Most of us know from childhood that "Star Troopers" is a film about the war with bugs. You actually need to dig deep to know the full picture. The film is based on the novel of the same name by Robert Heinlein (1959) and, as often happens, the book does not match. The book discussed serious issues, in many ways it was a political treatise by Heinlein, who argued with the Declaration of Independence itself (which is holier than the Bible for Americans). In particular, the author advocated a militaristic regime and believed that civil rights should not belong to everyone, but to those who deserved them in the army. Heinlein himself had a military career and was turned on the subject (apparently had a military syndrome). His novel was repeatedly condemned for promoting the ideas of fascism. Now back to the movie. Almost everything was changed in it, but it was not possible to hide the main thing - the fascist essence. The Americans, as they tend to do, fly to crush another nation, as they did in Vietnam and Iraq. Note that they are not using massive bombardments for this war, which could easily solve the problem, they are saying plainly: we need resources here, so we are sending soldiers. They have an excuse to say, "Who started first?" It was the insidious bugs that dropped an asteroid on us. A planet on the other side of the galaxy... In the Internet, I found a wonderful comment, in which the enthusiast calculated, taking the distance to the planet for 80,000 light years and taking the approximate speed of the asteroid relative to the ships, and he found that the asteroid flies at a speed of half that of sound (not light), and to the Earth he would get 83 billion years. That is, the fascist earth government blamed the blame on the scapegoat, wanting to raise ratings for itself and the army, and at the same time profiting from resources. They probably caused the disaster themselves. It sounds like a prophecy about September 11th. And all this could be a good political satire and an anti-war manifesto, you know, look how filthy that is. Also, the soldiers were thrown with meat, without cover with equipment and aviation, underestimating the enemy, and then burrowed into propaganda. But alas. The whole emotional message of the film is built so that both the author and the viewer are no longer for bugs. In the end, the film shines with a message: "Burn the planets, earning yourself American citizenship." Incredibly, this is how things are in the real American army, where only mercenaries, including emigrants, serve in order to become legal from the illegal to obtain citizenship. So I hate this film as a quality and probably working militarist manifesto. It literally ends with an army commercial, albeit fantastic, but everyone understands everything. This is especially true for children – yes, I remember my impressions. As a child, I didn’t think there was anything wrong with people’s actions. It is possible that the film was made on state order, and if not, it is an unconscious expression of fascist ideas. Some argue that the film allegedly has a double bottom, and the director himself is a staunch supporter of peace, and everything was filmed specifically to test the reaction: will the viewer follow fascism or not? What if I did?? When an author has some strict moral convictions in favor of one position, he usually does not try so hard to create an agitation in favor of the opposite. Besides, I don't like the love lines. A girl takes care of one guy so much that after him she went to the army, fights for him, she offers him a bed and dies with the words "You finally become mine." He needs to check if he's pregnant after that. Don’t understand that the woman left him, found another, in the end she loves them both.
I read Heinlein’s Star Troops and then revised the film of the same name. Verhovena.
It immediately catches the eye that Heinlein served in the army: the description of army life, relationships in the team, the attitude to girls he has there corresponds to any military service. He writes interestingly, but he is such a warrior who adheres to the thoughtless view of bombing everyone, capturing everyone, etc.
Verhoeven's film has a vague relation to the book. He'll ridicule all the thorny military. If Heinlein's landing does not abandon his, then Verhoeven's she not only throws, but if possible finishes so that they do not suffer. In the book, the generals do not resign and remain as colonels (receiving a lower salary), a sense of duty that prevents them from doing so while the war is going on. In the cinema, at Verhoeven, the general hides cowardly in the closet.
The attitude to the girls, which I wrote above, in the book is such that landings on starships, piloted mainly by girls, very rarely intersect with them and are very happy to get into the outfit at the commander's bridge to take a fleeting look at the girl. During the landing, they are pleased to hear good luck wishes from the girl of the descent operator.
At the same time, Verhoeven in the landing of girls on a par with the peasants, not only on combat training and combat exits, but also take a shower together.
In short, Verhoeven trolled Heinlein as soon as he could.
Closing Verhoeven's filmography, he finally got to his cult work and was generally satisfied. A caustic, ironic, spectacular film that not so much parodies the totalitarian Hitler regime as spits in the face of the media and the mass media as a whole, as well as “coking” with zombified youth.
It just so happened that I arranged a film screening for myself at the right time. To put it mildly. Actualochka arrived, and I once again understand that Paul hits at a long distance no worse than the fact of release. Fascinating motley "Kench" turned out as a result: there is a place for black comedy, and melodrama, and action movie, and sci-fi. The adaptation of Heinlein’s novel directed by Paul Verhoeven is another satire of jingoism and condemnation of militaristic propaganda. Political and social speech about the washing of weak minds a la “On the Western front without change”, only in the setting of cosmo-action. Minimizing the exposition scenes, as well as leaving us with an open ending on the final credits, the picture does not put an end, but only suggests food for the mind on the topic of imperialism and the genocide of mankind.
Acting jobs are nice. It was unexpected to see petty Neil Patrick Harris. Van Ding did well, pulled the blanket over himself. Most screen time is in his hands. Meyer and Richards are great supporting characters fighting for a place in the protagonist's heart. The chemistry is there, and it works great. Busey is a typical Kent who came straight from Jackson’s Scarecrow. I rarely see him on screen. We need to fill in the gaps. The camera work and editing are normal, pleasant film images, but the visuals have “tired up” over time. Post-production and sound design at the level.
“Star landing” still makes fun of advertising, which began in the “Robocop” of the same Verhoeven, shows the “fact” of the whole “politot” and “vat”, and also reminds that no matter what high-tech society you are, it is unlikely that you will be able to oppose something sane living primitive force. Paul has everything, as always: it seems, tries on serious bells, but in each scene you feel the desire to sneer and giggle.
7 out of 10
I first watched Starship Troops when I was about 10 years old. Years later I decided to refresh his memory. I will say that this is definitely one of the best works of Paul Verhoeven. Here, literally every scene, every frame gives the signature handwriting of the director, for which we love him. Starship Troops is primarily a satire. And critics who accuse the picture of propaganda, in my opinion, simply did not catch the irony, by the way, very undisguised, Verhoeven. In some places, it's very pretentious. But this is the case when this very pathos looks absolutely appropriate.
Technically, the Starship Trooper is perfect. The visual effects are just amazing. And even now, 26 years after the movie came out, they don't look outdated at all. This is undoubtedly the most spectacular film in the director’s career. I will also note the quality of the operator and sound engineer.
You can not ignore the play of actors. I was very happy with Michael Ironside. Young Casper Van Dean, Dina Meyer, Denise Richards, Jake Busey and Neil Patrick Harris look organically in the image of their heroes. The audience award is given to the charismatic Clancy Brown, who played a bright and memorable role. It's a great touch. I really enjoyed watching the movie
I finally got my hands on writing a review of one of my favorite movies, which I first watched on a VHS tape, in the late nineties. Recently, once again, I reviewed this masterpiece, and experienced exactly the same impressions as from the first viewing.
Ever since I was a child, I have always loved pictures of mass battles. It doesn’t matter whether it’s historical movies or fiction like Star Wars. This picture shows us a war between humans and a race of intelligent bugs, from a distant planet. The action takes place in the near future, and from the technical side, this very future is shown very effectively. Now that I am in my late 30s, I can see that in addition to the special effects in the film, there is also a deep social subtext, which is perfectly conveyed in moments where people are given citizenship in exchange for military service.
