So good. That’s often the movie I’ll point to when someone argues that an adaptation doesn’t always have to follow the “spirit” of the source material. Sometimes it’s cool as shit to turn something on its head.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
So good. That’s often the movie I’ll point to when someone argues that an adaptation doesn’t always have to follow the “spirit” of the source material. Sometimes it’s cool as shit to turn something on its head.
I've never read Heinlein's book, and I always thought Verhoeven took it and turned the message of the source material completely around, but I recently read a long winded debate between film and literature buffs on another forum saying it wasn't as clear cut as it seems, and that Heinlein had switched from his right wing, pro military views (that he indeed held as a younger man) by the time he wrote Starship Troopers. Not that it particularly matters, but it was interesting to read something that completely deconstructed what I'd taken for granted for years.
What is definitely sure is that it's a film that was and has continued to be massively misunderstood by the general public, in an almost comical way.
Last edited:
That's actually really interesting! and sort of torpedoes my entire point
I've actually read the novel as I used to be a sucker for that era of sci fi novels, but I was a young teen and I've never been the best at fully computing exactly what a book is saying, especially without rereads (it wasn't until my third reread of Wuthering Heights that I realised Heathcliff was such a dick 
). I doubt I have the copy anymore but I might pick it up now, it'd be interesting to read it with fresh eyes and as an adult, especially when as you said the film is so often misunderstood and I've gone and misunderstood the source material And yeah very much so, I'm too young to remember the initial reaction when it came out but it's really funny to read what the reviews at the time said, from the wiki
Like I thought the film was comedically on the nose with what it was doing, I watched it around the time I read the book so I was a young lad and a dense one at that, and even I could tell what it was trying to do (though at that time I was more interested in the cool bug battles). I haven't read it but I watched an interesting video about how the book covers and film adaptations of Lolita has warped the perception of what the book is actually trying to say, I might give that one a read and watch one of the films as well to see the contrast.
Do you have the Lolita one? One of my all time favourite novels, I'd be curious.That's actually really interesting! and sort of torpedoes my entire point
And yeah very much so, I'm too young to remember the initial reaction when it came out but it's really funny to read what the reviews at the time said, from the wiki
Like I thought the film was comedically on the nose with what it was doing, I watched it around the time I read the book so I was a young lad and a dense one at that, and even I could tell what it was trying to do (though at that time I was more interested in the cool bug battles). I haven't read it but I watched an interesting video about how the book covers and film adaptations of Lolita has warped the perception of what the book is actually trying to say, I might give that one a read and watch one of the films as well to see the contrast.
As for Starship Troopers, even as a 14-15yo kid, I could tell that it was satire, it's just way too obvious and on the nose. That was without having a particularly acute critical eye, or knowing the rest of Verhoeven's work. I don't understand how you can be a film critic, know what this guy has done prior to Starship Troopers, and think that it's a pro-fascist film. He must have had quite a few laughs reading some of the critics.
No I haven't sadly, there's a charity second hand bookstore in one of my nearby towns that I'm sure will have it so it's one I'll pick up next time I'm there, a friend of mine loves it too and she's told me a bunch of times to give it a read. When I do I'll let you know what I thought of it.
And yeah exact same experience, I think I was a year or two younger but it's so fecking obvious. Fully agree, I know reviews are subjective, and while I love the film I'd have no problem with a reviewer saying it was shit etc, but in a scenario like this it just seems so incompetent to be a paid film critic and miss the point by such a margin. I'll stop derailing the thread but it's pretty interesting when a film can be so misconstrued, I guess American Psycho would be another in that vein.
I meant the video describing the differences between the adaptation and the book! Or did I misunderstand your post?
Oh I gotcha
The one I first watched was a short video by "Man carrying thing" on youtube, but iirc that was just a short 5 minute video specifically about how the book covers failed the author, as he specified how he wanted the book cover “I want pure colors, melting clouds, accurately drawn details, a sunburst above a receding road with the light reflected in furrows and ruts, after rain. And no girls.” It was interesting but very short and specific, I'll try and find the proper video by someone else that talked about the film and book differences and what they thought it did right and where it went wrong on other parts, and specific parts where they felt the adaptations undermined the message of the book. I really should have read the book before I watched the long video but even as someone who hadn't read it it was really done and interesting so I'll try and find it.Titane
A female serial killer goes into hiding by being taken in by a firefighter captain, who believes her to be his long lost son. A movie about physical and mental trauma that features graphic violence, sex, cars and sex with cars. That's right, "with cars". A woman has sex with a car and becomes pregnant.
I can see why people like this film (and Raw, which was by the same director) and whilst I did find it interesting, it also felt a bit forced and the symbolism felt a bit on the nose. Not really my cup of tea 4.5/10
A female serial killer goes into hiding by being taken in by a firefighter captain, who believes her to be his long lost son. A movie about physical and mental trauma that features graphic violence, sex, cars and sex with cars. That's right, "with cars". A woman has sex with a car and becomes pregnant.
