Starship Troopers

If Verhoeven had actually made the satire that many comments refer to, I would have enjoyed it, but the director doesn't make fun of multiple genres at once. Instead, he combines three genres together to occasionally try, sometimes clumsily, sometimes decently, to engage the viewer. However, I would like more than just oscillating between awkward dialogues, unsurprising training, and the film's best aspect, namely well-executed and action-packed fights with the enemy. I would like to delve deeper into the film, and the resolution of whether the main hero ends up with this or that, or pondering how beetles can kill in different ways, can never provide that. (15/08/2007)

Beautiful example of how it is possible to make a B-movie with a significant impact. It is also an example of how critics usually do not understand it. The question is whether Verhoeven really made such a revolutionary B-movie or if the critics are right. Personally, I would lean towards the first option because, by the way, the visual aspect is great and the fights with bugs are fantastic. (03/04/2015)

Starship Troopers has on the one hand decent visual effects and a good dose of action, but on the other hand it has an incredibly dull script that makes you roll your eyes in all directions. Almost all of the characters are unlikeable to varying degrees, so I couldn't even root for them to survive – the only exception being Michael Ironside as Rasczak. (SPOILER!) Finally, I have to nitpick about the bizarre appearance of the bugs' main brain, which (not so) slightly resembled a certain body orifice. (01/08/2019)

I consider this movie a cinematic treat. A masterful example of modern, intricately crafted kitsch with a large budget and advertising. The high rating indicates that it is an exceedingly successful example. If this is a sample of an anti-war film and a satire on dumb series for teenagers, then I become an enthusiastic militarist and a consumer. Paul Verhoeven employs elements from teenage series, cheesy sci-fi movies, and bloody action films, while also using some elements from artworks and creating an impression of satirical exaggeration and criticism. Kitsch is simply something that pretends to be something else, and Verhoeven is a very good player. Those who give the film four or five stars, do it precisely for the outward appearance of action sci-fi movies, for the digital special effects, for the visual aspect of the film, and for those beautiful young actors who took a break from shooting commercials. However, you are aware of the superficiality and need to wrap it in some acceptable, seemingly critical form. Yes, it's dynamic, and colorful, with lots of lovely women. Overall impression: 40%. (14/08/2007)

How to stay true to the idea and structure of Henlein's premise while epically wiping your ass with it and its entire author. The inability of critics of the time to recognize the satire in a film steeped in Reiefenstal-esque angles and the sectarian milieu of a utopian Earth, not to mention the cast, demonstrates time and again the importance of building a sensitivity to the form of film, the Achilles heel of most film theorists. ___ Update 2021: I am convinced that there is no such thing as immunity to visual propaganda, and whoever thinks they have it is saying so in the name of propagandizing others. After years of rising above the propagandistic nature of Starship Troopers, it only just dawned on me that the proper reading is to succumb to it for a lovely 129 minutes and, through cheering on those beautiful young people, to enjoy that sense of power and purpose. It's an important cathartic experience that ultimately helps you be more sensitive to the natural need to fall for that propaganda and marketing in real life. (25/08/2019)