Rating: 
Summary: You'll either love it or hate it
Review: That seems to be the consensus here. A LOT of 1 star reviews and a lot of 5s. I choose to give it a 5. While it's definately not the best film I've seen, it's one of the most fun. I don't like Verhoeven as a director, but I enjoyed this film. I have read Henlein before, but not the novel on which this was loosely adapated. If you're a fan of the novel, I doubt you would like the film. This is a great popcorn movie for those that enjoy mindless violence and nudity. It makes a weak attempt at representing the social commentaries that Heinlein put forth in his novel, but it does an effective job of parodying the recruitment advertisements of the 40s. I actually thought the acting was fairly decent, even though it is filled with B movie actors. Maybe that's because the whole movie is a bit campy. In any case, it's one of my most enjoyable films to watch, and I liked it so much I bought the original disc, only to find myself having to shell out more for this SE disc two years later. However, it's worth it. The Special Edition has a few improvements over the original press. Better looking interactive menus and maybe a slightly better audio and video transfer, but not enough to really notice a difference over the original. The disc comes with two new commentaries, one with Van Dien, Harris, Verhoeven, and Meyer that is a lot of fun. Disc 2 is really the reason to upgrade your disc if you own the original. A great "Death From Above" featurette that uses crew and cast interviews to look at the making of the film. A "Know Your Foe" special that features more details of the bugs used in the film. There's an FX featurette that gives you a behind the scenes look at many of the shots. Then you have a fewer smaller featurettes, plus trailers of some other movies and the straight to video sequel: Starship Troopers 2 (which I'll probably pass on seeing). Also, 12 mins wasted however on storyboard comparisons. I wouldn't buy this DVD if you've never seen the film before. Rent it first to see if you like it, because opinions on "Starship Troopers" vary drastically. If you do enjoy it, this is a great DVD to buy, and definately worth grabbing if you have the original disc and keep being remind of the question: "would you like to know more?" Sign me up.
Rating: 
Summary: If you love Fascism
Review: This is one of the more disturbing movies I have ever seen for the simple fact that it blatantly promotes A Fascist government. Perhaps more disturbing is that people have left reviews saying that this movie has a "great message". While the action isn't bad and effects are pretty solid the totalitarian future society is highly disturbing. I was rooting for the bugs by the end.
Rating: 
Summary: Really Torn On This One
Review: Many have noted that this movie does not follow the book very well. Im not a purist and can understand most of the changes. But some are just unforgivable. The two things Verhoeven does well is modifying technology and the pace of the story. Yeah, I would like to see the Mobile Infantry (MI)drop in their individual egg shaped containers like paratroopers in power suits armed to the hilt and spaced miles apart from each other because each trooper can call forth the power of a modern day armored brigade. But that just doesnt translate well into film. Imagine how boring it would be to see Johny Rico all alone in his power suit lobbing nuke grenades at everything. And the cadence of the book would put everyone to sleep. At least half of Heinlein's novel is spent in class rooms or inside the inner thoughts of Rico. Again, snooze city! That said, I wish the basic training segments were expanded and Rico's Officer Candidate phase was not omitted. Now to the bad stuff. Verhoeven completely rapes the philosophical underpinnings of the novel. Heinlein wanted to praise the civic virtue of military service. Verhoeven mocks this with the Nazification of the humans. Ive heard him defend this by stating Heinlein in his later years essentially "mellowed out". While his late 60s and 70s novels were hippified, he still praised military service/defense of the homeland. And his final novels lost much of this liberalization. A fairly good movie....if you havent read the book!
Rating:
Summary: Completely awful
Review: No words can explain the disgrace with which this director should feel in the making of such a horrible movie. The original book was excellent, written by an extremely gifted author, Robert Heinlein. The director of this movie has seen fit to completely disrespect Mr. Heinlein by making a movie that is based on the book in title only. I watched this movie in pain and awe at its absurdity. They could have followed the book and made a science fiction movie to rival any that has ever been put out, but instead decided to mutilate this one into oblivion. The people that put this movie together should be ashamed of themselves.
Rating:
Summary: 'War makes fascists of us all.'
