Rating: 
Summary: A Great Sci-Fi Movie
Review: This movie is awesome. It has a good story line plus some of the best special effects I have ever seen. The blood and gore was top notch. I can watch this over and over again. Pick this up today.
Rating: 
Summary: ZERO star review... this movie STINKS!
Review: Starship Troopers is, plain and simple, a terrible movie. It embodies everything that makes for bad science fiction: terrible acting, a brain-dead plot, lots of weak effects shots, and a total absence of emotional impact. The supposed 'complexity' of the Nazi themes that Verhoeven tacked on to the story is a joke; this movie has all the depth of a mud puddle in Death Valley. It is clear that Heinlein's engaging story about military service and the meaning of citizenship (and yes, blowing up bugs) was either laughably mis-interpreted by Verhoeven, or so far beyond his level of reading comprehension that he just threw it away so he could make a movie about space Nazis that would showcase the D-minus grades he must have gotten in science class.Furthermore, this movie isn't even any good as a brain-dead action flick. I can appreciate movies that blow stuff up real good. But the effects here are pretty weak, the action scenes are mostly boring, and the military operations are so stupid that you will want to strangle yourself with a licorice. Apparently, in a couple hundred years land battles will consist of disorganized crowds of idiots running around aimlessly, shooting weaker weapons than we had in the 1970s. The action scenes with the bugs are pretty much a really bad ripoff of Aliens, only without the cool weapons, well-staged action, snappy one-liners, claustrophobia or genuine suspense. And the spaceships look worse than the models used in Star Trek: The Motion Picture back in 1979. I kid you not, there are probably cooler space ships made out of Leggos. The movie has no intellectual content, and in fact outright insults your intelligence. It looks less cool than sci-fi movies that are 20+ years older. The action is lame, with the only upside that you get to see lame characters you hate have their brains eaten. There is some gratuitous nudity, but Denise Richards doesn't put out in this movie, except maybe her eyebrows, so if you want smut you are better off renting 'Wild Things.' Nobody should watch this movie, except maybe to get drunk and make fun of it. But there are even better movies to do THAT with, like Evil Dead 2. -If you like smart science fiction, you will hate it because it is moronic.
-If you like Heinlein, you will hate it because about 100 IQ points got lost somewhere between the book and the big screen.
-If you like dumb science fiction, you will still hate it because the effects are lame and the action is stupid and poorly done.
-If you like just about any movie genre, you will still hate it because the acting is terrible and the story is weak.
Rating:
Summary: Grab Your Rifle and Go
Review: If you have read Robert A. Heinlein's book, you realize that this movie is not all that it could have been. For one thing, the director decided to downplay a lot of the philosophy Heinlein included in his work. For another, despite critics' opinions to the contrary, Heinlein's world in this book was not fascist. And yet the hero of the film is a lantern-jawed Aryan superman, as are many of the rest of the cast. The "special forces" look like Gestapo agents, right down to the long, black leather topcoats (Who'd have thought Doogie Howser would go Nazi?). Another crucial piece missing from the movie was Heinlein's original creation--powered armor--which he described in detail and which animé films have copied many times since. Perhaps the director was afraid of copying the original. Who knows? That said, I loved this film. It's a guy thing, I guess. This is quite possibly the most violent film I have ever seen (Under Siege 2 being the other). This stuff is GRAPHIC. You've got brains blown out, hands blown off, severings, decapitations, disembowelments--no sir, this film is not for the timid. I performed a public service on my way into the theater by telling a young mother with a three-year-old that she probably shouldn't take in her son. I had read the book, after all, and knew it wouldn't be pretty. This is a war film, don't forget. Or more properly, a war recruiting film. The director even includes a kitschy series of newsreels, which he intersperses throughout the film to show how the space war was being played to "the folks at home." All in all, I prefer the book to the film, but they are really two separate experiences. The movie is based on the novel, it is not a direct translation. If the moral of the book is, "The military can make a man out of you," the movie's moral is, "Join the infantry so you, too, can kick @$$." A subtle point, but one that was perhaps lost on the director. The book is about manliness, the film is about macho. If you don't know the difference, go watch the movie. If you do know and appreciate the difference, you'll appreciate the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Insert Tongue in Cheek