I can see why people like this film (and Raw, which was by the same director) and whilst I did find it interesting, it also felt a bit forced and the symbolism felt a bit on the nose. Not really my cup of tea 4.5/10
From what I've read/seen, it's predominantly a satire of the way warfare, 'serving in the military', and unfettered patriotism are (or were) portrayed admiringly in the US. And so this was completely obvious to Europeans, but largely went over the heads of the US critics, who just saw the excessiveness of it all but failed to realize how it was an exaggeration of the problematic nature of their own country's relationship with all things military and patriotism.
That makes sense. Couldn’t have been more obvious to me that it was satire, even though I was young and stupid. Not being American was obviously the key.
Verhoeven is one of the most astute film makers of the past century really. B-movies, intentionally (in certain production ways), with A standards. Swift.
Yeah framed this way, it does make a little more sense - but in the context of Verhoeven's career by that point, it's hard to fathom how a cinema critic would have missed the satire. But anyway.
Cheers mate! Don't sweat it, if you happen to find it, that's cool, I am just curious because of the source material and the way it's been adapted.Oh I gotcha
What I love about Troopers and also Showgirls is Verhoeven made on the surface two very ''bad'' films and took the risk of people thinking he can’t direct in order to make a wider point. Starship troopers would be the type of action film a future fascist society would enjoy and Showgirls is essentially a satire on the Hollywood and sex industry.
Still happens with his new films. Maybe I just too much of a Verhoeven fan but I'm convinced Benedetta is at it's core about the radical universality of Christianity yet so many people just get cant get past the sex scenes and dismiss the film.
Yeah I was really disappointed by this. I can definitely see why others like it but felt very dull.
I haven't seen Benedetta yet. I'll probably close my work laptop and jump on it if you tell me Virginie Efira is naked in it.
Tbh I don’t know how your going to handle it. She goes fully into the religious fanatic sexy lesbian nun vibe.
I'd agree - but then I like reading the Reception section on Wikipedia after watching movies, and US critics (not all, but enough) definitely tend to buy into some of those US paradigms more than I'd have expected.
I'm obviously saying this as an outsider with partial information though. Maybe @oneniltothearsenal or @Wing Attack Plan R could help out here.
I've read some interviews in recent years, and the origins and development of Christianity definitely is a big topic of interest for Verhoeven. It wouldn't surprise me at all if those subjects feature strongly in that film's (which I haven't seen) underlying themes. But obviously, Verhoeven loves inserting gore and sex (and cynicism/sarcasm) into everything he makes.
Agree. I think Veroheven might have written a book on Jesus as a revolutionary figure. Although I’m not read it yet. Peter Weller talking about Robocop is like listening to a religious sermonI've read some interviews in recent years, and the origins and development of Christianity definitely is a big topic of interest for Verhoeven. It wouldn't surprise me at all if those subjects feature strongly in that film's (which I haven't seen) underlying themes. But obviously, Verhoeven loves inserting gore and sex (and cynicism/sarcasm) into everything he makes.
@neverdie is right that Veroheven blends the B movie aesthetics with the high art. Shame he can’t get any big Hollywood gigs anymore.
I'd agree - but then I like reading the Reception section on Wikipedia after watching movies, and US critics (not all, but enough) definitely tend to buy into some of those US paradigms more than I'd have expected.
I'm obviously saying this as an outsider with partial information though. Maybe @oneniltothearsenal or @Wing Attack Plan R could help out here.
I've read some interviews in recent years, and the origins and development of Christianity definitely is a big topic of interest for Verhoeven. It wouldn't surprise me at all if those subjects feature strongly in that film's (which I haven't seen) underlying themes. But obviously, Verhoeven loves inserting gore and sex (and cynicism/sarcasm) into everything he makes.
Your instincts are correct from my memory. I can't say about US film critics but the general public took it at face value and rah-rah patriotism exercise. I was working at a restaurant in Los Angeles at that time and a lot of the general comments did not view it as satire. To be fair, a few of my co-workers at the time certainly recognized it as satire but I wouldn't say that was a common view even close to Hollywood with a lot of so-called film buffs.
That isn't how I remember it, but you could be right. To me, it seemed at the time than any reputable critic quickly pointed out the fascistic imagery and over the top interstitials, the entire thing an indictment of militarism. I don't remember any critics not pointing this out, especially tying the story to the filmmaker's earlier works like Soldier of Orange, and the general experience of the Netherlands in WWII. From what I remember, they faulted him for being so obvious about it, there is not a single frame of subtlety in the entire film. He was also taken to task (by some) for gratuitous/excessive violence played for laughs, and for nudity. By this point, everyone knew his work. Flesh And Blood was particularly misogynistic and cruel, RoboCop was a lampoon of those who think the police need more weapons and more power, Total Recall was seen as a great adaptation, Basic Instinct - was a sensation. Lurid, cheesy, but fun. Just when his career was hanging in the balance, he turned in Showgirls, which took a beloved actress from a TV show, had her naked for 90 minutes, and made it so unbearably dull you couldn't watch. Elizabeth Berekly naked being boring, is no mean feat.I'd agree - but then I like reading the Reception section on Wikipedia after watching movies, and US critics (not all, but enough) definitely tend to buy into some of those US paradigms more than I'd have expected.
I'm obviously saying this as an outsider with partial information though. Maybe @oneniltothearsenal or @Wing Attack Plan R could help out here.
I've read some interviews in recent years, and the origins and development of Christianity definitely is a big topic of interest for Verhoeven. It wouldn't surprise me at all if those subjects feature strongly in that film's (which I haven't seen) underlying themes. But obviously, Verhoeven loves inserting gore and sex (and cynicism/sarcasm) into everything he makes.
Then he did Starship Troopers. I think everyone had fairly low expectations for it.
Side note: the book does not take this tone at all, it's played completely straight as an heroic struggle against an implacable alien menace. When I first saw the movie, it annoyed the hell out of me because it was so silly and campy. I was fine with it taking the piss out of the jingoistic attitudes of the day. I absolutely hated Neil P Harris in the film, but I loved Denise Richards (remember when she was hot?)***. Remember Wild Things? Once I got over the fact it wasn't being played straight (like in the book), I went with it. I thought everything looked great: ships, weapons, aliens, female stars. I thought it was great.
***I saw her a few times where I was working, years ago. What's striking about her in person is how tiny she is. I've just read that she's listed as 5'6", but that's in heels. She's 5'4" at best. In person, her facial features seem exaggerated. Her cheeks too pointy, her chin too sharp, her lips too puffy. It's weird the way film takes sharp features and they end up looking better on screen. She was goddamn beautiful in person, though.
Last edited:
Rodger Ebert review is very strange -
Sort of picks up on the satire fascist elements but then complains about the lack of warmth!
Sort of picks up on the satire fascist elements but then complains about the lack of warmth!
Roger Ebert was always a big, fat idiot.Rodger Ebert review is very strange -
Sort of picks up on the satire fascist elements but then complains about the lack of warmth!
He has a history of making these meandering, pompous "reviews" that utterly miss the point of the movie he's watching. More annoying, he had his pets, and those people could do no wrong in his eyes. And it's not just that I disagreed with his takes on movies, it's that he spent half his time virtue signaling, when all I wanted was to know if a movie succeeded or failed on the goals and terms it set out for itself, e.g., Starship Troopers was a Saturday matinee space monster movie with boobies and gore, was it fun?
I think if you're looking for wit and panache in a reviewer, one can enjoy Pauline Kael's and Rex Reeds's reviews. I love the critics in the New Yorker (David Denby, Anthony Lane), Andrew O'Hehir at New York Magazine, Vincent Canby (NYT), Kenneth Turan (LAT) was good for a long time but started championing filmmakers over films. I get the temptation, because I tried reviewing films for awhile. As a reviewer you want to find and champion a small film that punches above its weight, but they send you out to review big budget piles of shit that don't require film criticism. So in that sense, especially if you liked an earlier work, you might find yourself shying away from "Verhoeven's new work is a steaming pile of dung", and instead you temper it with references to the earlier works that you liked better. As someone who works in the industry, I just find most reviewers don't their asses from their elbows, they have no clue what goes into making a film, and they haven't the foggiest idea of who is responsible for what in the finished product.
Last edited:
@Dirty Schwein you owe us a review of Titane.
Beau in Freudian Purgatorio. Very clever bro. Quite enjoyable series of calamities in the initial set up before it turns to shit, seemingly when the female characters turn up. Guy is clearly an educated film technician but if you're going to write something this indulgent it can't be so baggy and aimless (unless you're Laurence Sterne I guess). It needed to be less Waiting for Kafka and more fat naked Joa running down the street.
I'm so done with these art school kids' depictions of society's underclass. Instead of showing your friends on the festival circuit, how about telling it to the governor at daddy's dinner party. And at this point, therapy and meds feel like an illegible cinematic shorthand, an UES parochiality.
You could get something approximate from an AI generated mashup of Kaufman and the Coens. So if it's just going to be a rehash of earlier stuff then couldn't you be brief about it?
More forgivable at a reasonable, justified running time but in this state its an annoying time sink. It's further evidence to my theory that the decline of the cynical, bean-counting producer, has left us at the mercy of flabby studios and streaming service bloat. Give me the butcher with a blade over the final cut pro editable.
