Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Your Name Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: A fresh take on the Star Wars films Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 12:46:27 +1200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <7gf24j141hlm65kkk6u86tdielv150lsrl@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 02:46:28 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="10a6878bd4e56efded626bc5af46b1d5"; logging-data="3235573"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/QIi1en7W+aypdUS3R2jTN3E9bSPYiVxc=" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:AFvD91moBGSVYibQ1cic93stdSM= Bytes: 4096 On 2024-05-12 22:10:39 +0000, shawn said: > On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:10:47 -0700, anim8rfsk > wrote: >> Dimensional Traveler wrote: >>> On 5/12/2024 3:14 AM, shawn wrote: >>>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 06:54:55 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" >>>> wrote: >>>>> shawn wrote: >>>>>> Sat, 11 May 2024 22:35:20 -0700, The Horny Goat wrote: >>>>>>> Fri, 10 May 2024 19:06:45 -0400, moviePig wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, *somebody* with wit had to have been behind it. That much >>>>>>>> tongue-in-cheek can't have been accidental. Fwiw, the Internet seems >>>>>>>> rather definite that Verhoeven (a dedicated Liberal) was satirizing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Got a cite on that? Sounds like an interesting article or two. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://collider.com/starship-troopers-review-satire-at-its-best/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The cold hard truth of Starship Troopers, Paul Verhoeven's 1997 >>>>>> follow-up to his infamous 1995 Showgirls, is painfully obvious from >>>>>> the start: this is not Oscar bait. The acting is wooden, especially >>>>>> from lead actor Casper Van Dien. Denise Richards' performance is also >>>>>> suspect, playing aspiring pilot Carmen Ibanez. The only actors that >>>>>> stand out are the steady veterans Clancy Brown and Michael Ironside. >>>>>> What Starship Troopers is, though, is satire at its best, with >>>>>> Verhoeven masterfully weaving social commentary and potshots >>>>>> throughout the film. >>>>> >>>>> But the novel he was adapting wasn't satire, and the social commentary >>>>> was different. Quite frankly, I didn't care for the movie. I thought >>>>> the potshots he took were against easy targets. For that reason, I've >>>>> seen the movie once and never revisted it and had no interest in the >>>>> sequel. >>>> >>>> No doubt. He took the name of the book and some of the ideas from the >>>> book to make a very different movie. So there's no way you can judge >>>> the book by the movie because they are so different. I've seen the >>>> movie a few times as background noise but never a serious watch >>>> because it isn't something one should take seriously. Even his satire >>>> is so broad it prevents me from even taking his obvious potshots >>>> seriously. I have the sequels on my list to watch some day just to see >>>> what they are like but I'm clearly in no rush to see any of them. >>> >>> The sequels are cheap "sci-fi" horror direct to video productions. If >>> you like deliberately bad movies you _may_ want to check them out. >>> Otherwise don't bother. (From someone who has watched them.) >> >> Agreed > > Which is why I haven't gotten around to watch them. I enjoy cheap > sci-fi movies but I have the feeling those are truly bad but not bad > enough to be enjoyable for how bad they are based just on the still > images I've seen. I haven't seen the sequel movies either. Reportedly the animated Starship Trooper movies are much better, but I haven't gotten around to watching those either.