Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:39 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 374 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 19  Next
Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion 
Author Message
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
Unke wrote:
I don't know about this Soviet concept of parody - they did parody in the USSR? - but I Think it is pretty obvious that "Starship Troopers" is a satire of militarism and militaristic propaganda as promoted by mainstream Hollywood action blockbusters and that Verhoven uses all the techniques of these blockbusters. I know a few people who didn't get the joke and considered it a "regular" sci-fi actioner - and they're all ignorants in so far as they can't recognise the militaristic propaganda in movies such as "Battleship", to name an obvious example. I think "Starship Troopers" is kind of brilliant, actually.


Agreed. I don't know what stoib is either, but the author defines it in a way that sums of Starship Troopers quite well.

JamesKunz wrote:
My problem is that Dr. Strangelove and Thank You For Smoking and In the Loop and good-great satires work because the actors know how to keep the film right on the edge of reality, where satire lives. Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards don't look like they have any idea they're in a satire, so why should be assume they are?


True, but those movies are satirizing real-life issues within society, whereas Starship Troopers is satirizing other movies. It would have been possible to toe the line between reality and fiction, but I enjoy the movie's over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek approach because it's not trying to comment on reality, but the insanity of propaganda influencing reality. It's a pretty great argument for style matching substance. The fact that it's, as NotHugh said, "aggressively bad" in all the stereotypical "Hollywood" ways clued me in to what the movie was trying to do.


Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:24 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:57 am
Posts: 270
Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
Unke wrote:

I think "Starship Troopers" is kind of brilliant, actually.


Same here, I absolutely love it, find it hysterical. One thing that gets overlooked a little bit when assessing Starship Troopers, is just how good the special effects were for 1997. Compare the biggest battle scene in the daylight, when the bugs attack the "troopers" to any other film in 1997 or before, and it stacks up pretty well.

_________________
I'm very sorry for your loss. Your mother was a terribly attractive woman - Royal Tenenbaum


Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:45 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1803
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
Quote:
Same here, I absolutely love it, find it hysterical. One thing that gets overlooked a little bit when assessing Starship Troopers, is just how good the special effects were for 1997. Compare the biggest battle scene in the daylight, when the bugs attack the "troopers" to any other film in 1997 or before, and it stacks up pretty well.


The effects look pretty awful to me, so I wouldn't know how to argue this point. Personally, I just don't get any joy from laughing at a movie that tries to be bad on purpose. I love good filmmaking too much to get behind that.


Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:11 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:56 pm
Posts: 226
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
MGamesCook wrote:
The effects look pretty awful to me, so I wouldn't know how to argue this point. Personally, I just don't get any joy from laughing at a movie that tries to be bad on purpose. I love good filmmaking too much to get behind that.


So we're not going to hear your positive reaction to Showgirls anytime soon?

_________________
Never take a forum signature too seriously, even this one.


Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:26 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:57 am
Posts: 270
Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
Same here, I absolutely love it, find it hysterical. One thing that gets overlooked a little bit when assessing Starship Troopers, is just how good the special effects were for 1997. Compare the biggest battle scene in the daylight, when the bugs attack the "troopers" to any other film in 1997 or before, and it stacks up pretty well.


The effects look pretty awful to me, so I wouldn't know how to argue this point. Personally, I just don't get any joy from laughing at a movie that tries to be bad on purpose. I love good filmmaking too much to get behind that.


Titanic won best visual effects at the oscars in 1998. If you watch that now compared to Starship Troopers, which do you think looks better? Titanic is probably a bad example, as the cgi/visual effects/special effects are so different. Let me know what sci film had better visual effects before Starship Troopers in 1997 and I'll check it out.

_________________
I'm very sorry for your loss. Your mother was a terribly attractive woman - Royal Tenenbaum


Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:19 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1803
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
Quote:
Titanic won best visual effects at the oscars in 1998. If you watch that now compared to Starship Troopers, which do you think looks better? Titanic is probably a bad example, as the cgi/visual effects/special effects are so different. Let me know what sci film had better visual effects before Starship Troopers in 1997 and I'll check it out.


Event Horizon.


Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:34 am
Profile
Online
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2525
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
Kunz -

Quote:
Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards don't look like they have any idea they're in a satire, so why should be assume they are?


I was going to say something similar about Richards myself. But struggled to do so without sounding like some kind of frothing misogynist.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:18 am
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:35 pm
Posts: 42
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
Oleanna

I first watched it when I began college, had to watch it again for another course two years later, then I did a semester-long independent study on David Mamet three years later that had me revisiting this yet again.

That third time, I fast-forwarded and jotted down highlights because I couldn't stand to watch the whole thing yet again. What an enraging film.

_________________
Last five viewings...

Kevin Hart: Let Me Explain - 5/10
Crystal Lake Memories - 8/10
Carrie (2013) - 6/10
Eve of Destruction - 7/10
Phil Spector - 5/10


Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:29 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
Same here, I absolutely love it, find it hysterical. One thing that gets overlooked a little bit when assessing Starship Troopers, is just how good the special effects were for 1997. Compare the biggest battle scene in the daylight, when the bugs attack the "troopers" to any other film in 1997 or before, and it stacks up pretty well.