I'm so done with these art school kids' depictions of society's underclass. Instead of showing your friends on the festival circuit, how about telling it to the governor at daddy's dinner party. And at this point, therapy and meds feel like an illegible cinematic shorthand, an UES parochiality.
You could get something approximate from an AI generated mashup of Kaufman and the Coens. So if it's just going to be a rehash of earlier stuff then couldn't you be brief about it?
More forgivable at a reasonable, justified running time but in this state its an annoying time sink. It's further evidence to my theory that the decline of the cynical, bean-counting producer, has left us at the mercy of flabby studios and streaming service bloat. Give me the butcher with a blade over the final cut pro editable.
Wait what? Someone thought it was pro-fascist propaganda?
Slightly different scenario but I felt that way about “One cut of the dead”. Where the first 25 minutes or so is purposefully painfully dull, but goes on to be a really interesting and fun film. I know @Dirty Schwein mentioned that all the people he’d recommended it to had binned it off during that first part, and I can imagine there were loads of people who put it on and must have thought it was terrible and gave up 10 minutes in
I’ve realised I’ve made a bunch of posts without giving a review of anything so I give OCOTD a 7/9
A lot of critics got tangled up in condemning the book as having a militarist/fascist inclination, but I don’t recall anyone thinking the movie was pro-fascist.
That is a relief as that would be a very odd impression to get from watching that film.
That was awkward. My wife was reading a book and I was watching on laptop and constantly hiding the screen and turning down the volume on my headphones.
I thought Titane was brilliant. Had to watch it twice because I was so confused, and realized it was the movie - not me - who was confused. I think you sold the story a bit short.
A popular model who poses for sexy pictures on cars, is approached by a fan, fecks him in the car she was posing on, and murders him during the sex because the car was getting jealous (?). Then she fecks the car she killed him in, and becomes pregnant - from the car. She goes into hiding by slapping on a mustache and being taken in by a fire chief who has lost his son. She is inexplicably popular with the fire station. Mainly they put up witht her to be kind to the chief. She’s clearly female this whole time. The fire chief pretends she’s his son but also knows she isn’t and tries to feck her. Or does feck her. Then she goes on a murder rampage and murders everyone at a dinner party for absolutely no reason, then she burns everything down. She suddenly becomes hugely pregnant and has the baby but the fire burns everything and she and the baby are revealed to be made of metal.
Pretty sure that’s accurate.
Last edited:
Bro that's a spoiler not a synopsis
I dunno, I felt I fully understood the film and beyond symbolising different types of trauma, it felt pretty basic.
I didn't hate it but also thought it wasn't all that.
Boo!Bro that's a spoiler not a synopsis
I dunno, I felt I fully understood the film and beyond symbolising different types of trauma, it felt pretty basic.
I didn't hate it but also thought it wasn't all that.
I’ve also spoiler warning-ized it. Also, not sure knowing the plot takes away from enjoying that bonkers film.
Last edited:
Ha. Everything was confusing about Titane if taken at face value. If it’s all metaphor, then it’s just a horny fever dream.
I haven’t seen Raw.
Last edited:
Fecking hell, this film is gonna end me. Need to find a moment to watch it.
Tbh I don’t know how your going to handle it. She goes fully into the religious fanatic sexy lesbian nun vibe.
His reviews were unsufferable. Never quite understood the clout he had.
I have no idea which film you're talking about! Is it Beau is afraid?
Yes! Pretty sure there were some really harsh critics back then highlighting a fascist agenda.
So so good. Very fresh for the genre, and the gore served the story.
I thought it's definitely a metaphorical take on trauma. Watch it with that in mind and everything makes sense. Well, most of it.
If you liked Titane then I would recommend Raw. It's much better.
That's it. Couldn't remember the adjective and I'm too cool to check.
Even Dwarfs Started Small
Werner Herzog comedy about a revolution on a island. Film features some incredible imagery along with elements of class conflict and the alienation disable people deal with. Like all things Herzog it’s beautiful, disturbing and very human.
Warning - Don’t watch if you like animals as there’s two scenes of animal cruelty including a insane crucifixion. Also god knows how but the full film is on YouTube.
10/10
Werner Herzog comedy about a revolution on a island. Film features some incredible imagery along with elements of class conflict and the alienation disable people deal with. Like all things Herzog it’s beautiful, disturbing and very human.
Warning - Don’t watch if you like animals as there’s two scenes of animal cruelty including a insane crucifixion. Also god knows how but the full film is on YouTube.
10/10
Yeah, that review is ridiculous. He's looking at the film through the book, and then tries to give the film some independent due anyway. Rambling nonsense and does majorly miss the overarching satire angle.Rodger Ebert review is very strange -
Sort of picks up on the satire fascist elements but then complains about the lack of warmth!
Anyway, thanks all for the follow-up! Really interesting film in terms of public perception and discourse.