But when I first saw this movie, I was just a kid, and for me the main thing was special effects. My classmates and I often discussed Terminator, Robocop and other cyborg films, so the topic of war in space against alien monsters was also very appropriate. Especially since “Star Troops” was directed by Paul Verhoeven, the director of such amazing works as the already mentioned “Robocop”, as well as “Remember Everything”, “Basic Instinct” and other Oscar-winning works. At the time, it didn’t matter to us.
It is not difficult to guess, for us then the key was special effects. The film will give a head start to almost any other filmed at the time. The quality of computer graphics even now is a delight, not to mention the distant time. Scenes of mass battles with huge bugs still flash in my memory, and cause puppy delight when watching this film again.
In addition to the special effects, there is also a very good scenario. I know that the film is based on the book of the same name, but I have not read the work itself. Although even if the events are different from those described there, I am completely satisfied with what is happening in the picture. The story of a group of friends who are forced to separate and go on different paths, but as it turns out, to the same goal, cannot but fall into the soul. The stronger the emotions and feelings for the main, and not only, characters. I would also like to note the acting, which may or may not count on the Oscars, because in some places it looks theatrical, but for such films it is just right. It is thanks to the actors, their characters look so alive and colorful.
I also liked the camera work. The scenes, which are made in the form of short social videos, perfectly fit into the atmosphere of the film. And in general, all the moments look quite spectacular, there are practically no unsuccessful camera angles. Here I will add a wonderful musical accompaniment, which creates a very strong atmosphere, so that the film looks not just like an ordinary fantastic action movie, but as a serious work.
Here I note that the film, although it is an action movie, but it also contains elements of drama and even a thriller. After all, not all the heroes will live to the end, and this makes you not just experience every death, but, together with the heroes, hate monsters with all your heart. And also, the picture does not look like a movie about superheroes, on the contrary, we see how easily and often the characters die, which does not allow you to relax until the very end.
Perhaps my review looks too enthusiastic or biased, but I honestly can’t find any drawbacks in the film. After all, even now, in our age of high technology and the most powerful computer special effects, "Star landing", shot in 1997, looks not worse, but something even better than modern paintings. Is this not a quality indicator?
Badly concealing the joy of the Negro in the Nazi uniform beats the white Aryan handsome with a whip, and this is called an “administrative penalty”! If after that you tell me that Verhoeven shot a one-dimensional stamped action movie for the amusement of the popcorn audience, then we watched different "Star landings".
Because my Starship Troops is a witty, mocking, prophetic film that has as little appetite for puberty as it does for Heinlein’s book.
Perhaps Verhoeven, like many geniuses, was ahead of his time, and the audience with critics did not keep up with him. Many of the works of the master from the mid-90s remained misunderstood, and the most probably underestimated was the “Star landing”! On the creators of the film fell a barrage of criticism: fans of Heinlein shouted that, they say, where is the book? Film critics cried out: what does this Dutch hum allow himself? What is this, excuse me, for neo-Nazism? The audience was puzzled: it seems fascinating, but too stupid.
“Star landing” requires mental effort and the easiest way to take it as a stupid action movie about fighters with alien bugs. But it's not Bay, it's not Emmerich, it's Verhoeven, guys. Do you really think that he could shoot a regular tramp-shooter? Really? The man who turned the cyborg story into a philosophical satirical statement in Robocop? Filmed a unique, still not really solved quest "Remember all"? The creator of Basic Instinct, one of the most fascinating and true Hitchcock thrillers of the 90s? What is wrong with you?
It is known that the book Heinlein Verhoeven not only did not admire, it pissed him off. Therefore, fans of the writer can be understood. Verhoeven not only didn't make the movie from the book, he turned everything inside out. Being a man of leftist views, he took up the militaristic book of American patriotic science fiction and turned it into his own statement, all the pros of Heinlein became Verkhovna Rada 'against', the entire philosophy of the writer was ruthlessly distorted. Verhoeven was attracted only by the plot, so, of course, there is no Heinlein in the film. This is like judging Brooks’s Young Frankenstein by Mary Shelley’s book.
Not bound by the need to make a screen adaptation, Verhoeven shot a tape full of sardonic humor and satirical statements, which only a very infantile and naive viewer will take at face value.
The reason for this misunderstanding, in my opinion, lies in the time of the release of the film. Verhoeven mocked America’s imperialist ways, the Cold War, militarism, excessive patriotism, and the outright fascism that these “isms” ultimately lead to. After all, it was from such that “become a citizen”, “be useful to your country” that McCarthyism, Yezhovism, gulags and Auschwitz were born. And this did not fall on the viewer in the late 90s. The spectator, still clearly aware of where the enemy is, was not prepared to laugh at himself and think about where the innocuous patriotic slogans lead. What the hell is fascism? The viewer, who took at face value what political leaders had sucked into their ears, was not ready to accept life-giving satire and understand the subtleties of lies and truth. The audience needed entertainment and Independence Day. On the other hand, Verhoeven himself is to blame. Where it's thin, it breaks. And the mockery of the Dutch pamphletist is sometimes so subtle and so similar to what we really see in the movies that the line between parody and the object of parody sometimes blurs. An unprepared viewer can sit in a puddle, which he did en masse in the year of the release of “Destination”. A good measure here is literature. If you have read and correctly understood 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Doomed City, We, you will never be able to perceive Star Troops as a dull urine.
By the way, if I'm talking about America ridiculed by Verhoeven, don't think it's all there, far away. The film is so good that it fits perfectly at any time and place. USSR? All right! Today's Russia? Very much. Have you seen the advertisement calling for Rosgvardia? Have you seen the reports about the military conflicts with Ukraine or Georgia, how it was presented? Do you listen to TV agitators? Yes, we still have a military card in our country - one of the most important documents! Verhoeven got so caught up in the bull’s eye with his alien beetles that you can put anyone in their place. As in the place of brave, patriotic and brutally stupid soldiers. They are the same in all countries at all times.
Thus, Verhoeven’s fantasy, full of absolutely dazzling fascist demagogy, rises to global philosophical generalizations. Naturally, the demagoguery there is intentional, and the hordes of beetles are nothing more than some invisible, numerous enemy who is somewhere and someday will surely attack us. So, be ready! Always ready!
Naturally, with this approach, Verhoeven did not need too talented actors. They'd ruin this movie. Imagine, for example, John Cusack with his depth, irony, intelligence. That's it. The role of citizen dubolom has failed. Cusack would simply not be organically empty.
And Casper Van Ding, for whom the role was the pinnacle of his career, could! Because I didn't know for a second that I was playing. Any good parody should be played seriously, then the ridicule of the author will be clearer. Only there are actors who do it intentionally, and there is Kasper Van Dean, who played the usual role of a bright-eyed, beautiful hero named John with a head not spoiled by convolutions. Not even realizing that in his image Verhoeven broadcasts an idiot raised in Hitler-youth. The rest of us can match him. But more interesting in this crowd Neil Patrick Harris not in vain got the role of an intelligence officer, his inner banter over what is happening just in the topic. And when he goes in Gestapo uniform to look at the caught "headed slug" - it's ridiculous! Evil and funny.
Verhoeven's film is all evil. After it, you feel disgust not with bugs, but with people who are stupid and obedient (who are brainwashed - what a cool metaphor!), with ideology - and anyone, with power, with war and violence in any form, with all manifestations of fascism, which often mimics with terry patriotism. This hatred is what Verhoeven most likely wanted. And it worked for me too.