The effects look pretty awful to me, so I wouldn't know how to argue this point. Personally, I just don't get any joy from laughing at a movie that tries to be bad on purpose. I love good filmmaking too much to get behind that.


I wouldn't say it's just laughing at the movie's intentional badness that makes it a good movie. There's value in a film that embraces a certain style and pushes it to the ultimate extent of its limits in an effort to blur the line between genuine affection and parody. It's a film that'll get people talking about what it is, what it's trying to do, and what exactly movies can and cannot do. It drives dialogue, which is one of the most important things any piece of art, in any form, can do. For that, it's more worthy than most Oscar winners.

You don't seem to have much of a taste for anything not in line with the classical style of filmmaking. That's obviously your perogative, but I think it'll end up causing you to miss out on a lot of what makes cinema a great, rich artform. There's more to movies than pure technique. I love discussing film technique as much as anyone, but some movies don't concern themselves with that and deserve to be analyzed in terms of what they do concern themselves with.


Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:34 am
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7480
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
Here's my problem. Well, one of them I guess. People who have tried to reclaim the movie's reputation and assert it's a brilliant satire were motivated to do so because of the director. After all, Paul Verhoeven brought a winking touch to Total Recall and Robocop, so he couldn't just make a straightforward action movie, right? But I don't think that logic holds. Anyone see Black Book? It's a ludicrously over the top World War II thriller/adventure, but it is played absolutely straight. At no point is it a satire of ludicrously over the top World War II movies, it just is one. So it doesn't seem to me that Starship Troopers (which, again, I rather like) has to be a brilliant satire.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:14 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
"A winking touch" doesn't begin to describe Robocop, wherein its nature as a comedy is obvious but the very many layers of satire are not.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:10 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
JamesKunz wrote:
Here's my problem. Well, one of them I guess. People who have tried to reclaim the movie's reputation and assert it's a brilliant satire were motivated to do so because of the director. After all, Paul Verhoeven brought a winking touch to Total Recall and Robocop, so he couldn't just make a straightforward action movie, right? But I don't think that logic holds. Anyone see Black Book? It's a ludicrously over the top World War II thriller/adventure, but it is played absolutely straight. At no point is it a satire of ludicrously over the top World War II movies, it just is one. So it doesn't seem to me that Starship Troopers (which, again, I rather like) has to be a brilliant satire.


I completely agree. I think intent matters, but not to the extent where it should completely change someone's opinion of a movie. Someone who does think the movie is brilliant would probably be better suited to defend it than I am. I like the movie as an alternative to something like The Cabin in the Woods that seems to think it's superior to the movies it is satirizing. At least Starship Troopers, like Edgar Wright's early movies (amongst many, many others), has the awareness to realize it has a certain amount of affection for what it's taking aim at. It's a fun, clever movie.

I think Slant grossly overrates it in an effort to bring attention to the fact that it does have more going on than most people would give it credit for upon first glance. It's really no different than a director putting something obscure on his/her Sight and Sound ballot. I'm fine with that because the only practical purpose those lists serve is to expose people to different movies and different takes on movies.

Ken wrote:
"A winking touch" doesn't begin to describe Robocop, wherein its nature as a comedy is obvious but the very many layers of satire are not.


Haha, I knew Ken was going to take issue with that statement as soon as I read it. The alarm from Kill Bill went off inside of my brain.

And that's a good thing. Because Robocop is a legitmately brilliant film.


Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:40 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
I heard this, myself.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:42 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:56 pm
Posts: 226
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
From Slant Magazine's list of the "100 Best Films of the 1990s", in which Starship Troopers made number twenty.

"It seems fitting that it took stumbling upon an obscure Soviet-era concept for me to feel like I had the vocabulary to talk about Paul Verhoeven with any degree of accuracy. That concept is stiob, which I'll crudely define as a form of parody requiring such a degree of over-identification with the subject being parodied that it becomes impossible to tell where the love for that subject ends and the parody begins. And so there, in 32 words, is the Hollywood cinema of Paul Verhoeven. Starship Troopers then has to be a bad movie, insofar as that means that the acting is not dramatically convincing, the story is hopelessly contrived, the special effects are distractingly garish in their limb-ripping and bone-crunching, because the point isn't to do better than Hollywood (that would run counter to Verhoeven's obvious love of these cheap popular forms), but to do more of Hollywood, to push every element to its breaking point without caving to the lazy lure of ridicule. The result is a style that embraces a form as fully as possible only to turn it back against the content, and one of the greatest of all anti-imperialist films. Coldiron"

I'm not saying I like the film. Showgirls also made their list at number fourteen, Fire Walk with Me at eleven (a personal favorite, you all should watch it) and Eyes Wide Shut at number two (YAY!).

_________________
Never take a forum signature too seriously, even this one.


Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:42 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
^ Have you been following the discussion at all?

That's a rhetorical question because the answer is clearly "no".


Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:00 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:56 pm
Posts: 226
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
Obviously not, wanna be a dick about it?