Review: So says Paul Verhoeven, who has said (and says again in the commentary on this DVD release) that it's one of the statements made by this morally complex film. I love listening to Verhoeven's commentaries (especially the one he does with Arnold Schwarzenegger on _Total Recall_). Here he shares the task with screenwriter Ed Neumeier, and putting the two of them together was an excellent choice. The commentary is one of the best features of the special edition. The film itself is hard to evaluate. Because it's Verhoeven, it's got sex, gore, and social satire. What it's also got -- and something that was arguably missing from the Robert A. Heinlein novel on which the film is based -- is a high level of moral complexity that doesn't divide everyone neatly into Good Guys and Bad Guys. The effect is odd, and oddly disturbing. On one hand, the film succeeds quite well as a combat shoot-'em-up in the style of the great World War II films. At that level, if we like, we can take the 'bugs' of Klendathu, playing as they do into our 'natural' loathing of insects, as a politically correct version of the sort of enemy Heinlein probably intended. On the other hand, the film also contains lots of sly references to the Third Reich, lots of little clues that suggest the 'bugs' didn't start the war, and lots of opportunities for the characters _and_ the audience to conclude that war may not be the best way to approach the problem here at issue. Okay, this latter stuff is a huge departure from Heinlein's novel, which was primarily focused on what makes military folks tick and what it means to be a responsible citizen. Heinlein's civics lesson is duly incorporated into the film, of course: a 'citizen' is one who takes personal responsibility for the safety and well-being of the body politic. But the film doesn't stop there. In fact, it incorporates elements that could have come from two other SF novels that have been read as responses to _Starship Troopers_, namely, Joe Haldeman's _The Forever War_ and Orson Scott Card's _Ender's Game_. I don't _know_ that Neumeier had either of these novels in mind, but there's an important reference to Mormons in the screenplay that in this context might suggest Card. Be that as it may, Heinlein's civics lesson is here subjected to severe scrutiny and even dark satire. That's okay by me. I regard _Starship Troopers_ as one of RAH's better novels (and as a success in its exploration of the military-man-coming-of-age mindset; I can see why military readers like it so well). Nevertheless there are problems with it that a straightforward screen adaptation wouldn't have been able to address. Neumeier and Verhoeven address those problems precisely by exaggerating them and sometimes openly ridiculing them -- while still managing to remain sensitive to the integrity of the military outlook. Such nuance may unfortunately be lost on much of the film's audience. Heinlein fans may either disapprove of Verhoeven's approach or miss it altogether; viewers who haven't read their Heinlein may not even be aware that there's an argument going on (and mistake this gorefest for nothing more than an earlier version of _Independence Day_). That's too bad, because this well-scripted, special-effects-laden film is a cinematic triumph on several levels -- only one of which is the gut-wrenching battle between humans and bugs. Verhoeven has long been clear that this film is _not_ an endorsement of either war itself or the fascistic society it tends to promote; that this isn't just obvious is a testament to Verhoeven's subtlety and, indeed, his _refusal_ to engage in 'propaganda' of the sort he satirizes. It's an odd film in the sense that, in order to like it properly, you have to dislike it. If you enjoy it too much, you're missing the point its director wanted it to make.
Rating: 
Summary: Clumsy Social Satire Falls Flat in the End
Review: Starship Troopers -- a chameleon of a movie if there ever was one. Is it a B-Grade sci-fi action flick? A story of young love? A harrowing vision of a negative utopia -- a society equating fascistic, militristic conformity with freedom and citizenship? A criticism of the xenophobic militaristic rhetoric, reducing "enemies" to mindless animals? I guess the movie is all those things. And it accomplishes many of them very well. In fact, upon repeated viewings 90% of the film can be read as a damning social critique, that is until the clumsy, poorly scripted ending unravels the social commentary, creating confusion. Is this movie really a condemnation of cultural homogenization and racism? Or is it a Boo-Ya gorefest that ultimately reinforces the notion that white, westernized human beings are the pre-ordained rulers of civilization? One thing is for sure, this movie is not simply an action flick. Like Robocop, Verhoven is attempting to explore the darker side of modern civilization, cleverly couching that commentary in a bright, color soaked, sterile world where even the horrifying results of war appear to be fake. This movie could've been brilliant, but fails to tie up loose ends necessary to the movie's impact.
Rating:
Summary: Brainless, morbid, disturbing...shall I go on?