Review: The first time I watched this movie, I thought it was the worst piece of trash ever produced. It earned a Razzie for worst film of the year, jokes were made about it on the 'net, and yet all my friends thought it rocked. You almost have to be forced to watch it a second time if you hated it right away. My own experience involved a lot of guilt, a lot of beer, and a fair amount of physical restraint. Take my advice and don't write Starship Troopers off right away; nobody should have to go through that pain. It's all about having the right attitude. The cast and crew, attempting to adapt Heinlein's flag-waving, chest-thumping patriotic, story of future soldiers (Heinlein wrote it as a contribution to World War II), really *couldn't* make the movie that the novel demands. What they *could* do, however, was to make an extremely fun, light, gore-soaked piece of cinematic distraction. This is not a deep film about the horror of war, or a Full-Metal-Jacket-rip about dehumanization and depravity. It's a war movie about war movies. It's a John Wayne movie, with all its hokeyness, cheesey lines and ignored plots. The only difference is that, 40 years after the Duke's time, audiences can't take those movies seriously, and studios can't make them seriously. The acting (with a few exceptions, but not many) is terrible. And in that wasteland of talent, one face stands out: Denise Richards. Someone, please, stop this woman before she tries to be in another movie. The effects are excellent for a blood-splattering-alien movie. There are precious few special features on the DVD, but who cares? The less you know about Starship Troopers, the more you enjoy it. And let's face it: after you watch something this fun, you couldn't care less about commentaries, featurettes or production notes. Watch it with friends who worship it. Watch it with beer. Those are optional. But definitely watch it with the right attitude.
Rating: 
Summary: campy, crappy, and cataclismic
Review: This is the epitome of a special-effects driven nightmare. If there is a story, it's a very understated one, but the move is "colorful" and mildly entertaining. The FX are mind boggling, but the "feel" of th movie was too idiotic for me to give it more than 1 star, but the fact that Dina Meyer and Denise Richards were in it makes the movie watchable. Other than that, the movie was bad in my opinion.
Rating:
Summary: Great adaptation of Heinlein's fascist vision
Review: This film presents a very intelligent and original look at a plausible future society that seems somewhere between libertarian and fascist. Accusations that Verhoeven is attempting to make a fascist movie are absurd and insulting to a man who lived through the Nazi occupation of Holland. Listen to his director's commentary.
Rating:
Summary: "MEDIC!!!!"
Review: Earth is under attack by gigantic bugs from the planet Klendathu. They are hurling meteors at us from millions of miles away. It's up to our fighting men and women to battle them on their home turf before they destroy our entire planet. Uh-Oh! We sorely underestimated our enemy, causing mass casualties and destruction of our federation ships! Casper Van Dien is Johnny Ricco, up and coming super-soldier. Watch as he climbs the ranks due to the unfortunate deaths of his superiors. Jake Busey is Ace Levy, smart-alec extraordinare and Ricco's right hand man. Denise Richards is Carman Ibanez, ex-love interest of Ricco and starship pilot. Dina Meyer is Dizzy Flores, excellent infantry fighter and the one who truly loves Ricco. STARSHIP TROOPERS is an ultra-violent, purposely-over-the-top, political satire, using sci-fi as the vehicle for it's message. It's also a great monster movie! The bugs are realistic enough to cause terror. They are split into five castes or ranks. First, there are the mantis-like soldier bugs, with crushing/tearing mandibles and spiked forearms for piercing. Next are the flying bugs, capable of decapitating or impaling a victim. Then, there are the immense tank bugs (about the size of an apartment building), with the ability to shoot flaming acid from their mouths and jets of exploding plasma from their abdomens. This plasma goes into outer space and blows up many of our ships. Lastly, are the brain bugs, which have high intelligence and are heavily guarded and hidden deep underground. Ricco and the rest of the military must find a way to overcome this relentless horde of doom. ST has elements to offend just about anyone's sensibilities. It's visuals are visceral. It's agenda is sneeky, as it shows a society split into similar castes as it's insectile foe. The fascist undertones are striking, yet easily glossed over by the heroism and patriotism of the main characters. I know people who are either pro-war or anti-war. One thing they have in common, is the love they have for this movie. I highly recommend it, but pay attention to the R-rating! It is well earned...