PeachyPete wrote:
I think Slant grossly overrates it in an effort to bring attention to the fact that it does have more going on than most people would give it credit for upon first glance. It's really no different than a director putting something obscure on his/her Sight and Sound ballot. I'm fine with that because the only practical purpose those lists serve is to expose people to different movies and different takes on movies.


As for this part? It should be ignored because its wrong. They support their positions and are better at what they do than most modern critics.

_________________
Never take a forum signature too seriously, even this one.


Last edited by JJoshay on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:57 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7480
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
JJoshay wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
I think Slant grossly overrates it in an effort to bring attention to the fact that it does have more going on than most people would give it credit for upon first glance. It's really no different than a director putting something obscure on his/her Sight and Sound ballot. I'm fine with that because the only practical purpose those lists serve is to expose people to different movies and different takes on movies.


You mean this part? I ignored it because its wrong. They support their positions and are better at what they do than most modern critics.


If you have Showgirls higher than Schindler's List, Fargo, Boogie Nights/Magnolia, Raise the Red Lantern, etc., you are either trying to prove a point or you are insane.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:10 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:56 pm
Posts: 226
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
JamesKunz wrote:
JJoshay wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
I think Slant grossly overrates it in an effort to bring attention to the fact that it does have more going on than most people would give it credit for upon first glance. It's really no different than a director putting something obscure on his/her Sight and Sound ballot. I'm fine with that because the only practical purpose those lists serve is to expose people to different movies and different takes on movies.


You mean this part? I ignored it because its wrong. They support their positions and are better at what they do than most modern critics.


If you have Showgirls higher than Schindler's List, Fargo, Boogie Nights/Magnolia, Raise the Red Lantern, etc., you are either trying to prove a point or you are insane.


Didn't say I always agree with them, just that they can support their trash better than many of us can support our art. Mark needs to jump in if this is going to turn into a discussion on Showgirls.

_________________
Never take a forum signature too seriously, even this one.


Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:17 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
JJoshay wrote:
Obviously not, wanna be a dick about it?

PeachyPete wrote:
I think Slant grossly overrates it in an effort to bring attention to the fact that it does have more going on than most people would give it credit for upon first glance. It's really no different than a director putting something obscure on his/her Sight and Sound ballot. I'm fine with that because the only practical purpose those lists serve is to expose people to different movies and different takes on movies.


As for this part? It should be ignored because its wrong. They support their positions and are better at what they do than most modern critics.


I quoted the exact same thing you did yesterday. Word for word. Maybe I should have used a smiley emoticon to show I was joking. No need to get your panties in a bunch.

As for what you've quoted, in no way was I disparaging Slant (had you realized you were quoting something I already did, you would have realized that, but I digress). I check their website regularly and use them as a resource. That said, lists such as theirs are largely arbitrary. What we've both quoted doesn't really support why Starship Troopers is better than the previous 80 films on the list or why it's worse than the next 19. It's just reasons why they like the movie. And that's cool. That's what these lists are for.

You can say what I've said is wrong, and you're certainly free to ignore it, but many directors and critics have gone on record as saying certain movies made their Sight and Sound ballot because they wanted to bring attention to that movie. Many members of the National Film Registry (the group that selects what movies the Library of Congress preserves) actively support obscure movies in an effort to bring attention to them. These sorts of things happen and, big shock coming, it's a good thing.


Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:27 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:17 am
Posts: 233
Post Re: Movies you *hate* with a fiery, burning passion
The worst film ever made has to be either Sex inthe city 2 or Thunderbirds.
Sex in the city was one of the best tv shows during the 90's. It worth it checking it out to hear the marvelous dialog and chemistry between the central charactors.
Samantha was one of the coolest charactor in that show.
Here we had a proudly defiant older woman who was comfortable in her skin. . Then the film came along and turned her into a pill popping, mean spirited, spoilt, egotistical bitch that i have ever seen been displayed on screen. The other 3 charactors were not as bad but still, my god what horse sh1t the whole thing was.
I really hate the fact that they went to Dubai, had sod all respent for any the culture there,
skimmed over the fact that women are treated like 2nd class citizens there and then at the end they had to rush home not because of some disaster , oh no.
The reason they had to get to the airport sop quickly is because if they didn't they would have to fly coach.

I hate Thunderbirds for 3 reasons
1: I love the origional series. I was really looking forward to the film. I loved the fact that even though it was probably seen as a kids show, it was still had enough edge in it for adults to enjoy. The movie was put out for kids only. In fact Kinds save the day in the movie.. What tripe.
2: This film ruined Jonathan Frakes directorial career. He had already done 2 star trek films and he has stated himself that he feels that thunderbirds has ended any chance he has of direct anything significant again.
3: Ford product placement. ( I also hate the Lady Penelopey's car which was rediculaous. She is supposed to be a kind of a spy with a stupid car that stands out like a sore thumb.

I also agree with most of the people intheis forum. Freddy got fingered is pure drivel. Thank god Tom Greene never did much after it.


Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:56 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 374 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 19  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr