everliving fuck out of this movie. Thank you, Guest Writer Ty Elkins, for your observations.

I have this to say about Heinlein and his "philosophy": I read quite a bit of Heinlein in my youth, because I love sci-fi and everybody said what a gee-nyuss he was. The last Heinlein I enjoyed was Have Space Suit, Will Travel. I was ten years old at the time.

He was a pretty good writer but a shit thinker. There are probably a dozen famous scifi writers of his time who did both much, much better.

I became completely disgusted with him after reading The Logic of Empire, and gave him up completely. I knew this movie was based on one of his books (which I never got around to reading), but went to the theater for the 'splodeyness and was certainly not disappointed.

What surprised me then, and delights me now, is Verhoeven's delicious, sly take on the fucking world in the movie, from Heinlein to Hollywood to politics to the generic plastic good looks of his pretty, pretty cast. You may not like his world view, but Verhoeven is just a fucking genius.

In conclusion, Clancy Brown is fiiiiine, and I've had a dark and sinister crush on Michael Ironside since the eighties; so all in all, no, you could not part me from this movie with a crowbar.

Posted by: Jerce at January 20, 2011 7:32 PM

Seen it many times, enjoyed it every time. The pacing is awesome, the graphics still hold up well, the violence is surprising but adds to the story. It's got a bit of everything, and somehow it works.

Come on you apes. You want to live forever?
- Jean Rasczak

Posted by: TrickyHD at January 20, 2011 11:05 PM

Love your review. This movie was fucking awesome. In fact all of Paul Verhoeven's films were. He was the only director who had the balls to make graphic violence satirically comical. Oh man, how I loved Robocop and Total Recall. Even Showgirls was amusing in its own way. And his latest, Black Book, that too is a great film for anyone who hasnt seen it.

Anyhow, speaking of Total Recall I remember seeing that in the theater. My mom took me on opening day when I was still too young to get in to a rated R film by myself. So were watching it, and there comes that scene where Arnold fights with his wife (played by a superfine Sharon Stone). Eventually, Arnie has her at gunpoint and then Sharon says, "You can't kill me. We're married." At that moment in the theater, some black dude stands up and shouts, "Kill the fucking bitch ass ho," and right on cue Arnie puts a bullet in her head. The entire audience bursts in to cheer.

I'll never forget that.

Posted by: Muteki at January 21, 2011 6:17 AM

Seconding idleprimate's love for zombiescientist. Also this film. Also the discussion about hilarious, ham-fisted classic sci-fi authors. I have never read Heinlein, but I do worship Asimov, the original shameless, ridiculous author self-insertion, AND a bloody genius to boot.

Posted by: monsley at January 21, 2011 6:57 AM

The only thing I remember about this movie is that I cried when the curly-haired girl died.

Posted by: caragwapa at January 21, 2011 9:50 AM

Thank you, idleprimate and monsley.

See? This is what I'm talking about. Why wasn't the use of pedantic nerditry to gain the love of people in a comment thread one of Heinlein's paths to Citizenship? I'd be all up in there, getting my Suffrage on.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at January 21, 2011 1:26 PM

Good review for a totally awesome movie, but I think it's a disservice, Ty, that you forgot to mention that probably Clancy Brown's biggest role is that he's the voice of Lex Luthor in the DC Animated Universe, laying him longer than any other actor except perhaps Michael Rosenbaum.

Posted by: Danny from Puerto Rico at January 21, 2011 5:29 PM

The first ten or minutes or so are great -- sly, satirical humor mocking the fascist turn the world had taken. Then, suddenly, the whole tone shifts and we're supposed to be rooting for said fascist turn. It's kind of bizarre.

Posted by: cinderkeys at January 24, 2011 1:09 AM