Reviews (145)

Despite Flaws, Recall Is Total As A Fun Sci-Fi Story
Paul Verhoeven has become among Hollywood's better known directors. His most recent work, Starship Troopers, did well at the box office thanks to its outstanding special effects, interesting premise, and surprisingly good cast.

Verhoeven first earned widespread movie fame with Robocop, but it was 1990's Total Recall that stands as his best work.

Arnold Schwarzenegger gives a genuinely great performance as Douglas Quaid, a construction worker in the late 21st Century who, out of an unconquerable fascination with Mars - now a colony run by vicious corporate dictator Vilhos Cohaagen - goes to Rekall, Inc., a company that implants "memories" of experiences in those willing to pay. But when Rekall implants a memory of a trip to Mars, it "pops a memory cap" in Quaid, who turns out not to be who he thinks he is. When his wife Lori (the overrated Sharon Stone in the only performance of hers that is truly worth watching) tries to kill him, Quaid forces! her to tell him that a supersecret Agency under the direction of Cohaagen erased his memory and implanted a new one.

Quaid dodges the guns of the murderous Richter (a delightfully insane performance by Michael Ironside) and gets help from a former buddy of his on Mars. He then travels to the Red Planet and gets mixed up in a bloody civil war between Cohaagen's goons and rebel followers of a being called Kuato. But seemingly nothing is as it appears to Quaid, until he learns from Kuato just what the secret is that Cohaagen wants.

It is fairly easy to point out what is wrong with this film - it is excessively violent and gory, and includes some action scenes - like a bloody bar brawl - that are unnecesary. The pivotal scene - when Quaid is strapped in an implant chair to have his memory erased again, but he rips free and slaughters the scientists performing the procedure - is effective, but ruined because it allows Quaid to pull off an absurd flexing of muscle - he rips ! a heavy arm restraint out, anchor and all, and rips it thro! ugh the throat of one Cohaagen scientist thug. There is also the usual absurdity of action films - the wholesale slaughter of enemy soldiers without so much as a scratch on the one or two good guys. There is also a PREPOSTEROUS speech by Cohaagen during the final act that is a glaring example of the cliche of the villian who has the hero cornered, but spends so much time talking it gives the hero an opportunity.

Nonetheless, it is a superior script, with many twists and a fascinating climax. END

"See you at the party Richter."
Total Recall is one of those movies I can watch over and over and never get sick of. It is what every true Arnold fan wants in an Arnold flick. And aside from being one of Arnold's best films it is a very great sci-fi flick period.

Arnold plays everyman Douglas Quaid, a guy living an average life on the near future earth who is obsessed with the idea of going to Mars(which is colonized). He decides to go to a futuristic company called Recall, which sells it's customers memories of vacations they did not really take. Quaid decides to do it and while the salesman is making his pitch he poses the question, "what is the same about every vaction you have ever taken?" The answer: You. So Quaid buys the secret agent package and that is when the action begins. Suddenly everyone is out to get Quaid and he can't figure it out, all he knows is he has to get his "a** to Mars." He does and the film really takes off with mutants, rebels, women, corruption, double crossing, heavy carnage, planet saving, and Arnold, smack in the middle of all of it.

The story in summary can actually be found within the movie, which is a very unusual plot device, but it works in this film. The guy at Recall says by the time this is over you will kill the bad guys, get the girl, and save the planet. So is Total Recall a dream or a reality. This question is one of the things that makes it such an engaging movie because you don't know. Really though the best part of this film is Arnold. He is in tip top form in this film and it is certainly one of his best. The character allows him all the elements to shine, odds against him, guys always trying to fight him, lots of guns, and terrific one-liners. Paul Verhoeven(Robocop, Basic Instict) has crafted a awesome film. The set direction is great and it makes the fantastic action that much better. Sure Verhoeven may get a little carried away with violent nature of his action, but would anyone really want this film any other way? Not me.

Total Recall is a blast. On an additional note I just picked up the DVD Collector's Edition and it is a must have for fans. The commentary with Verhoeven and Arnold is hilarious and the making of's are very well done. This is one of those films that will become a classic over time because that is what it is, CLASSIC.

ETMR - Total Recall
1. Humanity: What problems do you see in the Mars colony in the film? Is the colony a feasible idea for today?

2. Implications: The movie is centered around the question of what is reality, and how to discern truth from fiction. What dangers does the film speak of for today, in terms of distinguishing reality from a created world?

3. Evolution: It could be said that the technology expressed in the film is very basic, compared to technological innovation today. Concepts like terraforming using a combustion of air, planetary colonies with glass windows, and cheap, robotic androids are all scientific anomolies in that they seem to belong to a past age. How has the technology in the movie changed in our world?

