Bad Movie Appreciation!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2017, 04:07 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2017 11:17 PM by EvolutionKills.)
Thumbs Up Bad Movie Appreciation!
We've all seen bad movies. But sometimes, even with bad movies, there is something that still hooks you. Whether it be a novel premise, a particular performance, or even just one scene. Even more rarely are the genuinely good movies that, for one reason or another, are unfairly panned and maligned by their detractors or the public at large. So if you have a movie, or even a part of one, that you particularly enjoy despite the film's general patina? This is the place to tell everyone else about it (without crowding up the Rate the Last Film You've Seen thread).

“Movies are so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash we have very little reason to be interested in them.” - Pauline Kael


So first off, for my buddy RocketSurgeon76...

[Image: IMG_1179.jpg]


Starship Troopers



Why was it panned? This was released in 1997, the year of Jurassic Park and Titanic. The movie is at face value, a summer big budget popcorn flick about a very fascist and jingoistic future Earth at war with giant space bugs. Reviewers at the time savaged it for it's apparent pro-fascist rhetoric, and it's unnecessarily graphic violence.

Why is it still worth watching? Well, first off, the movie still looks amazing. 1997 was both the start of CGI and the tail end of practical effects, and this film walks the perfect balance (much like Jurassic Park) between when to use either technique; leaving us a special effects laden 20 year old film that still looks good by today's standards. The movie made liberal use of matte paintings, animatronics, and miniatures for it's effects; relying on CGI to augment the practical effects (the CGI is not used as a crutch or panacea). Second of all, the graphic violence (and gore) is awesome! A distinctly 80's type of awesome that had mostly fallen out of favor for blockbuster films in the 90's. Lastly, this film is an unfortunate victim of Poe's Law. Starship Troopers was directed by Paul Verhoeven, the man who directed RoboCop and Total Recall. This movie is a spiritual successor of RoboCop (one of the best and bloodiest action movie of the 80's), with it's flag planted firmly in the territory of satire; but unlike RoboCop, most critics at the time didn't get it. But now that you've been made aware of that fact, you too can enjoy it without mistaking it for Triumph of the Will in space.

So if you do watch it, remember that it's satire. If you think the first act looks like a sappy shot-for-TV Hallmark Channel drama with insipid characters? That's good, that was done on purpose. It doesn't look like that because Verhoeven cannot light a scene properly, it's because he is purposefully emulating that style in order to subvert it. If ten minutes in you think the protagonist Johnny Rico is a stupid brat, that's good, so does the director.






Seriously, just go watch this movie (provided you have the stomach for it). The movie is great trash. Thumbsup

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like EvolutionKills's post
13-02-2017, 05:37 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2017 05:43 AM by pablo.)
RE: Bad Movie Appreciation!
(13-02-2017 04:07 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We've all seen bad movies. But sometimes, even with bad movies, there is something that still hooks you. Whether it be a novel premise, a particular performance, or even just one scene. Even more rarely are the genuinely good movies that, for one reason or another, are unfairly panned and maligned by their detractors or the public at large. So if you have a movie, or even a part of one, that you particularly enjoy despite the film's general patina? This is the place to tell everyone else about it (without crowding up the Rate the Last Film You've Seen thread).

“Movies are so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash we have very little reason to be interested in them.” - Pauline Kael


So first off, for my buddy RocketSurgeon76...

[Image: IMG_1179.jpg]


Starship Troopers



Why was it panned? This was released in 1997, the year of Jurassic Park and Titanic. The movie is at face value, a summer big budget popcorn flick about a very fascist and jingoistic future Earth at war with giant space bugs. Reviewers at the time savaged it for it's apparent pro-fascist rhetoric, and it's unnecessarily graphic violence.

Why is it still worth watching? Well, first off, the movie still looks amazing. 1997 was both the start of CGI and the tail end of practical effects, and this film walks the perfect balance (much like Jurassic Park) between when to use either technique; leaving us a special effects laden 20 year old film that still looks good by today's standards. The movie made liberal use of matte paintings, animatronics, and miniatures for it's effects; relying on CGI to augment the practical effects (the CGI is not used as a crutch or panacea). Second of all, the graphic violence (and gore) is awesome! A distinctly 80's type of awesome that had mostly fallen out of favor for blockbuster films in the 90's. Lastly, this film is an unfortunate victim of Poe's Law. Starship Troopers was directed by Paul Verhoeven, the man who directed RoboCop and Total Recall. This movie is a spiritual successor of RoboCop (one of the best and bloodiest action movie of the 80's), with it's flag planted firmly in the territory of satire; but unlike RoboCop, most critics at the time didn't get it. But now that you've been made aware of that fact, you too can enjoy it without mistaking it for Triumph of the Will in space.