Does the film just work as fiction and action movie? Yes! The special effects are still good, and in 1997 they were absolutely stunning. Many bright, memorable bloody scenes and scenes, risking to argue their scope with the battle scenes of the best war films. At the end of the day, it’s just a fascinating and vibrant adventure movie. But don't forget that it's just a wrapper. Would anyone eat a wrapper without candy? Without it, "Star Troops" is just good action, and with it - one of the most cynical, intelligent, prophetic, talented and culturally important films of the 90s.
10 out of 10
An old VCR cassette pack. It has the face of a screaming man on it. No main character, no secondary characters. Only a screaming man, and under him some futuristic spaceship burns a flamethrower crowd of some creatures. And above all this, the name of the film is a font, originally from the seventies.
Intriguing?
One thing is for sure - as a child, the cover of this tape really intrigued me. And although in the film I did not see the red helmets, as on the screaming man from the cover, and dive Roger Young, watering aggressive aliens with fire, the film made a very vivid impression on me. Probably one of the brightest in my entire life. Maybe I even went to the army because of this movie!
If we talk about dramaturgy, then everything is typical - a mischievous young man who recently graduated from school becomes a brutal and strict officer of the space landing. The classic history of the formation of personality. But let’s take a look at the wrapper in which Paul Verhoeven wrapped this story: yes, this is a real agitprop!
And even though Verhoeven said in his numerous interviews that he was so mocking the American military, I was able to see this “message” only after reading the opinion of the director himself. Up until then, I thought of the film as a war story. The story that humanity has faced a formidable enemy, that people are undergoing severe trials, but they will win, they are doomed to victory. It doesn't matter why: it's because of a new weapon, an army of soldiers with supernatural abilities, or just because of John Rico. People will win because they are human. And that's it.
A simple and simple message. So why do you have to be wise?
Only after many years I read about Verhoeven’s plan to dress up officers in Nazi uniforms, to show the stupidity of the attack on Klendata and so on. It's like an anti-war movie. But it happened many years after the first view of the film.
And most importantly, it did not affect my perception of the tape! In those seconds before the credits, when the voiceover tells me what soldiers the Federation needs, I myself want to pick up Morita's rifle and go chopping bugs! I don't care what soldiers of incompetence lead! I don't care if they're fascists! The soldiers will go into battle anyway, and they will win!
One of the coolest epic action films in history. I've been revisiting a lot of old-school titans of the genre lately. Even the masterpiece Terminators and Matrixes look a little naive with age. It's a teenage genre, no matter what. But Starship Troopers is the opposite: as a child, he loaded me up and left me feeling a little depressed, and now it is difficult to find words to describe this miracle. Perhaps that’s why it failed – the film is too brutal and cool for a simple box office action movie. Here is the division into 2 halves - 1 part is a melodrama about students, and the 2nd - a fierce mess under a hellish-heroic symphony. Such an aesthetic slaughter I especially do not remember anywhere else, except for the anime Halsing Ultimait.
The young actors did a great job. The love triangle, the loss, the reunion - all this without snot, very tragic and natural. War dispels the illusions of young boys, their selfish game of love is nothing compared to the mystical ritual of death, when in battle only a ghostly line separates you from eternity.
A serious disadvantage is the design of the army of the future. A very strange solution in the form of a gray aesthetic. For such a super-project could draw and more unique armor. Plus, in such a war, it would be logical to keep on the front lines ' knights' in exoskeletons, and not light infantry, which claws cut like oil. But this is more of a blubber, realism here in the 20th place.
The script is a bit lame, and here is a bit of an absurd ending. But in general, this is not about the plot, this is about the slaughter. The naturalistic murder scenes are some of the best in war cinema. The design of the insects is very solid, but could again draw better. But the scene of the landing on Klendata is of course the absolute top.
The visual is absolutely crazy, the film looks cooler than modern. This is the coolest military drama that has influenced dozens of films and games. I hope to restart the franchise as this project deserves another chance.
It's a very amazing movie. I’m probably revisiting it for the fourth or fifth time, and it’s been a few years since I last watched it, and I’m very shocked that I’ve missed a lot because of my youth. Watching it now - literally twenty minutes ago the credits were going - I watched it from a new angle ... from an adult angle or something. And yes, I would like to note that the film is really a lot of jambs in the plot, in terms of staging and much more, but for some reason, while watching this movie, I was able to experience all my arsenal of emotions that is available to me. I laughed in places where it was required; I empathized when a character died in my arms (not a statist, but one of the main characters of some); I was angry when one of the characters behaved like an idiot; I covered my face with my hand when the protagonist was carrying some nonsense, and so on. Yes, I am sure that many people may not experience anything when watching this film - you do not think that this is a revolutionary movie - but a very good action movie of the nineties ... well, it can even be cited as an example of most modern action films. . .
For its years, the film has a very nice picture (I mean the scene in the shower, aha). Yes, in some places the graphics are very striking, but mostly the action is quite pleasant. Of course, for the modern viewer - in particular, very young - the appearance of the picture is not very useful, but for the generations of the 90s and 00s - quite acceptable, and somewhere even pleasant, as I said earlier.
No one is going to talk about a touching story and a strong plot here - just not quite typical for militants of those years. And the rest, it's pretty banal and predictable. There is, of course, a deep meaning or satire hidden somewhere, but they never opened up to me. Maybe someone's luckier.
8 out of 10
But that's not entirely fair. The first Terminator received the same rating, which, in turn, is higher in many ways. But, unfortunately, at the Kinopoisk it is not possible to put a rating of 7.5/10 as I wanted, and what would better reflect my attitude towards it, but to put a 7-ka would be a crime for me, so I, covering my eyes with my hand, put the picture slightly undeserved 8-ka. So be it.
A great film from Paul Verhoeven, which, by the way, I personally do not remember bad films at all, looks in one breath, the only thing I did not like is the weapon, the third millennium, and the machines are not good anywhere, and so the film was successful. . .
I love this movie and have watched it countless times. Great actors, great spider bugs, uniforms. Yes, it is clear that Verhoeven filmed a cartoon, mocking the book, it is clear what he wanted to say in opposition to Heinlein - everything is clear, but it turned out a very interesting movie. Excellent Sergeant Zim – Clancy Brown created the image of the sergeant, not inferior to the image created by Lee Ermey in “All Metal Shell”. Steb, you say? If the enemy’s hand is nailed to the wall with a knife, he will not press the nuclear button.
Pilot Carmen Ibáñez - I alone think this is the only movie where Denise Richards really plays someone who doesn't look like Denise Richards? Well, a little, a little? Yes, this, again, is not a book Carmen, but it is absolutely mind-blowing Carmen!
No less beautiful is Dina Meyer as Dizzy, and this is despite the fact that Flores is actually a paratrooper who died at the very beginning of the book.
A very successful cinematic move is to gather Lieutenant Colonel Dubois and Lieutenant Rasjac into one character, animated and even spiritualized by Michael Ironside.
John Rico. In this film, the exemplary John Rico, not very bookish, if not very bookish, but here, in my opinion, the cinematic image was stronger than the book. Re-reading the book, I see the hero Kasper Van Dean in this character Heinlein.
Yes, the plot is full of absurdities, as it is counter-propaganda and ridicule of the ideas of the book. But, sorry, dear Paul Verhoeven, but Heinlein’s ideas are too well worked out to defeat them by simple ridicule, and what came out as a film is just great fiction with charismatic, beautiful, bright characters, with stylish uniforms and armor – yes, I know that it’s all stylized, good and spaceships, and fortresses made of some tin, and landing bots.
There are two downsides to the film - the first and most terrible is the sequels. But you don't have to watch them. The second is a stupid flag with an eagle plane. The flag is awful. And not to notice it, you have to ignore.
