As a Cruise film, it may fall off many people's radars, but it's got some really well worked out trippy stuff in there.
But I'm a sucker for non-completely-dumb time travel stuff. If you are too, be sure to check out Tenet and Predestination, if you haven't watched them already.
Both are well done, evoke consistent atmospheres, and didn't get the attention they deserve. Predestination is more physical in a Cronenbergian sense, while Tenet is pure Nolan administered intravenously.
I've even shown it to my 9 years old kid, he was flabbergasted. Might have not understood everything (he doesn't have the context) but overall he said it was the best movie he ever saw (so far).
The special effects of reverse polarity were well executed.
Based on the short story All You Zombies (which I've read, but haven't seen the adaptation)
Tip: Don't read anything about it, just watch it.
I similarly loved Children of Men, they really nail the dystopian aesthetic.
PKD didn't write "mind games"; according to one's own view of reality, he was either among the most sincere intellectuals since Kant, or a deeply paranoid, mentally ill individual - and everything inbetween. He was truly invested in the questions about perception that he poured over all his work.
But god bless him, he certainly did leave us with some marvelous tales designed to make us question the world around us and ourselves.
Also both movies have Michael Ironside, which is always a plus.
It was a seriously enlightening moment. A satire subtle enough that I could see both sides of it at different periods of my life.
Movie is cut-down version of book to fill in 90 mins.
Another example of supreme disappointment is "Battlefield Earth" movie. If you're fan of a book - don't watch it!
And as far as sci-fi movies which are deeper than one might expect, I'd also recommend the original Planet of the Apes and its early sequels.
Took me a few minutes on DDG, but enjoy: https://agapow.net/misc/humour/starship-troopers-a-review/
Since the reviewer mentioned it, the fact the characters all come from Buenos Aires is one of my favourite things about the movie. I've mentioned this a few times in conversation with people about the move, and they flat out didn't believe me. Their brains just didn't parse it, or what the implications are at all, because it's just there. It's never called out, or explained, or made a point.
There are two sequels and the first is really bad. None of the implied critique, just a straight cheesy SF action C-grade. The third film is actually worth a watch IMHO. It's still nowhere near the level of the original, but it's fun to see Van Dien kicking ass and taking names.
How did that happen? Why? No explanation, no hidden references, no hand-holding to any possible conclusion, no reference to the cost of a social change so complete. Unless you actively engage and critically think through what you are seeing and it's implications, you would never know.
In the hands of any other director it could just be laziness. Oh look, he's set it in Argentina, but they're all just like American kids. He couldn't even be bothered to include any local references. He could have at least hired local talent right? Taken advantage of the setting? But no, the fact the setting is this way is the actual point.
It's not totally clear to me what their purpose was. Did they just use Buenos Aires because that's where the book was set, without any deeper motivation?
If you want to read it that all the other cultures were wiped out in the war and only one culture survived, sure.
If you think the one world government imposed a monoculture, maybe.
If you think humans are herd creatures that naturally converge on group-think consensus and globalisation is just going to go that way, fine.
Or maybe it was lazy film making cutting corners for budget and convenience reasons. OK. But in rebuttal to that possibility I submit in evidence the entire back catalogue of Paul Verhoeven movies.
I think it's unrealistic to suggest Verhoeven had anything subtle in mind. He had a line he wanted to spout, and he did it.
I've always thought about it like the Giant Spider: https://www.theringer.com/movies/2019/6/28/18761548/wild-wil...
Director wanted a thing, and the subject matter fit was irrelevant. shrug. I call it "Bug Wars", and as such it's a well animated B movie.
So his goals were libertarian, but I can't help thinking his intended means to achieve them would wind up, er, not doing so at all even slightly.
On that note, Heinlein wrote all sorts of weird, contrarian themes into his books. Many of them pushed against the prevailing social norms and beliefs of the time, from sexual norms to ethics to race relations. Trying to pin down his actual beliefs is difficult because he would often write one book taking one stance on an issue, and another later with a totally contrary stance. Often when I read Heinlein I find myself strongly disagreeing with what he's putting down, but fascinated with the question or angle being posed/presented.
And then, of course, your comment about people being unwilling to even consider the thoughts of those they disagree with steps in.
There are alot of people who made the transition from a socialist to a more right wing position. It’s important context that many of the thinkers of that day didn’t have the benefit of seeing the future… the prospect of nuclear conflict was very real and had an outsized impact on people who were aware of what was actually going on.
His isn’t necessarily a worldview I subscribe to, but isn’t worthy of being dismissive about.
About as likely as someone watching Hanger Games and not getting lost on the reality show history, instead of being annoyed that the movie's history didn't progress.
Goes to prove that propaganda works. At least for short periods.
A lot of his movies show you the heroic, seductive face of fascism for most of the movie, but every now and then through the movie he twists the coin just a little bit. You get a glimpse of what's on the other side, hinting at how what you think you're seeing isn't at all the whole story. But he leaves you to figure that out, the same way he did.
He could have picked a different franchise (or created a new one) instead of hitching the movie's title to a book with a totally different message and atmosphere.
I wanted to see something darker, something about a kid growing up into an officer. I wanted to see Jonnie realize how much trouble he was in and feel lucky for only getting a few lashes, and I wanted to see Zim give him a microscopic bit of comfort just before that sentence. I wanted to see a father and son reunite for 45 minutes at the starport, and the proud father bounce off to his new ship. I wanted an exploration of morality in military service as a mirror for how we guide our own lives in the real world. I wanted to see the stupid powered suits, okay?
Instead I got a terrible political commentary with bad acting. He could have done that with his own story (wait, he did).
I don't know why the film was called Starship Troopers. Oh wait, I do; it was a money grab. Verhoeven didn't even finish reading the book.
and all the Verhoeven movies 1985-1997
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Verhoeven
Not based on P.K. Dick works but heavily (and beatifully) inspired by them I'd also mention "Dark City" directed by Alex Proyas (The Crow, I Robot)
It's a shame The Thirteenth Floor came out the same year as the Matrix...
The adaptations of his work are big names…
“Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” -> Blade Runner
“We Can Remember It For You Wholesale” -> Total Recall
“Minority Report -> The Minority Report
“Scanner Darkly” -> Scanner Darkly
“The Man in the High Castle” -> The Man in the High Castle
Me as a 12 year old: The lady has 3 boobs !
Me watching as an adult. Great sci-fi movie !
They never attempt anything begging for awards, nor the signaling that many modern filmmakers do just to impress, they just put in the things that seemed to work best.
Basil Poledouris is a true genius
Not surprisingly he worked with Milius on many other movies besides "Conan the Barbarian" and Verhoeven, who directed Total Recall.
The 'heavy on philosophy' - what do you refer to. The trope about what is reality has history (recently 'inception', going back to the early 70's with 'Night of Delusions' by Keith Laumer and I'm sure it goes back a long way more) and rarely gets answered properly, so nothing much philosophical there. We thought it was just a bad film.
That's a pretty strange way of say "an entirely different movie".
The biggest thing: it lacked the depth of the original.
It had a very definitive ending, and felt shallow.
The original movie and the short story are some of my favorites.
I later read an article or something about the original movie about how when Quaid begins to break the scenes use red lighting. And when the doctor comes into the room and warns that if Quaid kills him that the walls would crumble, etc. All of it happens.
The entire plot is designed by Quaid in the beginning, down to his love interest.
So the end begged the question of whether he really uncovered memories, or if he had an adverse reaction and when the doctor tried to help Quaid shot him and delved into his psychosis.
Apparently the remake had a director's cut that tried to make the ending more ambiguous, but I've never seen that version- once was enough.
The story is insightful, heavy on philosophy, extremely ambiguous, and digs into interesting questions about a very viable future technology. On a superficial level one can take the ending (which does provide closure) at face value, but it was intended to make one think. It's based on a Philip K Dick short story, "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale", and it shows.
It's a grandiose story, but only on the surface and only due to the fact it's set in the future. The plot is something that will affect everybody at some point. If you haven't seen it yet, I'd strongly recommend going in blind.