Try a low-budget 80's vietnam movie called 84 Charlie Mopic. It's pretty good, gritty and real. All with a cast of unknowns.
I had my first makeout session to Enemy at the Gates. The girl brought the movie over after vetoing Braveheart as "not a date movie." I think I have Post Traumatic Sex Disorder.
Wow. Thanks to that mention, I found another little-know 1989 Vietnam film that I have been searching for for years. The name is The Siege of Firebase Gloria, starring R Lee Ermey, and it's a borderline masterpiece. It's clearly inspired by "Apocalypse Now" and "Platoon", but takes it in a different direction. Among other things, it shows how the Viet Cong are used as nothing more than raw bodies for their Hanoi overlords. Ermey is brilliant. In some ways, he is even more impressive than he was in "Fullmetal Jacket". The film isn't better known is probably because it was directed by Australian shlockmeister Brian Trenchard-Smith; "The Siege of Firebase Gloria" is likely the only good film he has ever made in his life!
In a George Costanza moment my friend blurted out "PREMATURE EJACULATOR!" when Jude Law busted his nut during the awkward love scene with Rachel Weis. He got a huge laugh from the theater. I never thought the movie was anything but a standard action film with the battle of Stalingrad as a backdrop. It never stood up to as a quality war movie in my mind at all. I think an interesting point was brought up on "The Film Vault," a movie podcast hosted from a few of Adam Carolla's lackies, Brain mentioned that he thought Starship Troopers could be considered a war flick. I didn't go back and listen to the podcast he was referring to but the idea isn't outrageous. I think it might fall in as more of a action movie than war movie, but I think the themes about war make it closer to a war movie than I think Enemy at the Gates was. I know fans of the source material say the movie strayed too far from it. It doesn't help that Verhoven likes to make campy shit. Even though it isn't based on a historical war it does cover major themes that war movies tend to gravitate towards. Thoughts?
It's weird that you bring this up, considering your aversion to any heavy-handed liberal propaganda. Personally, I can excuse that by itself. However, Verhoeven didn't read the book (a masterpiece), but knew that it had some type of "conservative themes", and decided to make a complete and utter fucking mockery of it BY DESIGN, making it a kindergarten, idiotic action film. The people who love the film "Starship Troopers" are absolutely correct; Verhoeven did NOT make a campy, dumb film by accident, but an intentional parody. It didn't "stray too far from the source material"; it took a fucking shit on it. It's the only example I know of where someone purposely makes a shitty adapted film just to stick to it to the fans of the original. "Starship Troopers" is my single most hated film ever. I gave it a 0/100.
I never read the book but from what Ive heard about it and from seeing the movie the themes are as far from being a typical Hollywood libtastic soap box as you can get. It could interpreted as a major swipe at it by intentionally shitting on the point of the original work. But too me the campyness didn't belittle any themes it tried to pepper in as much as it seemed like a swipe at big budget action films at the time. But I havent read the book I wasn't jilted by the directors intended message.
In the book, the mobile infantry are badass armored mecha-warriors. They basically rocket down to a planet's surface and mop up the bugs in a line miles long. They wear armored suits with all kind of fancy communication and observational equipment. Plus they've got all sorts of weapons, like mini nuclear devices and whatnot. Also the bugs in the book have a primitive civilization and culture. The troopers in the movie are basically cannon fodder. Honestly that's probably one of the main thematic differences. In the book they try to minimize losses because each trooper costs a fortune to equip and train, in the film the leadership just throws these people down there wearing padded jumpsuits. The book is also a pretty even handed but ultimately positive look on serving in the military. I don't think I would call Starship Troopers a war movie, it's more like a black comedy. The first time I watched it I was real stoned and laughed my ass off. The fake propaganda films, the dialog, the action scenes...if Verhoeven was going for campy he knocked it out of the park. If he wasn't...I guess he wins the unintentional comedy award. "I'm from Buenos Aires and I say KILL EM ALL!"
It should be noted that this is only true for the military portrayed in the books, not the actual US one in 1957. The major difference is that in the futuristic society of "Starship Troopers", the electorate consists entirely of ex-military. I doubt Heinlein would have been as positive about serving in the US military in the late 50s.