In childhood, and perhaps even in youth, the picture pleased the eye without any complaints. Excellent graphics, which not only decently drew bugs, but also diversified their appearance. Also struck the imagination of the space entourage and almost non-stop action. Shooting was so much that it became frankly spit on the complete absence of even the rudiments of strategy. The mouth is pathetically skewed and full forward.
At that time, he did not pay much attention to the presented state system. But the revision provided food for thought. To become a full-fledged citizen, you need to pay homage to the Motherland - without a military officer, you are also quite a suspicious person, of second-rate quality at any state job. All this pathetic, pathetic, prone to speeches and slogans, militarism for peace. All this gives a propaganda sweetness, so obvious that the idea creeps in that the bugs have become just another victim of bloodthirsty humanity.
All right, politics off. What struck me, right to the core, is the positive attitude of the main character. Joyfulness conquered every grief, and instantly. Judge for yourself - the hometown was bombed, the parents died, but it is literally restored in a minute in the service and mouth to ears. No sadness. His friends die, but he's impenetrable, so he'll give a speech and forget. The emotional range is so narrow that it becomes enviable.
As for acting, there are clearly no revelations, but they were not required. Van Ding was in the shoes of an elderly student, then transformed into a brave soldier. This transformation was painless, only the smile became wider. I was pleased with the female composition, very bright girls.
The film will be recommended for viewing, because any shortcomings absolutely do not care, and try to notice them through this hurricane action, the picture is iconic, because it served as a cinematic decoration for a whole generation of viewers.
It is social dystopia, not science fiction. In my opinion, the film did not pretend to be science fiction from the beginning, so I will not dwell on things like fire in space, the same Earth atmospheres on all planets and other achievements of cinematic Einstein. Spaceplanes and beetles are more of a decoration (in general, very good for its time).
But the social part is worth stopping because it is very interesting.
Usually, the genre of dystopia assumes that there is some evil system that realizes the worst human qualities and makes them absurd, and there are fighters against this system who either defeat it, in the case of a happy ending, or break down and become part of it.
The uniqueness of this film is that we are shown only a system, and we are not told it is bad or good, moreover, the viewer is invited to become part of this system. The fantasticity of the film is that the system shown in it comes out of the TV screens into the real world - the film not only entertains the viewer, but it trolls the viewer, it provokes the viewer, it allows the viewer to be inside this system and decide for himself whether to be part of it or not, without giving absolutely any clues who is good and who is bad. This can also explain some of the plot holes within the film universe, not only associated with scientific facts (like, could you immediately bring democracy to bomb everyone?). I suppose that many of these holes were made on purpose about the same as in our real world there are legal holes that look illogical from the outside, but nevertheless somehow continue to exist for a long time.
Of course, after reading the articles / reviews, and watching the film, it will immediately become clear what is what, I think that you will not have to puzzle for a long time over where the mystery is here. Because of this, you can recklessly think that all this remained somewhere in the middle of the XX century, and the modern civilized man is not brainwashed by this, but I remember watching this film at 9 years old and after that, happily swallowing the bait, enthusiastically played in the murder of bugs ... This is a film that will not hurt 18+.
Already for the idea of such a brilliant trolling viewer
I’m probably the only one who thinks this film isn’t so great. Favorite brainchild of Americans 80-90-ies - in the beginning, followed by commercials, just inserts from newscasts, where the viewer learns about the threat to humanity and the division of the Star landing. Paul Verhoeven also started “Robocop” and “Invisible Man”, to see the cliché of the director.
This film is not so much the epic brainchild of the battle of soldiers with huge beetles, as samples of new special effects in cinema. It's a question of mentality. The film is based on a book by an American writer. Adaptation of the book, not direct translation. This will be a masterpiece for them. But the Russian viewer sees only propaganda, a return to a totalitarian regime and excessive, pretentious patriotism. The overall message, as always, is clear - Americans are saving the world. Everyone is used to it, but for some reason in the “Independence Day” was not such an emphasis on the country, and “Star landing” directly says that the necessary training, brutality, discipline, and then America will save the world.
The rest of the film looks good. Essentially, we are shown characters who are trained in a cadet school to later join a paratrooper unit. They present enemies as beetles with huge claws tear people apart, as fighters enter into battle. Yes, patriotism plays a key role here. But there are silly episodes, some deaths look so ridiculous that you realize that it is necessary only for spectacle, for action, and logic does not matter. Maybe that's what everyone wanted before: more blood, more dismemberment, more paratrooper deaths, but as you get older, you get dumb soldiers.
Well put characters in the rear. On the basis of the Starship, a conflict looms on the basis of female attention. Casper Van Ding liked it on the screen, but Dina Meyer did not cause any feelings. A bit of romance between the characters will never hurt to show a dramatic moment at the end. If Dina was more remembered by the audience, if we penetrated her, then the drama would be a success, and you just don’t care.
“Star landing” is a standard of paintings about the confrontation of people and aliens, but there is enough stupidity here. You believe the message, you understand what the Earthlings are fighting for, but their methods are not very impressive. As a speaker and adrenaline, good. The finale of the picture is not without victims came out as you expect. Especially well Verhoeven put forward internal conflicts of soldiers on the battlefield, although some details were predictable, but it was obvious.
For a new look at the picture, one can judge that it has lost its former glory. More detail seems superfluous, and the episodes are silly, I don’t like beetle battles, when soldiers rush into battle under a militant cry, and the special effects resemble Jabba Hutt from Star Wars, but it’s a classic, so it’s worth taking the one that is. In fact, it seems like a remake is being prepared.
There is such a discipline: the history of cinema. Paul Verhoeven's film is like a quasi-scientific study of war films. And the report on this study is written in the form of an average war film. He reminded me most of Wilsmeier’s film, made four years earlier: because of the abundance of torn human limbs, the Nazi uniforms of soldiers, and the scene in the hospital where Denise Richards “looks in.” Not to mention the fact that the main character is also a naive blonde who believes in the Federation.
And then the director lists all the necessary elements of a box office, or “honest” war film: the friendship of soldiers, unhappy love, duty, a harsh mentor who dies, a cowardly general whom soldiers shame, epic battle scenes, etc.
Verhoeven added a new element to his film: press and propaganda. They're kind of above everything. In Stalingrad, Otto angrily turns off the radio broadcasting Hitler. But in Desante, all the news is conveyed in the form of a "teaser," a short, gripping exposition, at the end of which the question is, "Do you want to know more?" And the person has the illusion that this is his choice: yes, I will press the button and turn it on; I choose whether I can brainwash or not.
In the world of the future, a project called "war" will get much more professional managers who make sure everything goes smoothly. The warship even has a tattoo studio and, of course, is full of alcohol.
The film is somehow unstressed, somehow everything goes easily, as if you read Tolstoy: no exotic in the plot, but also not boring.
But Verhoeven still introduces a more “honest” truth about the war. For example, talent and zeal are important, but sleeping with your mentor is easier, and most importantly faster. My career is in your hands. “Do you know what I want for this?” (My English translation) Well, do you understand? A forced measure for career development. . .
Next. A friend died because of you during the training? But you "wanted to win"! And the country calls. In general, this is it, the army career according to Verhoeven. And so in the end, they take the places of their fallen mentors, places on this conveyor belt of war and military quarries. And they already have a different face than at the beginning of the film, the expression is furious and heroic. Even in "Stalingrad" the main characters managed to freeze, not falling down completely.
