Starship Troopers.

Review #1922: Starship Troopers.

Cast: 

Casper Van Dien (Johnny Rico), Dina Meyer (Dizzy Flores), Denise Richards (Carmen Ibanez), Jake Busey (Ace Levy), Neil Patrick Harris (Carl Jenkins), Clancy Brown (Sgt. Zim), Seth Gilliam (Sugar Watkins), Patrick Muldoon (Zander Barcalow), and Michael Ironside (Jean Rasczak) Directed by Paul Verhoeven (#002 - RoboCop and #632 - Total Recall)

Review: 

You know, this is a strange movie to think about with its reputation in the 25 years that have passed since its release. Edward Neumeier started writing an original script called "Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine" in the time that followed RoboCop, which he co-wrote (with Michael Miner). The script was a bug movie that also happened to be a teen romance movie. However, when Jon Davison noticed the similarities to Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers, the script was kindly modified to fit as an "adaptation" of the book in order to sell better to any interested studios. It was a film made for over $100 million that made its budget back by a slight amount. The reputation of the film has handily improved in later years to where it is considered a "cult classic". Incidentally, there have been four sequels, all released direct-to-video (the lead star in Van Dien reprised his role in two of the films while Ed Neumeier wrote three of them while directing one). If I am being honest, I wonder how a straight adaptation of the novel would have been rather than this ended up. A cursory glance at the plot of the original work notes that they share a similar structure: a young lad (in the book a Filipino) enters the military because of a woman, makes an error but decides not to leave, sees family members in Buenos Aires get nuked, participates in a futile battle on the alien Arachind before seeing a successful raid on the brain caste and queens while seeing a platoon named after him. But the work is more involved in discussing the nature of what a world would look like if only veterans of the military were allowed to vote (also Rico ends up serving alongside his father in the book). Of course, fascism in the eyes of people wanting to label something fascist may just be their personal boogeyman rather than based on facts (but hey, the book is totally about fascism, trust a person on the Internet telling you this). With all of that in mind, the movie is massively average. Satire or not, I found it just a mild movie. It doesn't shock me or enrage me one bit, but maybe that falls to how many movies one has seen over the years. You might think that the fact that folks being unable to "recognize true propaganda" is a bad thing, but you know, Dirty Harry (1971) was labeled a fascist movie, and I don't see people getting weird about it being average in the "entertainment" department. "Joke" or not, an average movie is still average.

Hey, do you want a movie that tells you that violence is the way to solve problems (satire)? Okay then, enjoy a cadre of teen romance cliches sprinkled in for probably longer than you actually think it will be present. Take my perspective on it: Things in this movie only seem interesting when it involves the Arachnids. The movie may think it is pretty funny for itself when talking about "fascism", but my god, sometimes you should just embrace the cliches that people really care about when it comes to "sci-fi action film". Oh, but RoboCop (1987) is a sci-fi satire that was handled great by Verhoeven, you might say. Well, one realizes pretty quickly that RoboCop would be as convincing as a ball of mud trying to be tinfoil if "teenagers" were the lead focus. That isn't to say I despised the characters (because hey, they mostly act like folks who don't think they are bad guys), but there was never a time where I felt this material was anything better than the general schlock you might see from a 1950s sci-fi film about dealing with marauders from abroad or being anything better than the unintentional amusement found in Top Gun (1986). The attempt to turn the idea of a military elite-ruled world (reminder: Verhoeven didn't even finish the novel because it apparently depressed him) into a mockery of politics and culture of modern America is just basically "Beverly Hills 90210 meets Vietnam War". I don't think Heinlein really wanted a government where the military was the head honcho, I just think he wanted to show how one might operate in some twisted way. Hell, consider this quote from Heinlein: "War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose.” In response to that, Verhoeven and Neumeier have turned his curiosity into mockery, and I guess this is meant to be clever only because it happens to be an adaptation of a particular novel. Keep in mind, I did like the movie fine, but it isn't worth the discussion as some sort of hidden masterpiece. It is a bug movie on par with schlock movies of the past that happens to be made on a large budget with characters that were pulled from a soap opera mixed in with stock characters (who are ungodly more interesting) that results in a silly effects show. The parts involving a possible "Brain Bug" is quite interesting, if only to suggest the idea of fighting an enemy that isn't just an ugly dumb bug, even if more time is spent wondering just how dumb our lead is before he gets the idea of who wants to bone him. It is the B-movie spectacle that I care most about in the long run of 129 minutes, and Verhoeven does stage his adventure with the basic stops one does see coming without trying to pull an anti-climax. Van Dien maneuvers the dialogue of wood with general interest (whether in on the joke or not), but honestly Ironside and Brown are the highlights for me, if only because they are the seasoned pros of hardlined patience that the movie does best. Patrick Harris and Richards end up overshadowed by Meyer, who naturally doesn't get to enjoy all of the climax. Actually, Busey makes a pretty good heel for a time, so there's another little compliment amongst what seems to be me gritting my teeth. At any rate, I wish I liked the movie more than I did. It does just fine in the presentation of spectacle in all of its weird and cheap forms while barely making headway in any other department, working best for those who dig over-the-top movies that may or may not read as "effective" satire. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Sleepy Hollow.

