Film review: Starship Troopers (released 1997)

With the 20th anniversary of this violent sci-fi classic being last year, which also coincided with the release of the animated feature Starship Troopers: Traitor of Mars, I figured now that was as good a time as any to review this bloodthirsty classic.  

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/mediaviewer/rm611522560?ref_=tt_ov_i

But before we look in-depth at the significance of the film, we must first look at the equivalent aspect of its source material. The original novel that Starship Troopers is based on was published way back in 1959 and written by the legendary and ahead-of-his-time liberal writer Robert A. Heinlein. Big man Rob was definetly a unique mind amongst mainstream sci-fi writers in the age of segregation and sexual closetedness in western media in the 1940s-60s. In a stark contrast to some writers of his similar popularity in the mainstream at the time, Heinlein featured a number of storylines with protagonists, and main ones at that, of colour and themes that expressed sexual freedom and liberal individualism. 

In the original Starship Troopers book, we see a proto-facist military society fighting against a bug-like alien army with a force of heavily armoured and mechanised infantry. Throughout this relatively small novel, we repeatedly read about scenes of the higher-ups in this society acting as if their near constant politicking and beaurocratic management is helping to win the war. In actuality, it is the highly trained soldiers in their supremely advanced mech suits that are winning the war with skill and bravery. In a sense, the original book is taking a jab at the beaurocratic nature of such goverments and the actions of politicians in heavily militaristic societies taking credit for advancements and victories that are gained via the efforts of others upon their command. However, there is this running theme throughout the book that war and conflict are intrinsic parts of human nature. This might've been more relevant in the mid-1940s-late-1950s when the nuclear arms race and cold war were really picking up speed in the wake of the Second World War (1939-45) and the Korean War (1950-53). But, in a moment of brutally poor timing for the intended message of the book, the Vietnam war (1961-75) would properly break out a few years later and thus the public perception would change in much of the west towards the national duty to wage war in the sake of liberty. Especially after events like the Tet Offensive (1968), many in places like the USA, Canada and UK realised that gaining liberty and emancipation was possible through less violent means. An interesting and well-written book with a controversial but thought-provoking message indeed. A message with horrendous timing? Absolutley.

Therefore, does the film adaptation made almost 40 years later show any alternations to the original themes and messages of the book and indeed Heinlein's overall ethos that he showed in his writing? For starters, the film does represent a proto-facist and highly militaristic society at war with a bug species known as the arachnids. However there are a few big differences. The first is visually obvious in that the soldiers in the film are used and equipped much more as simple mobile infantry and thus, incur heavy casualties in gruesome fashion. Second, the society that our main characters serve is framed in stark contrast with a decidedly less political and much more satirical edge. Whereas war is seen in the book as a natural part of human nature, the film sees it as one part of our world that we would do well to try and steer clear of considering how much it can damage the younger generations. Considering the carnage amongst the mobile infantry of the Earth Federation during the iconic scene showing the assault on the planet Klendathu, the film can also be seen as making use of the events of the Vietnam War that happened after the book came out as an allegory for that very same conflict. What I mean by this is that the landing of Klendathu scene, on top of being a badass action scene and having an iconic song named after it, is a decent allegory for the Vietnam war; showing a technologically superiror invading army being unanimously humiliated by an arguably more simplistic and less advanced enemy. Case in point, you should not go to war unless it is absolutely necessary and you should also never treat your enemy with no respect.

So enough about postulating and theorising, how good is the film itself? Well, while I think it is very enjoyable I have to admit that it is quite dumb. Quite dumb indeed. Now that isn't the fault of the source material and deeper message of the film which as mentioned above, are fairly intelligent. Rather, this is down to some of the acting and a great deal of the dialogue being a tad over the top and kind of silly. One example is a scene towards the beginning of the film where Casper Van Dien's Johnny Rico and his girlfriend Carmen Ibanez (played by Denise Richards) flirt in the middle of class over an inter-school messaging system. Despite being a decently themed scene, the facial acting of both actors and the way the visuals are designed makes the whole thing cheesier than a plate of Hunters Chicken. Well...to be honest, the numerous romance scenes are all like that. In fact, I would perhaps not centre a war film around romance but rather survival. Although...I would imagine that romance was not a central theme of the original book so it was used as an interesting additional way of showing the distruction of the younger generations through conflict in the film. Admittedly, while the camerawork isn't absolutely sensational, it does the job fine and frames the secenes of particular carnage very well. Same thing goes for the acting too...I guess. It isn't anything on the levels of the peformances seen in Apocalypse Now (1979) but again, like the cinematography it does its job fine enough.