I wouldn't call Starship Troopers' themes "conservative" so much as I would "unreasonable" or "naive". Don't get me wrong, it's one of my favorite books and I re-read it at least once a year. But Heinlein's take on moral philosophy is, frankly, arrogant and more of an outline for what he thinks human nature should aspire to be, rather than what it has proven itself to be. I don't think you could make a faithful adaptation of the novel without it coming off (perhaps unintentionally) as a rally cry for some weird, massive societal junta. As for Verhoeven's movie, he admitted to never having read the book, so the idea that he maliciously turned the plot around to stick it to anyone is silly. If he'd wanted to do that, he'd have done a little more research and included enough faithful material to piss book fans off. Aside from a few character and planet names, and the loosest plot affiliations ever, this was not the case. Verhoeven was thinking of one person: Verhoeven, and how he could make some sweeping statement about the media sensationalizing violence and Nazis and blah blah blah. Remember how many times the film cut away to those commercial-like sequences? That was Paul's clever little movie-in-a-movie trick. It's like you're watching war as if it were just another TV show, get it? Kind of like CNN, get it? GET IT? In conclusion: shower tits. Checkmate. Who wins? Everyone.
Heinlein himself greatly changed his views about politics and society in the years after "Starship Troopers" was released, moving from an idea of a powerful, centralized government (other examples would be "Citizen of the Galaxy", "The Puppet Masters", etc.), to an idea of powerful individuality. ("Glory Road" being the best example) There are some things I personally disagree with in "Starship Troopers" too, but I'm curious what you felt was "unreasonable" and "naive". Except in the same interview where Verhoeven admits not having read the book, he mentions having the material summarized for him, and considering it absurd, conservative garbage. The film is clearly a mockery and parody of what he thought the book was. I wrote as much in my first post. There's plenty of that in the movie, from the idiotic, rabble-rousing mention of Buenos Aires, to women being in boot camp, to the girl who hurt the sergeant in a demonstration fight (instead of an important male character), to the female pilots not having their heads shaved. Yes, and the original book symbolized to him an example of that dangerous, lunatic conservative mindset which he wished to ridicule. Even if he didn't actually read it. But then again, since when have liberals studied the source material before attacking it as evil and racist?
Having read the book, I couldnt see how Verhoeven could be doing anything other than making a slight against the source material. When I saw Starship Troopers for the first time years after it came out, I kind of expected him to make a political statement. Look at the guys track record: Total Recall: Big bad evil corporation wants withhold air from people for profit Robocop: Big bad evil corporation corrupts city officials and has people killed by a robot (ED-209) for profit Starship Troopers: Over-zealous military meritocracy who have no regard for individuals and runs a constant recruitment propaganda machine
Primarily that the construction of a military meritocracy somehow 'cures' basic human attributes like greed and self-interest. Not only is his 'service for citizenship' idea supposed to sort out those individuals willing to place the welfare of the group ahead of their own, but it also somehow removes the wolves by making them sheep dogs, thereby eliminating the chances of rebellion. That's a little too abracadabra for my cynical mind. Especially when there's no immediate reward beyond a vote, which Heinlein treats like some mystical ability without ever discussing how much one man's vote really matters in his utopia. It's not like NOT serving and NOT being able to cast a vote stops you from doing much of anything. Rico's father became rich and powerful without being a citizen. So it comes down to how conceptually 'moral' people are capable of being. Now, I'm not saying there aren't soldiers out there who don't embrace high-minded ideals like service and sacrifice, but there are so many others who ultimately chose to serve for personal gain. A better shot at a career of their choice, free education, escaping a recession, etc. Certainly a step up from the "keep what you can carry" method of the Roman legions, but a reward system nonetheless. Heinlein created a military where the sacrifice almost invariably outweighs the reward and packs it to the gills with soldiers who, for whatever reason, never think to ask "What's in it for me?" I'm sorry, but I don't care how many world wars or failed democracies the human race survives. We're never going to evolve past that question. Again, I would hesitate to use the word "mock". I think he so blatantly disregarded the book and its message that the source material was nothing more than convenient, ready-made guide for parodying other things he considered more important than a 50s sci-fi novel. Meh. All minor, passing references. If he'd read it, he'd have discovered a goldmine of other options. The father joining after the son indirectly teaches him the error of his ways (Hitler Youth?). The metaphor for soldiers as robots if he'd decided to include the parts about powered armor. The Arachnid/Communist element that he completely eliminated by making them mindless beasts. My point is that he was so totally fucking lazy about it that I find it hard to get offended at the film for shitting on the book. Again, there are enough fascist ideas contained in the novel that if creating true parody of said novel was Verhoeven's primary goal, he could have done it. I think he was making broader strokes.
You're assuming far more than the book ever stated. At what point does Heinlein say anything about all ex-military citizens being upstanding and greed-free? On the contrary, he notes that some are broken individuals, others have vices, and a few even become violent criminals. At the same time, those that willingly sign up for and complete military service, on the whole, are a better, more informed electorate than the current "democracy for everyone" model. He also uses similar reasoning for why communism doesn't work (a great chef can do far more than a poor one). Frankly, I'm shocked you don't realize there are examples of similar models throughout history. Athens, the supposed birthplace of democracy, had something like 2,000 citizens out of 40,000 residents. The US initially had democracy for only a portion of the men, and not even all white men were included. I've also read very logical papers stating that democracy crumbles much faster when it is applied to everyone, regardless of the political knowledge of a given citizen. I don't see what so "unreasonable" about it at all. Don't the two bolded parts above contradict one another? Anyways, I have problems of my own with the ideas of a text, but they're different from yours. Okay, Verhoeven mentions the work is conservative garbage, you also agree that the movie is a work of "parody", and yet, "I would hesitate to use the work "mock""? Then what the hell kind of word do you want to use? Ridicule? Lampoon? Take a shit on? So your argument against Verhoeven making a film to shit upon the book was that the shit wasn't quite large enough, and could have been even bigger had he read it? Well, the initial statement (Verhoeven could have gone further) is probably true, but the conclusion doesn't follow at all.
Heinlein's ST society was ultimately greedy, despite your erroneous notion that joining the service was THE perfectly moral act. What we pick up from the characters in the book is that practically none of them join the service to sacrifice themselves for the good of mankind.
We're getting off-topic here, so if you want to continue this, we'll take it to PM. Rico joins because of a girl and to rebel against his father, and the only other benefits mentioned by other characters are franchise and maybe tax breaks. Heinlein makes sure that these characters later express how inconsequential these reasons seem in light of the sacrifice they are required to make, but most never quit. We wonder why, and then it is explained to us by not one, but two History & Moral Philosophy teachers who outline the difference between civilians and soldiers via lectures on past societies which failed due to their inability to place the good of the whole above the good of the individual. The purpose of these lectures is two-fold: 1) they give Heinlein a soapbox and 2) they highlight the transition of those initially selfish civilians into Federation soldiers with an understanding of their duty to the greater good. As for the "greed" thing, see below. "Greed" was the wrong word. It carries an unnecessarily negative connotation. "Self-interest" is a better term, and I wasn't using it to refer to the soldiers so much as the rest of the galaxy. Soldiers had it great: franchise, unequal protection under the law, unchallenged access to political authority. They were first-class citizens in every way. Everyone else simply had to deal with that. The idea that rebellion or at least power struggles wouldn't occur is fanciful. Every other military-controlled government you can think of, in fact or fiction, cites to at least some form of civilian uprising at one time or another. Heinlein states in his book that it is not only improbable but impossible for this to happen in the world of Starship Troopers Why? Because they've removed the majority of aggressors from civilian life, handed them authority, and everyone else behaves. Unlikely. Historically unlikely. Frankly, I'm shocked that you would cite to two slave-holding societies where political authority was largely determined by personal wealth as examples of why this system would work.
C'mon. Everybody knows the greatest war movie ever was Red Dawn. "Wolverines!" EDIT: I read there might be a remake coming displacing the Russians with the Chinese. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn_(upcoming_film)
Whoa, whoa. At what point do they get "unequal protection under the law"? And what is this grandiose "unchallenged access to political authority" pronouncement? They simply get the right to vote, that's it. That's a completely different objection than you laid out in your first post, but it's also a good one. I agree with you on this score. Except that "personal wealth" had little to do with political power in either the early US or ancient Athens (or for that matter, Sparta), which is exactly what made them so revolutionary compared to everyone else. Yes, both had slaves (although in the US, they were only in the South after about 1800)...so think how much better both governments would have been without such an outdated, low yield economic system.
Just to broaden the scope. Here is a list from here. Mine is from what I have actually seen, in no particular order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_films Glory Cold Mountain. Dances With Wolves. Saving Private Ryan. Hotel Rwanda Troy. Full Metal Jacket. Platoon. Good Morning, Vietnam. Born on the Fourth of July. The Hunt for Red October. Gladiator. The Great Escape. The Pianist. U-571. Flags of Our Fathers. The Hurt Locker. EDIT: Hey, what was that one about the Jews who actually fought back against the Nazi's? I liked that one too.
Has anyone found an accurate Korean war movie? Seems an appropriate question this evening. Just sayin....
"Men in War" if you want a pretty good Korean War movie. It was a pretty low budget movie about a platoon isolated behind enemy lines after a retreat.