So if you do watch it, remember that it's satire. If you think the first act looks like a sappy shot-for-TV Hallmark Channel drama with insipid characters? That's good, that was done on purpose. It doesn't look like that because Verhoeven cannot light a scene properly, it's because he is purposefully emulating that style in order to subvert it. If ten minutes in you think the protagonist Johnny Rico is a stupid brat, that's good, so does the director.







Seriously, just go watch this movie (provided you have the stomach for it). The movie is great trash. Thumbsup

The first time I saw this movie was because the DVD came free with the first player I bought. Laugh out load
I love it and I watch it whenever it I see it's on.
"The only good bug is a dead bug." Thumbsup

ETA: Oh yea and Dina Meyer...Drooling
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like pablo's post
13-02-2017, 05:42 AM
RE: Bad Movie Appreciation!
The coed shower scene alone makes it worth watching....

...

Big Grin

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like onlinebiker's post
13-02-2017, 05:48 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2017 06:37 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Bad Movie Appreciation!
Starship Troopers is awesome. Bowing Its awesome in its trashiness. I never took it seriously, how can anyone? Shocking

...oh, and i never got why Meyer had to die and Charlie Sheens future wife had to stay alive, didnt like her very much at all (or lets say her character).

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
13-02-2017, 06:00 AM
RE: Bad Movie Appreciation!
(13-02-2017 05:37 AM)pablo Wrote:  ETA: Oh yea and Dina Meyer...Drooling

[Image: dina-meyer-castle-2x16-stills-_2.jpg]

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Deesse23's post
13-02-2017, 06:53 AM
RE: Bad Movie Appreciation!
(13-02-2017 05:48 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Starship Troopers is awesome. Bowing Its awesome in its trashiness. I never took it seriously, how can anyone? Shocking

...oh, and i never got why Meyer had to die and Charlie Sheens future wife had to stay alive, didnt like her very much at all (or lets say her character).

If I were to guess, I say that it was very deliberate. The three friends we started with are reunited, in all their awful shallowness, with the periphery 'true love' characters dead and left by the wayside.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
13-02-2017, 09:00 AM
RE: Bad Movie Appreciation!
It mainly had to do with the fact that almost literally none of the characters in the movie share anything in common with the versions in the book except their names. Many are the exact opposite of the personality their book-version has.

The director didn't get the book, apparently, and wanted to make an anti-fascist statement, then shoehorned this story on top of that agenda. Ironically, he also apparently didn't get the part where the author carefully described the amazing technology (powered armor, laser "knife beams" that could cut down walls in an instant, and atomic warhead rockets that fired from a 'Y-rack' on the back of the armor at targets the soldier picked with a glance and a voice command) to instead go with what look like WW2-era-tech assault rifles and Bazookas. The "bugs" in the book are also technological and intelligent, using nuclear weapons, energy beam weapons, and starships just like we did. Even more important, the power-armor guys are called "Starship Troopers" because they're fired out of a tube in the bottom of a starship in space, to burn into the atmosphere and land using parachutes and jump jets in the legs and backpack. They openly mock the type of soldier who rides down in a nice comfy landing boat, as the "Troopers" in the movie do. Undecided

I still to this day can't figure out why the director chose to make this:

[Image: 099c0bf18489ff7ffb9bff5ea26be310.jpg]

Into this:

[Image: 1E988790FCD79D5D4ADF5C9EEF23E52161252AAB]

That said, the graphics are indeed amazing. The sound/visual effects and cinematography guys deserve 100% of the credit for this film.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
13-02-2017, 12:56 PM
RE: Bad Movie Appreciation!
(13-02-2017 09:00 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  It mainly had to do with the fact that almost literally none of the characters in the movie share anything in common with the versions in the book except their names. Many are the exact opposite of the personality their book-version has.

The director didn't get the book, apparently, and wanted to make an anti-fascist statement, then shoehorned this story on top of that agenda. Ironically, he also apparently didn't get the part where the author carefully described the amazing technology (powered armor, laser "knife beams" that could cut down walls in an instant, and atomic warhead rockets that fired from a 'Y-rack' on the back of the armor at targets the soldier picked with a glance and a voice command) to instead go with what look like WW2-era-tech assault rifles and Bazookas. The "bugs" in the book are also technological and intelligent, using nuclear weapons, energy beam weapons, and starships just like we did. Even more important, the power-armor guys are called "Starship Troopers" because they're fired out of a tube in the bottom of a starship in space, to burn into the atmosphere and land using parachutes and jump jets in the legs and backpack. They openly mock the type of soldier who rides down in a nice comfy landing boat, as the "Troopers" in the movie do. Undecided

I still to this day can't figure out why the director chose to make this:

[Image: 099c0bf18489ff7ffb9bff5ea26be310.jpg]

Into this:

[Image: 1E988790FCD79D5D4ADF5C9EEF23E52161252AAB]

That said, the graphics are indeed amazing. The sound/visual effects and cinematography guys deserve 100% of the credit for this film.