One area where the film peforms really well but perhaps shouldn't is in the soundtrack. I say this because the film mainly centres the soundtrack, without much variation on the song from the Kledathu drop. Now I am not complaining, as said above, it is a good tune for this kind of movie. Furthermore, its only really used in scenes where its really necessary for mood-setting.

In conclusion, I would not expect a great deal of hypothesising in this film or really in-depth conversations about warfare and the destructive impact it can make on the minds of otherwise healthy men and women. Again, if you want a piece of that pie, you really should do yourself a solid and watch Apocalypse Now. Or, I would also point out the interesting way this topic is analysed in other films like Full Metal Jacket (1987) or Wings of Honneamise (1987). Mind you though, Starship Troopers, even if you ignore its background, is still a thoroughly entertaining war film and packs more than enough blood 'n' guts for all you meatheads out there. It certainly has a hearty dose for ol' Ted here. On top of this, the actors all look good, the soundtrack does well enough, the direction is generally pretty decent and it has Denise Richards in it who is always nice to see in a well-dressed military uniform and smiling. I...may have revealed a bit much there but...in any case, watch this film as it is a blast. In fact, watch the animated films Starship Troopers: Invasion (2012) and Starship Troopers: Traitor of Mars (2017) as well as the poorly-aged but still decent cgi cartoon Roughnecks (1999-2000) and ignore the two sequels to the original film and you will have a good summary of this franchise.

Camerawork/Cinematography: 5.5/10
Direction: 6/10
Sound/soundtrack/sound design: 7.8/10
Writing & plot: 7/10
Acting: 5.25/10

Personal enjoyment: 9/10

Film review: Absentia (released 2011)

When you think of indie horror films your mind might end up wandering to either one of two places. One could be an artful horror thought-piece like the legendary Vertigo (1958) directed by Alfred Hitchcock where the budget is larger than one would expect for a film like this and where the definition of 'indie' is generally a bit stretched. And secondly, your mind could end up conjuring up thoughts of films that use their smaller budgets to their advantage by allowing simplicity and use of camerawork to enhance the atmosphere.

This is where today's topic, the 2011 release Absentia comes in. And where it nearly wastes the oppourtunity to make its simplicity and interesting camerawork enhance the film to the fullest extent.

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1610996/mediaviewer/rm1922807552?ref_=tt_ov_i

Now let me just say that this is not necessarily a bad film.  It could have been so much better and is generally let down by some flat performances in certain scenes and bizarre plotting towards the end of the film. BUT, it and the filmmakers try their damned hardest to make a truly great horror/thriller. I always prefer a film to fail ironically while being unironically serious wether it turns into a befuddled mess like this film or becomes an unintentional comedic masterpiece like Manos: The Hands of Fate  (1966). If you have a film that is just straight up bad and aware of it while trying to do nothing to at least try and be good or change certain things, you just end up feeling drained and bored.  Wether Absentia turned into a comedy or not because of its failings, I still would admire it for its artistic vision and interesting concepts both in cinematography and plot.

The cinematography, I personally feel, is this film's strongest aspect. Whereas many indie or low-budget horror films would simply rely on shot-reverse shot or close-up camerawork to convey scares, Absentia rarely relies on this kind of filmmaking unless it ABSOLUTLEY has to. Many of the scenes where a particular mood is being set are shot from the back so that we get an impression of the character being framed is going though a thought process on how to approach the situation that they are faced with. Its a bit difficult to describe more than that, but, for most of the film, you feel like you're watching what is going on screen along with the character being framed in the scene. As a result, even in some of the more dour and less-interesting scenes, the mood is enhanced by pretty damn solid cinematography.

Another area where the film might not be as strong, but still deserves praise, is its plot. Despite my misgivings, the concept of the plot at least is a thoroughly engrossing draw. Tricia (played by Courtney Bell) has been living in her house for 5 years debating on wether or not to declare her long-missing husband Daniel (played by Morgan Peter Brown) dead while also coming to terms with her own pregnancy and the possibility of moving out. Just as she decides to follow through with signing off the paperwork for both of these big decisions, Tricia's former drug-addict sister Callie (played by Catherine Parker) comes to stay and help her through moving house and the emotions of declaring Daniel dead. But, just as this and the romancing advances of Detective Mallory (played by Dave Levine) begin to develop, mysterious incidents start popping up around Callie and Tricia in ways that reveal a great deal about their flaws. This sounds like the perfect plot for a narrative threaded together with plot twists and intrigue and, for the most part, that is the case. However, towards the end of the film, this aspect of the whole feature goes and craps its breeches.

If there was one major criticism I could levy at the film, it would be the thoroughly disappointing ending/third act where any semblance of realism or mystique goes out the window for some baffling exposition. The moment when the film has a metaphorical stroke is when Callie breaks character from being a nervous but steady-headed quizzical woman of faith into being a raving nutcase when she reels off some crazy theory about the walk tunnel near Tricia's house. A theory that, despite lack of real evidence, Callie and the film treat absolutely seriously without questioning it despite her sources all being alternative and minor news websites. This moment is sandwiched by insane moments that contradict the theme and style of the film where visions of monsters haunting Tricia's neighbourhood are revealed to possibly be real and not just the understandable hangover hallucinations from when Callie still abused heroin. From here on out towards the end of the film, the whole feature just forgets what its been building up and shits the bed and in turn becomes a most generic thriller in the third act. Aside from a genuinely haunting last couple of scenes, the final act of Absentia is definitely the movie's weak link.

But is this damming enough to make the film a bad one? In terms of its finish; yes. In terms of the film overall?; a little bit but this shouldn't downplay the other qualities that Absentia has on offer. Like I said above, the cinematography is great as is the writing and plotting for the first 75% or so of the film. On top of this, in combination with the camerawork, the music/soundtrack helps enhance the ethos and theme of many scenes to a fantastic extent as does the performances of Morgan Peter Brown and Catherine Parker who are the two powerhouse performers amongst the cast. However, the lack of a quality final act is still galling and really drags the film down, had this not been the case I would have said Absentia was the best horror film of 2011.

Direction: 7/10
Writing: 6.5/10
Camerawork/cinematography: 9.5/10
Plot: 4.75/10
Acting: 6.85/10

Personal enjoyment: 6.25/10

Batman the Dark Knight Returns (parts 1 and 2) review

Hello there ladies and gentlemen! I know that me disappearing for months on end is kind of a running theme on this blog but its one that I'm really trying hard to do away with.  However, as the old saying goes; the show must go on!

And what better way to introduce this new wave of hope and optimism by reviewing a fine bit of media courtesy of our good friends at the University of Sussex Sci-Fi & Horror Society?

But t'was not a film that we saw this time, or at least one in the commonly accepted sense, but rather a 2-part animated mini-series based on the legendary 1986 graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller, Klaus Janson, Denny O'Neil and Lynn Varley.

The Dark Knight Returns comic book cover: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Returns

Batman the Dark Knight Returns part 1 cover: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2313197/mediaviewer/rm2876679936?ref_=tt_ov_i

Batman the Dark Knight Returns part 2 cover: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2166834/mediaviewer/rm1483283200?ref_=tt_ov_i

To put a long story short, this well-regarded bit of comic book history envisions a much older Bruce Wayne (aka Batman) coming out of retirement after over a decade away from crimefighting to find the fictional city of Gotham being besieged from all quarters and alleys by all manner of curs and vagabonds.  Through the use of tactics that are considerably more aggressive and violent than those used by the Caped Crusader in his previous couple of decades of lore and adventuring, Batman tackles a city-wide gang called The Mutants.  But as this conflict with the dirt of Gothams' society reveals the full extent of Batman's motives and methods, he comes into conflict with the new commissioner of the Gotham City police department as well as his old mate Superman.  Will Batman cling to his position as a hero of the people and the old-fashioned way of tackling crime or bow down to the establishment and their methods?

I'll refrain from describing the synopsis of the film any more than this for fear of spoiling the story for anyone wanting to watch both parts of Batman the Dark Knight Returns.  But, I will say that the main draw of both the book and the miniseries is how it narratively presents a well-established and widely known character in a way that they hadn't been presented in close to a similar fashion since the 1940s.  Between the 1950s and mid-1980s, Batman as a character generally became less violent and aggressive as compared to his classic comic adventures in the 1930s and 40s.  There are a wide number of factors that could form some interesting theories as to why this happened such as the rise of the 'peace and love' movement in the late-1960s and the outcry in American popular media against events such as other violent comic stories and the Vietnam War amongst other similar incidents. There is a general consensus in the analysis of 1980s pop culture in the west that there was a, somewhat brief but nonetheless impactful, rejection of this widespread message in western media in many, albeit not all quarters.  Hence, when watching films like Cobra (1986 starring Sylvester Stallone) or Death Wish 2 (1982 starring Charles Bronson), you're likely to see either some hard-ass rule-breaker or old and weary battle-scarred warrior taking on the 'weirdos' and 'freaks' who had been seen to have infiltrated US or UK society during the 1960s and 70s.  There is an element of this in both parts of Batman the Dark Knight Returns but what makes this reflective theme of tackling social hardships more interesting is that it is presented in this case with a character at the forefront who had spent about 20-25 years going against this trend somewhat before the original graphic novel came out.