No sooner did the fame of the acclaimed "Independence Day" cool down, as a year later a new film about the confrontation between humanity and aliens - "Star Troopers" appears. For the shooting was responsible Paul Verhoeven, who by that time had already shown himself as a master of the production of fiction on the example of the incomparable "Remember everything". However, his views expressed in the "Star landing", greatly spoil the view of him as a person.
It seems that the director has been accumulating a certain resentment for years, the reasons for which we will remain unknown. In 1997, when the world was already alarmed by the coming third millennium, he released a film with a completely dystopian future dominated by totalitarianism. And if we talk about purity, then undisguised fierce fascism, aimed at both individual layers of people and aliens, who here are not xenomorphs or octopoids, but giant arthropods, which for some reason are called either arachnids or beetles, although they do not resemble either the first or the second. Let's kill them! Kill them all! - all major events take place under these cries.
The frankness with which Verhoeven expresses his hatred of offenders in the guise of aliens cannot but be surprising. There is no question of patriotism or honor here – everything in this world of the future is designed to wage a cosmic war. The resulting feelings of oppression and longing only brighten up episodes with the murder of soldiers and a couple of erotic scenes, which even have their own morality. Namely, you can't breathe before you die. You will still be sent to death, to the claws and claws of monsters.
From the actors, you can nod approvingly towards Deena Meyer and, perhaps, Michael Ironside. The rest leave much to be desired. This applies to Casper Van Dean, who in those years was just beginning to cultivate the ability of the actor, and Denise Richards, which even taking into account the requirements of the audience looks too vulgar. Some actors with secondary roles clearly did not like their images, as well as the project in which they participated.
This film by Paul Verhoeven is an indicator of what the world should not be in the distant (and not only) future. Even if we assume that the director wanted to scare the audience, it still does not remove charges from him. The only thing that deserves the highest praise here is the alien design. Artists and creators of visual effects really tried their best. But from a low rating the film does not save.
“Star Troops” is the creation of Paul Verhoeven, which already says a lot. Verhoeven is a master of emotions, not afraid to openly show both reality and fiction in the cinema.
Before us is a fantastic action movie with elements of black humor. The film tells about saving the Earth from the invasion of the beetle race. The main role in this film is played by Casper Van Dien, an actor notable for television projects and low-budget films. In addition to the youth component, the director once again hired the charming Michael Ironside.
Special effects are top class! Beetles are thought out to the smallest detail, the shooting is spectacular. Very frankly and spectacularly shown the wounds of soldiers.
The director’s love for the rhythmic symphonic music of the genius Basil Poleduris is traced.
As you would expect from Verhoeven, there is not a single hint of the United States’ dominant role in the world. Not a word about the United States. One of the spacecraft is named after Valentina Tereshkova. The names of the people in the film are mostly European. Ultimately, the picture points directly to the rotten imperialism of some major economy of the world, woe to those on the other side of the political map.
God, this will be more terrifying than all the beetles combined.
Star landing
There are movies that make you feel good, but love doesn’t. A prime example. I respect Verhoeven. He's a really cool director. He's a true master of his craft. Hard and brutal artist. He had an interesting path in cinema, with his hand on his heart. I still can't love Starship Troopers.
A good fantasy action movie (about smart bugs) for once or twice. That's it, period. The '90s was cool, school days. I was looking at it with different eyes. My emotions are too sluggish. Nobody is sorry, although in the second half Verhoeven begins to throw into the camera torn arms and legs. Why did that happen? I can't really say (there is an option - actors and original work).
Even if you take the ending, it feels like Verhoeven has bluntly cut it off. All right, let's close, let's get credits, everybody join the army. The commercial is over. What? No offense to me, but Paul is capable of more. I love Robocop. I like "remember everything." It makes a big difference to me. Of course, there were worse movies, but to call Star Troops Paul’s best movie, sorry, we’re not going to sign up for that.
The actors liked Ironside. Except he plays for 15-20 minutes. His charisma is great. The same cannot be said about the main characters. Casper is cute. Richards is pretty. This is kindergarten, a boy loves one girl, this girl does not love anyone, but another girl loves the boy. I don't believe in your feelings, I don't care, I came to see a brutal director.
Bugs? Thank you very much (especially the coolest one). Thanks to the bugs, I colored the review green. Graphics level. A real breakthrough, the film is 20 years old, can easily be shoved into theaters with modern fiction. Well, the scenes in space are a little outdated, but in general - it looks spectacular.
I'm being totally subjective. In the top five of Paul Verhoeven’s best films, this movie won’t make it. But the top ten, of course. It's estimated to be about seven. The picture has several sequels (including cartoons), but they all lose to the original. In any case, Verhoeven should be watched. The old man made a movie after "Golden Raspberry," ahaha. From striptease to space bugs. What a twist!
P.S.
I just realized that Neil Patrick Harris is playing here. In 1997, we didn’t even know about it.
7 out of 10
The novel of the American writer Robert Heinlein “Star landing”, published in 1959, was ambiguously accepted in society, many even accused him of fascism. Despite this work has great artistic potential and deserves a worthy film adaptation. Did it get it?
In 1997, the screen version of the novel from Paul Verkhovna, and, let us say at once, it has only the name and names of the main characters in common with the book of Heinlein, everything else is either completely absent or monstrously distorted.
From the very first frames of the film, it seems that earthlings are very stupefied. Political propaganda is as straightforward and stupid as possible, students of the senior (according to casting we can say that even very high) classes in the class do anything but study, and scientists and politicians believe that the race that went into space is just stupid insects. Further, Verhoeven takes from the novel an important scene in which the social structure of society is explained, throwing out important phrases from it, and later forgets about it.
Throughout the action, the characters lose motivation, they are not consistent, and the actors who play them portray inappropriate emotions. John Rico (Casper Van Dean) does not show that he is saddened by the death of his parents, and Dizi (Dean Meyer) strangely expresses his emotions about this, and in combat, sometimes behaves like in an amusement park. The motivation for the entry of heroes into the army is as strange as possible and does not fit with the novel, and because of the transferred idea of the book, and with the film. To be fair, only Carlin Ibáñez has the motivation to be a pilot. All the above mentioned in the paragraph is the result of bad acting and, most importantly, directing.
The movie world itself looks fake. Almost all the people who fall into the frame are beautiful and devoid of flaws, the training camp is more like a pioneer camp, the troop uniforms look toy.
But the main drawback is the dullness reigning in the picture. The stupidity of the military, the stupidity of scientists, the stupidity of politicians. The creators did not bother to hire a military consultant or even read military literature. Because of this, everything turned into a terrible clown. Earthlings in this world have not heard of either artillery training or air support, and degraded people seem to have abandoned ground combat equipment altogether. Military training in the United Civil Federation is ridiculous and useless. There is no discipline for an overwhelming amount of time. Women are trained with men, which is contrary to both romance and common sense. They even use one shower and sleep in the same barracks. You can talk about this nonsense endlessly.
You think anything can save action? I don't think so. It seems like the fighting scenes are well shot, but only you start to turn on the brain, as everything turns into the Benny Hill Show with blood and without that famous tune. Also, the creators added a love line that does not look very good. We are shown a classic love triangle, but do not put a point at the end.
Verhoeven himself positions his film as a satire on the world of victorious fascism. In this way, he tries to distance himself from the book, which he found too boring (the director claimed that he did not even finish the book). And there are new problems. The world of Heinlein did not have a brightly militaristic color, unlike the world of Verhoeven. In Paul's picture, everything screams about it. This causes even more bewilderment, because of the presence of a war-wishing state that is not capable of conducting hostilities.
From the good in this film, we can distinguish only graphic effects that look pleasant after 20 years, as well as makeup imposed on wounded soldiers.