I 100% agree, not only did Verhoeven not want to adapt the book, after only getting half way through it he decided instead to attempt to entirely satirize it. Simply put, he was not a fan. That being said, I think the movie would stand on its own without the licensed title, which would have left the door open for an authentic adaptation (which I'd still really like to see someday). But the script existed as it's own entity before someone later in the production licensed the book rights because of the superficial similarities; plus it is a cool name, and much better than the script's working title 'Bug Hunters'.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2017, 01:12 PM
RE: Bad Movie Appreciation!
[Image: the-warriors2.jpg]

For all the corny generalizations and fantasy it is a fun flick to watch.

Walter Hill's hip, super-stylized action film unfurls in a dystopian near-future, when various gangs control New York City. Each gang sports a unique moniker ('The Warriors,' 'The Baseball Furies,' 'The Rogues'), with a costume underscoring its "theme"; each, in turn, is also responsible for one geographic area. Hill sets up the landscape as a massive, violent playground - replete with bridges, vacant subway tunnels, parks, abandoned buildings and the like, all ripe for exploration and adventure. As the tale opens, the titular Coney Island has traveled to the Bronx to attend a city-wide meeting of all gangs; at that event, however, the psychotic leader of a rival gang, The Rogues (David Patrick Kelly of Dreamscape) assassinates the head of the city's foremost gang, but The Warriors are pegged as culpable. This sends the gang fleeing through the labyrinthine city. With every thug in Manhattan in vicious, homicidal pursuit, they must also overcome all obstacles in their way. Throughout, Hill keeps the onscreen violence absurd, exaggerated and unrealistic, downplaying death to an extreme degree; despite this fact, the film sparked a massive amount of controversy and an ugly backlash for allegedly inciting violence and destruction in several theaters where it initially played.

James Remar, Michael Beck and Deborah Van Valkenburgh lead the ensemble cast. ~ Nathan Southern, Rovi

Rating: R (for violence and language)
Genre: Action & Adventure, Cult Movies, Drama
Directed By: Walter Hill
In Theaters: Feb 9, 1979 Wide
On DVD: Jan 16, 2001
Runtime: 93 minutes
Studio: Paramount Pictures

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Full Circle's post
13-02-2017, 01:40 PM
RE: Bad Movie Appreciation!
(13-02-2017 01:12 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  [Image: the-warriors2.jpg]

For all the corny generalizations and fantasy it is a fun flick to watch.

Walter Hill's hip, super-stylized action film unfurls in a dystopian near-future, when various gangs control New York City. Each gang sports a unique moniker ('The Warriors,' 'The Baseball Furies,' 'The Rogues'), with a costume underscoring its "theme"; each, in turn, is also responsible for one geographic area. Hill sets up the landscape as a massive, violent playground - replete with bridges, vacant subway tunnels, parks, abandoned buildings and the like, all ripe for exploration and adventure. As the tale opens, the titular Coney Island has traveled to the Bronx to attend a city-wide meeting of all gangs; at that event, however, the psychotic leader of a rival gang, The Rogues (David Patrick Kelly of Dreamscape) assassinates the head of the city's foremost gang, but The Warriors are pegged as culpable. This sends the gang fleeing through the labyrinthine city. With every thug in Manhattan in vicious, homicidal pursuit, they must also overcome all obstacles in their way. Throughout, Hill keeps the onscreen violence absurd, exaggerated and unrealistic, downplaying death to an extreme degree; despite this fact, the film sparked a massive amount of controversy and an ugly backlash for allegedly inciting violence and destruction in several theaters where it initially played.

James Remar, Michael Beck and Deborah Van Valkenburgh lead the ensemble cast. ~ Nathan Southern, Rovi

Rating: R (for violence and language)
Genre: Action & Adventure, Cult Movies, Drama
Directed By: Walter Hill
In Theaters: Feb 9, 1979 Wide
On DVD: Jan 16, 2001
Runtime: 93 minutes
Studio: Paramount Pictures

I saw this film several times when it first came out -- because I had a friend who was obsessed with it (he must have seen it a dozen times, and this was before VCRs and DVDs and internet streaming -- he went to the theater and paid to see it that many times).

It was entertaining in a campy sort of way. For history buffs, it was loosely based on Xenophon's Anabasis (a true story).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: