Starship Troopers 2

[Bada0Bing]

You must be registered for see images attach

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Allowing for all the low-budget shortcomings that plague any straight-to-video production, Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation serves up 92 minutes of passable sci-fi action. Parlaying his veteran status as an animator, special-effects wizard, and stalwart survivor of the CGI revolution, Phil Tippett (with returning screenwriter Ed Neumeier) makes a woefully uninspired directorial debut with this makeshift sequel to Paul Verhoeven's 1997 blockbuster, retaining the jarhead militarism of Robert Heinlein's original novel while serving up more bugs, an all-new cast of attractive young stars, and all-too-familiar plot elements borrowed from a dozen better movies. "Bigger is better" is out of the question under such meager budgetary circumstances, so Tippett and Neumeier compensate with gruesome bugfights and gross-out effects at regular intervals, some standard-issue nudity, and escalating paranoia (echoing Carpenter's The Thing) when a new breed of bugs use human hosts (à la The Hidden) to overtake a stranded platoon of Federation soldiers on a bug-infested planet. Relying on murky confinement to hide nondescript sets, Troopers 2 has three engaging leads in its favor: TV regular Richard Burgi is solidly cast as the titular hero (he's the military equivalent of Pitch Black's Riddick); Colleen Porch is engaging as the most sensible Federation survivor; and screen veteran Ed Lauter makes the most of his salty role as a battle-hardened general. Unfortunately, they're adrift in a knock-off sequel (shot on high-def digital video) that could never do justice to its energetic predecessor. --Jeff Shannon



**************


I recently watched this one. This one was even worse than I was expecting. It had absolutely none of the character that the first one had. And even though Kelly Carlson is naked for a bit, it hardly makes it worthwhile to sit thru this one.

It looks like they bumped the budget for the 3rd one up to $20 million and brought back Casper Van Dien, so hopefully it'll be a bit better.

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

I can't believe there aren't any threads discussing what a steaming pile of poo this "film" is (and I use the term "film" a loosely as humanly possible!)

This movie sucks!

It sucks more than a $20 hooker at the Walla Walla VFW on Onion-Night!

It should have been titled "Starship Troopers 2: This Movie Sucks!"

The only thing that would have made this movie any worse is if it was directed by William Shatner...on second thought, maybe William Shatner's personal brand of crappy direction would have made it a better film...that's how bad this movie is!

 

[Linderbee]

So, do you recommend the movie or not, Ken?

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

So, do you recommend the movie or not, Ken?

Now remember, I like bad movies (just ask Chap)..."Starship Troopers 2" just plain sucks!

It's worse than "Poltergeist 2"!

 

[Linderbee]

But was it worse than "North"?

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

But was it worse than "North"?

Ooh...tough call on that one...to be honest, "North" was such a traumatic experience that I have blocked it from my memory, while "Starship Troopers 2" was so bad it branded it's craptasticness into my very soul...much like "Chicago"...

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Don't forget...

Starship Troopers 3

 

[Gaddabout]

I thought the first one was clever. The book was downright fascist, IMO, and the movie stuck pretty close to the book ... which had the affect of revealing the absurdity of Heinlen's 50s nationalism. They interspersed it with WWII-style propaganda films, which only intensified the commentary on that mid-20th century American mindset.

I figured the sequels were probably made for the portion of the audience who didn't get the subtext of the first movie ... because it didn't make sense to make the same point with the same subject matter. So I never watched them.

 

[Linderbee]

Ooh...tough call on that one...to be honest, "North" was such a traumatic experience that I have blocked it from my memory, while "Starship Troopers 2" was so bad it branded it's craptasticness into my very soul...much like "Chicago"...

Well, then, North was worse, but I guess you're fortunate in that respect, though, since you can't remember it. I'm not so lucky!

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

Well, then, North was worse, but I guess you're fortunate in that respect, though, since you can't remember it. I'm not so lucky!

You have my sympathy...

 

[Stout]

I thought the first one was clever. The book was downright fascist, IMO, and the movie stuck pretty close to the book ... which had the affect of revealing the absurdity of Heinlen's 50s nationalism. They interspersed it with WWII-style propaganda films, which only intensified the commentary on that mid-20th century American mindset.