To answer the question raised at the beginning, we can say no. Verhoeven did not take advantage of the book’s enormous potential. But it could turn out great science fiction with elements of psychological and military drama. Many ideas in the book, as well as asking for visualizations, remained on the pages of the work. We can only hope that someday this novel will receive a really high-quality film adaptation.
The work of the American writer Robert Heinlein had a significant impact on science fiction and largely determined the development of the genre. Being not only a science fiction writer, but also a scientist, he touched on complex and complex topics in his works. It is quite difficult to film his works, and when the Dutch director Paul Verhoeven takes up this case, then you should definitely expect something unusual. That's how it happened. The director very freely treated the source and radically changed the accents of the eponymous work of the famous author.
In the story, this is a combat fantastic thriller. A classic example of the war of the future using high technology. But that's just a superficial look. Since having a specific black humor, the director scathingly ridicules the American model of state and society, which makes the film an acutely social parody of modern customs and foundations. Paul Verhoeven drawing a model of a totalitarian, militarized future, draws a direct and explicit analogy with fascism. However, the elements of satire are presented so subtly that it is very difficult for a simple viewer to notice them. It's such a cunning author's trick. And it works.
There's a lot going on. A totalitarian, militarized society controlled by the military. Propaganda and total brainwashing. An interesting interpretation of civil rights and freedoms. In all respects, we have a very non-trivial movie.
Paul Verhoeven has a scandalous reputation. The frank erotic scenes with which he fills his paintings are also presented in this film, and with a certain amount of irony. Verhoven has already addressed the genre of fiction, putting two cult paintings "Robocop" and "Remember everything". And each he gave a lot of allusions and reminiscences. "Star landing" is also no exception and is filled with numerous quotes.
The film is very spectacular and spectacular. Brilliant visual special effects are stunning in their grandeur and scale. This is the case when the picture is perfect. True, scenes of violence are very realistically shown, which is characteristic of the work of Paul Verhoeven. He is often criticized for hyperbolizing on-screen violence. But he will never abandon his principles Verhoven.
Casper Van Ding played the best role in his career. It was this role that brought him wild popularity and success with the public. His transformation during the film arouses interest and looks curious. Denise Richards has an insanely attractive appearance, but as an actress does not look too convincing. However, in this film, she manages to wonderfully display the character of her heroine and reveal herself from the best side. So is Dine Meier. Well, the older generation in the person of Clancy Brown and Michael Ironside complement the above-mentioned youth.
Star landing is a cool, spectacular, epic, dynamic fantastic action movie. One of the best films of the 1990s. Filled with stunning action scenes, an excellent sense of humor and diverse themes. Deeper than it seems at first glance. Great movie.
Verhoeven surprised first of all with his courage, because in our time - censors and solid critics, this film could be ranked as a forbidden, if it was presented not in an ironic manner. This brilliantly succeeds the director, since the selection of actors speaks for itself - purely textured for a pseudo-patriotic ideological canvas, their caricature game and satire-soaked dialogues, and in places black, all this generally makes you not take seriously, but laugh well at blind youth and the eternal desire to assert yourself.
Nevertheless, despite the conceived ironic narrative, the main characters first of all show the authenticity of their actions. After all, in fact, they are blind young people, unconsciously doing various kinds of actions for the sake of looking from the outside, which is so inherent in youth. In this case, the motivator is a girl who plays with guys, as if with things and without realizing it, creates rivalry, which in turn pushes to exploits, to self-affirmation, complement this desire as well as other characters of different characters, for whom it is a kind of realistic 3D shooter, a kind of toy. Just as competently, the screenwriters draw an unshakable vicious circle, namely: the main character A is in love with the heroine B (for whom it is no more than friendship), but rejects the love of the girl C, and so on a rolled circle, which is also almost always manifested in his youth. And all this in general perfectly implemented Verhoeven vividly demonstrated the seething youth on the screen.
In addition to the ideological component, the film shines with an excellent visual series and stunning special effects, moderately submitted and even very exciting despite the frivolity of the narrative.
The film of the Dutch director Paul Verhoeven, can rightly be called a modern classic of fantastic action films. And although the idea of confronting humanity against an alien life form is not new, only a few managed to convey the spirit and mood of that time correctly in a long meter. Why did Verhoeven succeed? Find out more.
It is worth starting with the fact that unlike “Remember All” or “Robocop”, the script for this picture was written long before the film adaptation. First of all, “Star Troops” is a science fiction novel by Robert Heinlein, published in 1959, and only then a skillful adaptation of Paul Verhoeven for moviegoers. And although some of the moral aspects of the book were removed from the film, the meaning of the film has not changed, at least I think. The main differences between the original and the film adaptation are only a few. The main one is the absence of doubts about the actions of both the main character and the entire army of the Federation as a whole. People show a strong desire to fight for their future and the future of the universe under their leadership.
The hero of the picture is Private Rico, a successful young man who has just recently graduated from school. He comes from a wealthy family, the “golden child” of a businessman from Buenos Aires. He was destined to be a careerist on Earth, but his inner desire to prove to himself and the world that he was worthy of the title of citizen pushed him to enlist in the landing of the United Federation Forces.
Here it is worth mentioning, and say that the role of Jonathan Rico for actor Casper Van Dean was the pinnacle of his career. Unfortunately, neither participation in other films nor in the sequel "Star Troopers: Marauder" did not bring him the former glory earned during the filming of the first part. How often, it happens in such cases, the actor became hostage to the image of a war hero, Sergeant Rico, and could not break into the highest echelon of Hollywood actors, unfortunately.
The film shows the very beginning of the clash of the civilizations of the Arachnids and Earthlings. The first wave of conscripted soldiers enters into a ruthless battle with a fleet of insects-aliens, and on the surface of many planets. Verhoeven skillfully guides the viewer through the story arc of the formation of the hero, here he is the captain of the football team at school, here is a recruit, here is a failed loser and now he is already a corporal again, and a few minutes later a sergeant. Events change as quickly as the location of the film. I think that Verhoeven’s main task was to show the viewer how, in a successful coincidence, each of the characters of the picture is exactly in the place where he was destined to be. Rico becomes the captain of a space cruiser, and her best friend becomes a military scientist. A girl in love with Rico, eventually dies without confessing her love to him, and Rico himself soon becomes a legend for the entire spaceship of mankind and trains recruits before new battles throughout the Galaxy. A twisted story is good because it does not overload the viewer with too dramatic action. Tears have no place when the fate of humanity is at stake!
Now the most important thing.
Over 300 3D artists worked on the painting. The animation and graphics are not a shame to watch even now, when the film is 20 years old. This is one of the few paintings that is timeless and looks cheerful even now, in the era of CGI and Motion Capture.
“Star landing” is a fundamental stone at the heart of the entire genre of sci-fi action, the brightness of which can only eclipse the paintings of J. Lucas. The film by Paul Verhoeven is a living classic, descended to us from the pages of the novel by Robert Highline.
10 out of 10
The film “Starship Troops” by Paul Verhoeven is one of the most popular and famous fantastic films of the 90s, telling about the conquest of space by man and the battle of earthlings with bloodthirsty and aggressive intergalactic creatures. Needless to tell the details, it is just worth turning on and watching this movie, which actually harbors a much deeper meaning than it seems at first glance.
At first, as an ordinary viewer, I watched and admired the special effects, the bloody meat grinder that people staged, fighting for the right to live with arachnids, but then, after reading Verhoeven’s statement about his creation, I reviewed the movie once again and indeed the main characters (that is, people) are in many ways similar to fascists, and their behavior is sometimes similar! The first thing that catches the eye is, of course, the form and labels. Long leather cloaks for high-ranking officers, caps for privates and sergeants to become Nazi, even the emblem of the Federation in the form of an eagle is similar to fascist symbols.