So is the story of the miniseries, adapted from the book, any good in a qualitative sense? Generally speaking, I think this is one of the most seminal comic books of all time and both parts of the mini series, released in 2012 and 2013 respectively, adapt from it in a respectful and broadly competent and satisfying manner. The original story of the graphic novel was already an interesting draw from the offset and after that, is well-written throughout.  However, if there is one criticism that you could levy at the miniseries is that the graphic novel it is inspired by is perhaps one of the most of-its-time comics made in a long, long time.  This isn't much of an issue really, but, it does mean that some of the messages from the original comic could've maybe done with being adapted to stay relevant when the social issues facing western pop-culture had changed a lot by 2012-13.  But, to turn back around yet again, it might also be a great testament to this story's long-standing quality and reputation that even in 2012, still resonates just a little bit.

Although not all of the of-its-time stuff in the miniseries should be taken this seriously such as the absolutely baffling scene where Batman does battle with an MP-40 sub-machinegun-wielding criminal henchwoman with muscles to rival Batman's and wearing nothing but combat boots, grey combat trousers and swastika-shaped nipple pasties.

...

Oh you think I'm joking?

image link: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2166834/mediaviewer/rm2631477248?context=default&ref_=tt_pv_md_4

Just...WHY?

I know I have some tastes that I might not share with everyone I know or might ever come to know but I think that even in the context of the 1980s this is still bizarre. But alas, wherever there is something that can be marginally sexualised on the internet there is some loony bin doing just that. I can't say I'm all that surprised though, after all, the original Dark Knight Returns graphic novel was released not even 45 years after the 2nd World War (1939-45) had ended so this could perhaps be explained by the cultural hangover from that conflict. This would also explain the populist position that Batman takes on further into the 2-part miniseries and how, while netting him and the people of Gotham short-term benefits, is perhaps not the healthiest approach to solving all of the city's issues in the long run. Then again, Batman is more capable at tackling much of the criminals even this late into his career than a largely bumbling local government. Therefore, I guess how moral his populist takeover of the people's opinions and minds through action later on is down to an individual's own perspective.

But still...that scene with the Nazi henchwoman will never leave my mind.  No matter how much vodka and/or coffee I drink.

I guess that is in no small part down to the art and design of the two-part feature which, like the graphic novel is superb. Batman is large and blocky in his design in stark contrast to many of the slim and agile characters around him giving this contrast of Batman being set in his old, stoic ways as a new way of taking on the evils of the world outpaces him.  Even without this insight, the art is just generally good and isn't too noisy or overdesigned but neither is it too simplistic.  Its not the best I've ever seen in a feature like this but its damn solid and does its job really well.  As does the colour scheme and direction of the film which generally takes a dark hue as much of Batman's activities are undertaken at night. This gives Batman the impression of some brooding, dark and contemplative vengeful demon of the night which coincidentally was just how his character in the comics was starting to become around the time of when the graphic novel originally came out.

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2166834/mediaviewer/rm2564368384

So, before we conclude this cavalcade of Batman being awesome we should go onto what I feel is the strongest part of the miniseries. For me, there is no doubt that it has to be the voice-acting.  Maybe its a bit of bias from Robocop (1987) being my favourite film but I have to say that Peter Weller is my joint 1st place favourite incarnation of the character alongside the one in Batman the Animated Series (1992-1995) voiced by Kevin Conroy.  Other solid voice-acting performances throughout the feature come from Ariel Winter who plays a young Batman fangirl called Carrie Kellly who takes up the mantle of the next Robin and Michael Emerson who has a small part as Batman's most iconic villain; The Joker.  Emerson's portrayal of the character isn't my favourite.  But, to be fair, that is in part because the design for the character in this mini-series doesn't really fit the way that he speaks. Emerson's portrayal, as short as it is, takes an interesting approach to the clown of crime by portraying him as more of a slimy schemer than some insane whirlwind of madness with Joker's theme of insanity bubbling more under the surface of his character here.  Everyone does a commendable job though and even the weaker performances are still decent enough and do an above average job at portraying their characters.

So after all is said and done, would I recommend both parts of Batman the Dark Knight Returns?  If you want something that takes a bit more liberties and risks with its interpretation of the source material it might be a better idea to look elsewhere. However, the original graphic novel has a feel to it that screams out for a animated adaptation and while the two-part mini-series really doesn't change much, its still very entertaining.  Yes, the source material might be a bit too of-its-time for some people but this doesn't weigh the overall project down in terms of its intrinsic quality in my opinion.  Even this many years after pen was put to paper to introduce this idea of Batman being a weary but still tough hard old bugger to the mythos of his series, the graphic novel still holds water and its animated adaptation will surely do the same for a while yet.

Acting/Voice-acting: 9/10

Direction & Art-direction: 7.75/10

Soundtrack: 5/10

Action & animation: 7.15/10

Plot, writing & narrative: 6/10

Personal enjoyment: 8.5/10