Review: Starship Troopers is the poster child of so many of Hollywood's sewage that it produces year after year after year. In 1997, this film took the cake as a huge flop. Despite harsh criticism I heard prior to seeing it, and the warnings of others, I went ahead and saw it. I can see why some people think this is a good film: it's got all the carnal entertainment. It has pretty boys and girls, one-liners, great special effects, tons of senseless gore, cuss words, and predictable plot elements. Forget about a quality movie, with an awesome plot with likeable and original characters. Nevermind storytelling, let's just cut to the action and have people's limbs sliced and diced with plenty of blood splashing on the camera lens. Forgo intelligence, we just want guns and blood. Let's not focus on great acting, let's make it a satire that's only funny if you have a hatred for the military and/or love morbid movies. This is probably the method behind the madness of this film in the mind of the sick director who created this. What I have read from other reviewers is extremely disheartning. My, how far have we come in the human race after all? With reviewers who think this is a "fun" movie because people get ripped to shreds or a reviewer who thinks this is some kind of pop icon because it combines satire with a political message of anti-military, I would have to conclude that we've taken a step back in the long ladder of evolution or progression in being civil creatures. You're probably wondering if I'm reviewing a film or preaching ethics. Truth is, I've drawn a line and I was disappointed to find that most other reviewers did not draw a similar line as well. It's not that hard to use your common sense while watching this movie and come to the immediate conclusion "gee, this really is a sick movie." Because it is, no doubt about it. No you say? So what do you call a film that's about a bunch of mindless bugs, scurrying about on a planet(s), breaking off asteroids and smashing cities on our planet? What do you call a film where every minute is about somebody getting cut in half, beheaded, torn to shreds, stabbed, shot to pieces, burnt, and has their brains sucked out? What the hell do you call that other than demented entertainment? This film didn't try to create a realistic future, like Aliens or Blade Runner. This film didn't try to tell a story of the troopers because most of them get killed off or there's so much blood and guts no development is attempted. This film isn't even about the war with the bugs. It's about morbid entertainment while dumbing you down with propaganda about the military which is extremely corny and perverse. While watching this film, and watching all the fights with the troopers and bugs, a giant question kept filtering into my mind: where's the tanks? Surely, the director must know that modern and I imagine future military infantry is escorted by a mechanized outfit. But you can't have tanks in this film. Why you ask? Because the war wouldn't be much of a war, and there wouldn't be any troopers to get cut up. You can't have tanks or else you have no gore, or in this case the extremity of gore. In summary, the film's a waste of time. If you have any kind of moral fiber, you'll walk away from this movie disturbed at how much useless violence and how horribly acted this film really was. I suppose for some, cheap thrills and gore is all that matters in films. For serious movie watchers who want a film to remember and cherish, Starship Troopers is the opposite of films we want. I don't know, maybe I have high standards that Hollywood can't meet anymore because they're too concerned with their carnal entertainment because that's what gets people into the theaters. Satire or no satire, this film tampers with death and horrindous killings and tries to make them either fun or cool. It turns out, it just makes them corny and very disturbing because I frankly don't understand the director's blood thirst. It makes me wonder if this director, who directed Robocop (surprise, surprise), is some sort of vampire or lover of blood because that's the impression I got from this film. I'm not one that's against violence in films, only when it is excessive and brainless. I can watch a film like Saving Private Ryan because it combines death and violence with drama and it has a point. This film cuts people up as if they're onions or something, disregarding the drama in human life as if it has no meaning. I don't recommend this movie, it's an awful and pitiful excuse of film making. The acting is terrible and the gore is over done. Not to mention everything is extremely cheesy and predictable. I don't understand those who defend this film or those who continue to make it other than classify them with the old verse, "If it makes them smile, they'll consume it...even if its rotting their brain." Grade: F
Rating:
Summary: Did They Read The Book?
Review: "What was that?" My exact words after leaving the theater after sitting through Starship Troopers. I don't know if the writers actually read the book, or just pulled a few character names out and threw something together after reading the back.
Sure, if I hadn't read the book, this would have been a fine action movie, but I ruined it for myself and read Starship Troopers before seeing the movie. Whereas the book can be set alongside the same lines as "All Quiet on The Western Front," with feelings of nationalism and the "War is Hell" oddessy; the movie pretty much was Rambo with a bigger cast.
If you're looking for a decent action movie, this is it. However if you've read the book...you are in for a REAL dissapointment. If you want a less tacky "War is Hell" I'll recremend "All Quiet on The Western Front," better script...I can't say anything about the actors because I'm sure they did the best they could with the materiel they had.
Rating:
Summary: rip off of the book
Review: The nazification of Carl,the human "swarms",and the 90210 theme of the story turned a book about service and duty into an antimilitary film. John Milius would have done justice to the Heinlein story.
Rating:
Summary: "Kill them all" is not very open-minded
Review: It is in some ways a good film. The various « animals », in that case bugs, are very well animated and very realistic. If you don't like bugs, you will get a real thrill out of it. In fact they are even funny in a way. Then the film itself is a series of borrowed elements without any deep meaning at all. You will recognize some elements from Platoon, Aliens, Star Wars, even Star Trek, and many other films. But it is very representative of a « man-centered » approach of the universe : aliens are necessarily hostile and they have to be destroyed. But this film tries to be a little bit more intelligent than many other militaristic films : you have to understand their intelligence to defeat them. One step further and you may come to the idea of looking for a political solution that would lead to coexistence. This film is also a good illustration of the vanity of such an approach. In a war of that type there are not one head and slaves. This is a caricature and it may lead to catastrophes. When you get into a war with a whole people, race, species, etc, this group that sees you as the enemy, and that you see as the enemy, will be moved by their survival instinct which will lead them to a high level of autonomy and creativity. You can capture or kill the leader, or even the main leaders, that will not stop the war because it is a survival war, and everyone will be under pressure to do something for the survival of the culture, the country, the regime, the religion, you name it you have it. What do you think moved the French during World War II to resists against the Germans, to the point of liberating Paris and most of the big cities ? Many reasons but with one at the core of them all : it was the only way to prevent the anihilation of the nation, to guarantee the survival of the nation. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
| 