The desire of the people in this picture to become the only race in the Galaxy through the extermination of “competitors,” and the fact that the Society on Earth is building such an order that only a select few can become its citizens, also has clear references to fascism. Although the main male and female characters played Brazilians by nationality, through them, as well as other soldiers of the Federation, Verhoeven talks about the building of the Society by Americans, how they do not tolerate competition in all aspects of life. The creator himself spoke about this then, describing his cinema, noting that some aspects of their lives can lead to a new kind of fascism.
Come on, enough about that... Now the movie. First of all, I want to note the abundance of young and rising stars in the frame: Kasper Van Dean (perhaps his most noticeable role, along with his role in Sleepy Hollow), Denise Richards, Jake Busey, Amy Smart (in the episode), Dina Meyer and Neil Patrick Harris in tandem with the already experienced Clancy Brown and Michael Ironside create a spectacular combination of experience and youth, playing war as recruits with officers according to the script and allowing the viewer to watch the game of already established personalities and enjoy young and beautiful girls in their years.
The second thing to remember is great instrumental music. The spectacular soundtrack is somewhat similar to Verkhoven's "Robocop", it is also epic, makes you admire the heroes in moments of their battles with giant insects and is aimed at making the viewer play feelings of valor, courage, belligerence and determination.
It is also worth noting the inclusions in the main plot of episodes of a semi-entertaining nature, during which the "leader" talks about the achievements of modern science and how humanity is looking for ways to destroy arachnids. The cycle “Want to know more?” is a kind of viral advertising inside the film itself, allowing the viewer to be distracted and not much, not to go to the kitchen to pour tea, but to focus on the problems hovering around the confrontation between people and bugs.
The film “Star Troops” is actually very cool and for fans of fiction it is probably carefully stored on the shelf. Its sequels were not very high-quality, but the first film directed by Paul Verhoeven looks in one breath and even 20 years after the release is still attractive and interesting.
But look at you. I will not force my opinion on anyone.
Enjoy your visit.
What has not happened to the long-suffering Earth: cataclysms, meteorites, and Mondays. However, it has not yet fought off giant alien beetles, dividing people exactly in half, sucking their brains and throwing heavy stones at them from one planet to another. However, this unfortunate omission was finally corrected.
Paul Verhoeven, whoever it was, took the initiative and made a film about it. Great, by the way. So much so that it became a classic example of how to shoot fiction: with dynamics, constant action, drama, brutality and plasma grenade. And in this particular case, a barrel of blood, torn limbs and intestines. Because there's enough blood pouring out of the screen that's enough for a whole trauma unit.
The plot grabs the viewer’s attention almost immediately and holds firmly up to the very titles, so click on the “pause” and go to bed will not work, do not even hope. However, this does not want, since the story told in the film is almost devoid of templates, fresh and interesting. Screenwriters do not get their salary for nothing.
As for the graphics, for the late nineties, the picture, the insects and the cosmos look amazing. Scenes of shipwrecks orbiting planets seem to have been filmed directly from the satellite. And a huge jelly-like beetle was dragged none other than from the secret vault of some zoo. Maybe that was the case, who knows?
10 out of 10
Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, like his Double Star, Between Planets, and Orphans of the Sky, was one of the first books to begin my introduction to fiction. Back then, when I first read it as a teenager, Star Troops, as I now understand it, had the opposite effect on me than the author intended, although it caused an intense internal dialogue. Perhaps it is thanks to its peculiar “extremist” philosophy, coupled with an idealized description of the life of the army and the nuances of officer service, that I remember the book from hundreds and thousands of others read during the same period, although at that time it was perceived by me more as an adventure action movie than as a political manifesto of the author. As time passes, of course, the book is perceived in a very different way, and I fully share and support the decision of the publisher to refuse to publish the "Destination" for young people, because instead of the work of a professional science fiction writer, the work of a lay philosopher would be slipped to young readers. Although, I emphasize, on me, a teenager, the book had an effect rather opposite to the intended author.
The irony is that the same story happened with the adaptation of “Destination” by Verhoeven – what was conceived by the director as a malicious satire on militarism in general and Heinlein’s book in particular, served as this book, already forgotten, a beautiful advertisement. Despite the differing tone, style of storytelling, and underlying ideas, artistically, I would call both the book and the film roughly equal. If the book has more sincerity and depth, in fact, science fiction and social modeling, then the film has more social satire, posterity and caricature, which is on the verge of thrash. It’s hard to say what’s better or worse, because they’re completely different. And while I am equally unsympathetic to Heinlein’s idealistic military meritocracy and Verhoeven’s leftist pacifism, I can’t help but admit that I like both the novel and the film aesthetically – each in its own way. Which, of course, does not negate the insanity of the absurdly inflated ideas underlying both works. In fact, I would recommend watching the film for those who are able to share the ideological background and artistic value of the paintings. Still, the plot of the film is, there is a tense action, beautiful actors, love melodrama, as well as a peculiar, bright aesthetic of caricature, political satire.
8 out of 10
Let’s throw aside excessive patriotism, which can sometimes annoy in the film and quite strong, but not bringing anything new to the genre of special effects and get a strong fantastic action movie from Paul Verhoeven. Yes, this is "Starship Troops", where you can see that the fight against alien bugs is pushed more into the background than the first, a significant part of the story are the characters, their relationship and believe me, it is much more interesting than the confrontation with bugs, but not all viewers will agree, well, okay. Let’s find out what this fantastic action movie is. The main character - Johnny Rico, as a student, he experiences everything that can happen in the life of an ordinary student, longing, boredom, love and bad marks, the latter can become an obstacle to the future he wants, or rather so desired by his parents, and Rico is still thinking: "Should I follow my parents?" The story of Rico is not without a girl, in almost every such story there is a girl, a girl in love with the main character and sometimes this girl is a little “windy” and indecisive in her choice, selecting a “man of the heart” on the principle of “who is strong, so in the house.” But Rico does not know about this and is the most successful candidate for “home”, but still may change, here already plays the fact of the decision of Carmen, the heroine embodied a little played Denise Richards. And Casper Van Dean, well, Rico, is waiting for a lot of competition, let’s find out what we are talking about.
Rico and Carmen, Carmen and Rico, Einhorn and Finkle, Bonnie and Clyde... Oh, that’s all, I’m sorry. Well, Rico and Carmen have an ordinary life, they sit at lectures, where their teacher Raschek “feeds” their latest information about citizenship, patriotism and Hiroshima, honestly admit it is rather boring and pathetic, but perhaps Paul Verhoeven wanted to put his nation in a heroic light, to show it so that there was a ground for empathy with these warriors, but perhaps it was superfluous and served more as a minus than a plus. Come on, back to Carmen and Rico. As the two listen to a lecture trying not to fall asleep, they have time to indulge in something else, namely, exchanging virtual kisses, which may end in a bummer for Rico. That’s how these two live, she wants to become a pilot, and his mental abilities leave much to be desired and he wants to become a military man rather than a PhD, the latter he would hardly succeed at 35 percent. And now the heroes kiss for real, their relationship develops, but it does not last long, since the story is not without love "quadragons", now you will learn what it is about. The fact is that one girl who loves Rico, let's call her Ginger, loves Rico, and Rico loves Carmen, but Ginger does not want to upset, or else she will kill herself. There is another character, and to be honest, he behaves like a real kakaha – Zander Barklow, Carmen’s new boyfriend and he tries to do everything to get Carmen’s favor. Zander operates on the principle of “all means are good”. And here graduation, recognition, parting, Rico overcomes his complexes and does not agree to a chic vacation, goes into space to become a paratrooper, and at the same time be closer to Carmen, whose soul lies to the stars and she becomes a pilot, but her boss will be Zander! That's the twist.