Review #1295: Sleepy Hollow.

Cast: 
Johnny Depp (Ichabod Crane), Christina Ricci (Katrina Van Tassel), Miranda Richardson (Lady Mary Van Tassel and The Crone Witch), Michael Gambon (Baltus Van Tassel), Casper Van Dien (Brom Van Brunt), Jeffrey Jones (Reverend Steenwyck), Christopher Lee (The Burgomaster), Richard Griffiths (Magistrate Samuel Philipse), Ian McDiarmid (Dr. Thomas Lancaster), Michael Gough (Notary James Hardenbrook), Marc Pickering (Young Masbath), and Christopher Walken and Ray Park (The Headless Horseman) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes (2001), and #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure)

Review: 
Sometimes you really need something eccentric when it comes to horror and old folktales. It should only prove fitting that Tim Burton served as director for a film like this, which started out originally intended to be directed by Kevin Yagher (known primarily for his special efforts work such as the Crypt Keeper for Tales from the Crypt) from a script by Andrew Kevin Walker (writer of Seven) that would be a low-budget slasher based off the short story "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" by Washington Irving. There had been a few adaptations of the story done before, such as The Headless Horseman (1922) and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949, narrated by Bing Crosby), but this is certainly the most lavish attempt involving the story. The film takes plenty of liberties with the original story, ranging from the occupation of its main character to its climax, while having plenty of heads rolling around in a film that has plenty of style and a bit of humor that blend fairly well as its own thing. It pulls off a few frights together (particularly when combined with all the present fog), holding ground for most of its 105 minute run-time, with stand-out makeup and a fairly dynamic drive that feels reminiscent of Hammer horror films. The vibrant blood shots certainly help in that department, with well-executed gore and an interesting monster to boot. Depp seeps right into his part with tight conviction that would fit just fine in the traditional horror films of yesteryear without being lost in having a good time with such a squeamish yet compelling role. Ricci proves fine for a storybook type of role while having a bit of chemistry with Depp. Richardson proves to have a wicked time, playing two parts that come together just right. There certainly is an interesting cadre of supporting actors, ranging from Gambon and some fair theatrics to Hammer veterans Lee and Gough (who each get a scene each that plays out fine), and there really isn't a bad performer in the bunch to deter from the tense atmosphere the film wants to pull off. Walken may not say an actual word when it comes to the Horseman, but he sure has the chops to make it compelling to watch each and every snarl. The cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki is exquisite, where the color only serves to help make its fantasy/horror trappings stand out more than the usual expectation, particularly when the Headless Horseman lurks around (the music from Danny Elfman is helpful as well with that intent). The climax does tend to feel a bit convenient when it comes to having to close off its telling of the legend (namely when its big bad tells someone the nature of their scheme that involves the horseman as well), but at least it can fall back on spectacle (exploding windmills? Why not?) to make it all seem worth it without having to beat you over the head with ridiculousness. On the whole, this proves to be an alluring experience, inviting you in with an interesting atmosphere and some capable acting that makes a different mark on a classic folklore without becoming lost in clichés or being anything other than a nice fright for the horror folks.

Next Review: The Evil Dead.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.