I figured the sequels were probably made for the portion of the audience who didn't get the subtext of the first movie ... because it didn't make sense to make the same point with the same subject matter. So I never watched them.

The movie definitely stuck close to the book, if you disregard the fact that it didn't really stick close to the book

 

[Bada0Bing]

Now remember, I like bad movies (just ask Chap)..."Starship Troopers 2" just plain sucks!

It's worse than "Poltergeist 2"!

I too enjoy watching a bad movie every now and then, but this was painful.

 

[Gaddabout]

The movie definitely stuck close to the book, if you disregard the fact that it didn't really stick close to the book

It terms of thematic content, I thought it was dead on. They didn't change it to make it more palatable to modern audiences. They left in every uncomfortable pro-military reference.

 

[Stout]

It terms of thematic content, I thought it was dead on. They didn't change it to make it more palatable to modern audiences. They left in every uncomfortable pro-military reference.

Meh, it was far more cartooney, and far less serious. In that respect, I think they were thematically off.

 

[Gaddabout]

Meh, it was far more cartooney, and far less serious. In that respect, I think they were thematically off.

That's because Verhoven (sp?) was trying to show how over-the-top he thought Heinlen was. It was Verhoven's perspective of Heinlen.

 

[Stout]

That's because Verhoven (sp?) was trying to show how over-the-top he thought Heinlen was. It was Verhoven's perspective of Heinlen.

And thus not an accurate representation of the book. You make it sound as if it was high-class satire; in reality, it was a cheesy sci-fi flick.

 

[Gaddabout]

And thus not an accurate representation of the book. You make it sound as if it was high-class satire; in reality, it was a cheesy sci-fi flick.

Well, the book won an award for best sci-fi in spite of intense criticism. Heinlen even put off Stranger in a Strange Land (a truly great book) to write Starship Troopers because he was put off by those against nuclear proliferation and military boosterism. If you were upset because Verhoven wasn't faithful to the spirit of the book, I understand your comments. As someone who was equally disturbed by Heinlen's fanatical pro-military, I thought Verhoven took Heinlen's material and cast an appropriate light on it.

 

[Stout]

Well, the book won an award for best sci-fi in spite of intense criticism. Heinlen even put off Stranger in a Strange Land (a truly great book) to write Starship Troopers because he was put off by those against nuclear proliferation and military boosterism. If you were upset because Verhoven wasn't faithful to the spirit of the book, I understand your comments. As someone who was equally disturbed by Heinlen's fanatical pro-military, I thought Verhoven took Heinlen's material and cast an appropriate light on it.

I am able to separate Heinlein's beliefs from the stories. I mean, if you look into it even a little, it is clear that he had very open sexual thoughts, and dabbled in homosexuality. I don't care; he writes great sci fi. Correction, he writes THE BEST sci-fi.

 

[jefftheshark]

I am able to separate Heinlein's beliefs from the stories. I mean, if you look into it even a little, it is clear that he had very open sexual thoughts, and dabbled in homosexuality. I don't care; he writes great sci fi. Correction, he writes THE BEST sci-fi.

I just bought "Have Spacesuit Will Travel" for my 11 year old, mainly because it was the first Heinlein book I ever read. I re-read it over the weekend to make sure that it would be at an appropriate level for my son, and quite candidly, if you can get past the cheesy title, the book still holds up today as a great read by a great author.

That being said, I was disappointed in the movie version of Starship Troopers because of the very reasons Gaddabout praises it.

The director had an opportunity to explore some ideas that, while they were old fashioned in 1997, would have struck a very responsive chord in a post 9/11 world. Those ideas being the celebration of military service, the embracing of the equality of the sexes and the danger inherent in battling a hive-type mentality (be it either political totalitarianism or religious fanaticism). Instead the director took the easy way out and pandered his vision to the political flavor of the day. Contrast this with Heinlein, who was roundly criticized for his writings, but did not change his beliefs in order to curry favor with the people who were uncomfortable with his views. The difficult path would have been to make a movie that was true to spirit of the book, and let the audience decide whether the thoughts being expressed were laughable, or not.

Instead the director created a silly little movie about brain eating space bugs.

JTS