Ta-ta-ta-ta-na-na-na-nam-nai, no music from Star Wars will not sound, there will be a more simplified musical theme for the film, namely, patriotic and fantastic, from the composer Basil Poleduris, who did not fool, because these musical motifs are fully consistent with the film. So, the relationship heroes, back to them and talk about training Rico in the airborne troops. The training begins very not sweet, Rico is not particularly loved by his colleagues, but until he becomes their hero by a skillful directorial move, but not everything goes smoothly, because in war people make mistakes, unforgivable mistakes. What about the love part? “Pleasant” for our hero is the surprise that Ginger will also serve in the airborne troops, but after all, “love carrots” and Rico will reject it in every possible way, our hero loves Carmen, while Carmen traverses the expanses of space under the leadership of the sweet Sander, who never tires of staring at her expressive roundness, the look of a freshman student, here imagine such a look and we can assume that the review has become more fun; Let's go. The war is coming and Paul Verhoeven will show the heroes in martial law, which means that we will be able to find out what they said in the civilian was true and what was false. Rico matures, will learn from mistakes and become adapted to war, will know the loss of a loved one, but there will always be a shoulder on which to lean, in our case Ginger’s shoulder.
What does Paul Verhoeven show, something serious? No, the film director shows a fantastic action movie, in which fiction and the action movie do not play a particularly important role, they are more of a background, Verhoeven shows paratroopers, ships and even aliens, but a very strong push makes for the disclosure of his characters and their relationships, exactly the same situation was in the eponymous film Predator, almost the same. In Predator, there's a warrior relationship, there's a warrior relationship, there's a space monster, and there's space bugs. Of course, there are shootouts, fiction, bugs, black humor in the film, but believe me, the relationship between the characters and how they tolerate their evolution is much more interesting here. This is where filmmaking can be praised.
Stunning effects are Verhoeven's calling card, but he has other strengths as well. Personally, I was interested in the relationship between the characters - as always, complex and interesting.
Casper Van Dean plays the role of Johnny Rico’s boyfriend '. But that's also his biggest drawback. Rico's too good, so it gets boring. The more Johnny's character tries to be 'correct' the more tense and comical he looks.
No better, in my opinion, looks and his on-screen lover Carmen Ibanes. Carmen - too correct and 'good' girl. And, as usual, in fact, she is not so good. When Johnny turns away, she starts flirting with another guy.
But it seems that even the actors themselves do not believe in the sincerity of the feelings of their characters - so ridiculous their characters look together. There is no chemistry between them '! Apparently, this is the idea of the director: Johnny and Carmen are typical & #39; poster & #39; a school couple whose relationship collapses at the first serious trial.
And here'bad guy' Zander Barkalow performed by Patrick Muldoon is a completely different story. Zander is a bully and a bully, but he looks more interesting than Johnny. It is no wonder that Carmen loses her head to her new friend (and later to her partner). Zander and Carmen are opposites that attract. And this attraction is clearly visible on the screen.
Dizzy Flores! Athlete, Komsomol, just a beauty - and also a boy and a born leader. Dizzy is amazing, especially with Carmen. And, unlike the latter, he and Johnny form a great screen couple. It is not surprising that Rico himself eventually imbued with sincere feelings for this beautiful girl.
But the director deliberately destroys this whole idyll. The heroes of the film experience one blow of fate after another. However, each blow only makes them stronger. Perhaps, the director made a perfect propaganda film, after which many people probably want to join the army. Service in the military, participation in combat, hardness and cruelty are not just shown on the screen. The justification and even necessity of all this Verhoeven shows so logical and convincing that even becomes a little uncomfortable. And it makes you think seriously.
That is why Verhoeven is a brilliant director, and the film 'Star Troops' is a real art.
Eh... I remember now, as a child, washing this film on a cassette. Then "Star landing" seemed to me a hell of a cool, fantastic and scary film, from some in principle it is. But time passed and I completely forgot about Paul Verhoeven's film and only a chance reminder of it from a friend of mine made me watch it again.
From childhood, there are memories that Star Troops was a very unusual and even strange film. Now after the so-called "adult" viewing, I understood why I thought so then. The fact is that the narrative of the film and the presentation of material all this is rather unusually built and presented. Probably anyone who has seen this film agree that it is very different from the films of those years both in stylistic terms and in the presentation of material.
The film is also well made from a visual point of view. For its year of release, the film looks great. All these terrible insects Arachnids and other creatures are made at the highest level of those years and look really frightening and disgusting. In some places, of course, there are moments sagging, but again this can be attributed to the opportunities in the field of visual effects of those years, and not to the unwillingness of the authors to make their picture better.
"Star landing" instantly became a hit and brought world fame Casper Van Dean and Denise Richards, although they failed to stay on the wave. For Van Din, Star Troops remained the only significant and significant role of the actor, however, as for Denise Richards, although she had another well-known and popular project. This proves once again that in the world of cinema it is not so difficult to climb to the top, it is more difficult to stay there. But no matter how it was, we will always remember the brave Johnny Rico and the looby-eyed Carmen.
"Star landing" Paul Verhoeven is an excellent quality made fantastic action movie, which still looks fresh and interesting.
8 out of 10
Paul Verhoeven is still a strange man, he made the perfect film for boys, but did everything so that they could not see it in the cinema. I remember watching this movie as a teenager. Try to associate yourself with the main character. In the hands of a powerful machine, behind the whole Earth, your cause is right, ahead of the enemy, monster beetles that cause neither sympathy nor pity, next to you a wise and understanding commander-teacher, you will always be supported by a faithful friend who is ready for you in fire and water, and a beautiful woman in love with you. What else do you need at 13-14 years old? No wonder I tried not to miss reruns of this movie on TV.
I recently decided to revisit the Star Troops. During the viewing, there was no smile from the lips. I know perfectly well that explosions in space are inaudible, fire cannot burn in airless space, and no general, in his right mind, would place spacecraft in orbit like machines in a Moscow traffic jam. I know all this and all this nonsense, but I still liked it. The youthful maximalism coming from this film is exciting. The creators turn to the subcortex, making them feel like a teenager again. And then fire in space ceases to be a blunder. After all, children playing war do not bother that a stick looks little like a sword, and an empty bottle looks like a grenade. Considering them as weapons is much more interesting. Adults and serious people worked on the creation of this film, they probably saw mistakes, but were in no hurry to correct them. It's just funnier.
Add to all the above quality action, good (for 1997) special effects, beautiful actors. It seemed that the film was simply doomed to success. But no, his rolling fate was sad, and the result was disappointing. And the most interesting thing is that the creators themselves are to blame for this. After all, they inserted into the film a scene in the shower (in which servicemen of different sexes wash together), a scene with brain sucking, showed how giant beetles tear people apart. In general, the age rating of 16+ earned honestly. As a result, the teenagers, of course, watched this film, but not in the cinema, but on videotapes or on TV (often already rewired).
In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about the connection between Verhoeven’s film and Heinlein’s book. They have very little in common, Verhoeven borrowed the idea of war with a race of intelligent insects and several scenes, otherwise it is an independent work. But I think they complement each other well. The book is smart, written with knowledge of the military history, and the film is a fun and colorful story, which is pleasant sometimes to watch and remember your childhood.
9 out of 10