Rating:
Summary: Not the book
Review: I first read "SST" in grade school, not so many years after the book was published. I loved the book then and love it now. But I cannot say the same of the movie. A great many Heinlein and SF devotees eagerly awaited the film based on the naive expectation that the movie would resemble the book. But the director said publicly after reading all of 40 pages, "This is not the film I want to make." Well, he should have made something else. It's regrettable that Heinlein's estate signed with Verhoeven. Apart from the near absence of the book's philosophical basis, much of the "factual" aspects are lacking: Skinnies are absent; Bugs excrete their own highspeed plasma (or something) into space; no bio-mechanicals; on & on. Despite the many lapses, this is an enjoyable film to watch. By that, I mean "To Look At." The leading characters are extremely cinematic; Denise Richards is an absolute Babe; Caspar gets girls glassy-eyed. And that's about all you can say for SST: The Movie.
Rating:
Summary: Heinlein Is Hard to Film
Review: This movie takes one of Robert A. Heinlein's books and attempts to translate it into film. This film follows the general precept of the book that mankind is in a war with a race of insect-like creatures that have various castes. As with the book the movie does not attempt to resolve the war, but does intend on providing some hope. Heinlein has been called the Dean of Science Fiction. Because of his phenomenal success he was able to write beyond the boundaries of many of his contemporaries to express his viewpoints regarding society. The novel on which this movie was based was laced with several political viewpoints as well as predicting the future of the military that we continue to see as the trend of our military today. When Heinlein wrote this novel in 1959 he tried to convey the simple concept that citizenship in the most free society on earth was taken for granted, and he thought that perhaps one way of changing the definition of citizenship was to require that it be earned. Thus Heinlein advocated that all citizens should give two years of public service. Some people have narrowly construed this service to mean military service, but in his book Heinlein clearly stated that the service was governmental service and did not specify the type of service. In any case, earning the right to vote was central to the book. That concept was minimally discussed in the movie in favor or making an action-packed military monster movie. Heinlein's future military was focused on the individual, with incredible weapons and training. Interestingly, we see that today our military continues to rely on ever-better weaponry with the individual soldier wielding ever more power and hopefully having better training as time passes. Again, the movie threw out this concept in order to make the movie move faster with multiple rescue scenarios. While Heinlein's bugs were not sympathetic, by having the bugs callously destroy a chunk of Earth real estate and the sympathetic characters enables the audience to loathe them even more. After throwing out two of Heinlein's key concepts, the result is a B science fiction movie with lots of gore and action. However, even with the traditional science fiction themes, I liked this movie. The acting is only fair, much of the movie is "golly gee whiz" and salute the flag, and the plot has more holes than cheesecloth, and for all that it is a fun and exciting movie that I've watched at least four or five times. Some of the scenes are dramatic and scary, such as when the flying bugs attack, and when the ground bugs spear people. The scenes with the tanker bugs are incredible, and I have spent too much time trying to figure out how their burning dissolving fluid works. There are places in the movie that are likely implausible, and yet, maybe not. When Carmen Ibanez (Denise Richards) pilots a huge spaceship out of dock she does it by eye and barely keeps from damaging the ship and the dock. Clearly not standard operating procedure, and had the ship been damaged she would have been fried (or should have) by her boss. However, she is cocky and overconfident and takes responsibility and authority, all traits that we try to cultivate in our military within the framework of standard military discipline. So perhaps parts are a bit far-fetched, but maybe not too far-fetched. One aspect that I think Heinlein would have approved is the brutality of military training. People have broken bones, pain and suffering, just as they would in actual combat, though situations that cause death are clearly unacceptable. While the scenes of injury in training are initially shocking, clearly medical technology has the capability of repairing such injuries, and being capable of handling the shock of seeing those injuries or withstanding them could give a soldier a combat advantage in the field; gruesome, but effective scenes. The film was intended to be shocking, and it succeeds. This movie is not for children. I would not let anyone under the age of 14 watch this movie, even though there are a few video games with similar levels of violence. However, I think the movie is too violent for even young teenagers, and it deserves its "R" rating. There are a few scenes involving nudity and one involving sex that again may be shocking, but given the equality of men and women in this army of the future, the scenes make sense. I've read the book and I still like the movie. This movie is not going to win any awards, but who cares? I think this is a great bowl of popcorn movie action film where you can relieve some stress as thousands of bugs are gruesomely terminated. There are times when you really want to root for the human race, and this one allows you to do so without guilt.
Rating: 
Summary: We Want You To Join The Fight Agianst Bugs
Review: This movie is like army propaganda, and the story dosen't really anwser alot of your questions about the movie, but if you like things ripping people to shreddes, then your like this.
|
