Re: A fresh take on the Star Wars films

On 5/12/2024 3:10 PM, shawn wrote:

On Sun, 12 May 2024 12:10:47 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
 

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

On 5/12/2024 3:14 AM, shawn wrote:

On Sun, 12 May 2024 06:54:55 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

Sat, 11 May 2024 22:35:20 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Fri, 10 May 2024 19:06:45 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> 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.

In that case, one of the sequels stars Jolene Blalock of 'Enterprise' fame.  *evil grin*
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky dirty old man.