4. Realism: Philip K. Dick's stories are heralded because of their closeness to what an actual future will be like. Do you think the story in Total Recall is an accurate prophecy for the future?

5. Stageplay: Verhoeven, the director, is known for his elaborate and overblown stories told with a comedic satire, using colorful special effects. But aside from the eye candy, do the actors convince you?

Verhooven to subtle for his own good...
I used to hate this film. Which is odd, because I like Philip Dick, I like Verhooven and, then, I liked Schwatzenegger. The film was actually good up to the end. I just thought the end was too soapy and stuid even by Hollywood standards. Then I read the book "Dead Air" by Iain Banks. There the film is explained, and suddenly it all made sense to me. Verhooven's films are full of action and gore, which tend to overshadow that they also tend to have a quite strong message. That's why Total Recall always bothered me: where is the message? But it is there, quite obvious really: it all takes place in Schwartzenegger's head; he is still in the reality simulator! That would explain why things start happening shortly after his visit there. It would explain why the girl on Mars looks exactly like the girl he chooses for the reality simulation. The whole ending with them close to dying in the low pressure on Mars is a total replay of what he experiences in the beginning, when we know he is in the reality simulator. Finally, it explains how ridicilously fast the Martian atmosphere is replenished by the melting glacier. Suddenly the film becomes really good, and truly follows the spirit of Dick. I think I must watch it again.

"Come to Rekall!"
Another Arnie flick? I've already lost count... Well anyway, this film, loosely based on Phillip K. Dick's "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" is pretty much worth your while, especially since Arnie has one of his better roles here.
Doug Quaid (Arnie) has dreamed continuously of going to Mars. He talks with his wife Lori (Sharon Stone) about it, but she does not like the idea. One day, Quaid hears about a company named Rekall that can take you on a virtual vacation. Arnie tries it out, only to find that nothing is what it seems... and that he may not really be who he thinks he is. He travels to Mars, and discovers that he is a rebel leader fighting against the ruthless Cohagen (Ronnie Cox) and his man Richter (Michael Ironside).
Arnie acts well in this flick, Sharon Stone is good as his wife, and Cox and Ironside act as if they are truly evil. The story is somewhat complex, and will have you hooked.
BUT: Don't forget that this is a Paul Verhoeven film, and Paul Verhoeven=Lots of shooting and gore. This is definately not for the squeamish, but if you can stomach it, you be on for a wild ride. ... Read more

Reviews (183)

Unique & Different - A Campy Cult Classic
This is a differen't movie, from any other movie that I've ever seen. You could definately tell that Paul Verhoeven had more creative freedom, because of the big-budget, and the NC-17 rating which allows you to do basically anything you want.

I LOVED the dance sequences. All of the bright, big, and fancy dances and the over-the-top props and desings. Verhoeven did a good & effective job with the dance sequences. Elizabeth Berkley can't act, but she can dance. The dance at the Cheetah Club, where she dances to a Prince song, is pretty good. Kyle MacLachlan was worse than Elizabeth Berkley; Kyle just can't act anymore, although he was very good in "Blue Velvet". Gina Gershon pulled off "Cristal" very well. She was mean and sneaky. Elizabeth Berkley looks beautiful though. She has a very exotic face, and the differen't color eyes, makes her more mysterious. As a person who likes "Valley of the Dolls", I enjoyed the campy acting, and dialogue. So few movies are afraid to go down that road, that it's refreshing to see something differen't once in a while.

Three of my favorite scenes, are when Nomi does the gospel-singing disco dance sequence, and when she finally gets to rise out of that volcano, and the announcer says "Ladies and gentlemen, the stardust proudly presents Miss Nomi Malone!". And my third favorite scene is when Nomi and Jeff drive past the billboard with her face on it, and they drive off to L.A. with the Siouxsie and the Banshees music playing.

This movie isn't BAD, it is just too raunchy. The nude scenes and the dialogue from Henrietta Bazoom, are real raunchy. There is only 1 sex scene. I can definately see where people would be offended by Showgirls, but being offended doesn't make a movie bad. NC-17, means that only MATURE people should watch Showgirls because they can handle it, and that means that people who can't handle nudity shouldn't watch it.

I was shocked to see Jessie from "Saved by the Bell" doing lap-dancing, and pole-dancing.

Brilliantly Bad, Terrifically Terrible
As an avid fan of the wonderfully worthless "Valley of the Dolls", I thought I had seen the ultimate in the "so bad it's great" filmmaking genre. Then along came "Showgirls", which showed me just how wrong I was. Glory hallelujah, I have seen the light! Yes, friends, this is the most delightfully deplorable motion picture of all time.

As if Joe Eszterhas and Paul Verhoven (who apperantly have some SERIOUS issues with women) hadn't squeezed enough gratuitous nudity and sex in their thoroughly unenjoyable "Basic Instinct", they have topped themselves in one of only two movies ever to get an NC-17 rating ("Crash" is the other one, and it's actually pretty good). This perfectly pathetic film follows the adventures of Nomi Malone, a hot-headed drifter who hitches a ride to Vegas and becomes the biggest thing to hit the sex industry since former president Bill Clinton. Along the way, she'll throw many a hissy fit, befriend an angelic stripper, lock horns with a self-absorbed rival, avenge a brutal rape, and utter some of the worst lines of dialogue ever written for the silver screen. Former "Saved by the Bell" star Elizabeth Berkely plays Nomi like John Travolta played Terl; she overacts to the brink of Spontaneous Human Combustion, shouting the horrid dialogue at the top of her lungs, which surprizes me because they are buried under twin Everests of silicone. The other actors don't fare much better, partially because they are acting to the worst script ever, worse even than the plotline to the Carrot Top movie.

So why five stars? Because you'll love every minute of it. The film is howlingly hilarious, from the actors to the script to the dialogue. You'll be awestruck by the film's monumental depravity from beginning to end, and because the movie is 131 minutes long, you'll have plenty to savor. So put the popcorn on the stove, invite your closest friends, and enjoy the most deliciously detestable movie ever made. It's a guarenteed good time, and remember, this flick cost United Artists 40 million bucks. Oy!

Hea, we all know why we love this film
Let's all be honest with ourselves. This film is about Elizabeth Berkley and how gorgeous she was in the nude.

Eye candy
Showgirls is one one of the most universally panned movies of the nineties. Everybody hates it, or laughs at it.

Frankly, I don't know why. Or rather, I do know why, and it is not because it is bad. OK, granted, it is pretty bad when you consider some of the acting, and most of the story. But how many movies is this not true for? Certainly it is no worse than most action flicks, and you don't see Jean-Claude van Damme being drop-kicked all over Hollywood.

The thing is that this film is obviously eye candy. And today you cannot be politically correct and not attack something like that. I notice that it moved straight to the third place nationally when it came out on video, and that it has an average rank of four out of fives stars with the audience at Amazon. Critics; can't live with them.

See it for the girls. What girls! They can even move. Elizabeth Berkley's moves are smoking sexy.

And that's all I have to say about that... (Lahf is lahk a box of chokolates.)

Paul Verhoeven's most daring film to date.
Paul Verhoeven's Showgirls is a great film. It's flawless, it's funny, erotic, realistic, intense, violent, etc. It was very well received in Europe. It has a lot of cool modern dancing in it, being very close to be a musical. "Showgirls" is the "Dirty Dancing" of the 90s. See it for yourself. ... Read more

Reviews (183)

Unique & Different - A Campy Cult Classic
This is a differen't movie, from any other movie that I've ever seen. You could definately tell that Paul Verhoeven had more creative freedom, because of the big-budget, and the NC-17 rating which allows you to do basically anything you want.

I LOVED the dance sequences. All of the bright, big, and fancy dances and the over-the-top props and desings. Verhoeven did a good & effective job with the dance sequences. Elizabeth Berkley can't act, but she can dance. The dance at the Cheetah Club, where she dances to a Prince song, is pretty good. Kyle MacLachlan was worse than Elizabeth Berkley; Kyle just can't act anymore, although he was very good in "Blue Velvet". Gina Gershon pulled off "Cristal" very well. She was mean and sneaky. Elizabeth Berkley looks beautiful though. She has a very exotic face, and the differen't color eyes, makes her more mysterious. As a person who likes "Valley of the Dolls", I enjoyed the campy acting, and dialogue. So few movies are afraid to go down that road, that it's refreshing to see something differen't once in a while.

Three of my favorite scenes, are when Nomi does the gospel-singing disco dance sequence, and when she finally gets to rise out of that volcano, and the announcer says "Ladies and gentlemen, the stardust proudly presents Miss Nomi Malone!". And my third favorite scene is when Nomi and Jeff drive past the billboard with her face on it, and they drive off to L.A. with the Siouxsie and the Banshees music playing.

This movie isn't BAD, it is just too raunchy. The nude scenes and the dialogue from Henrietta Bazoom, are real raunchy. There is only 1 sex scene. I can definately see where people would be offended by Showgirls, but being offended doesn't make a movie bad. NC-17, means that only MATURE people should watch Showgirls because they can handle it, and that means that people who can't handle nudity shouldn't watch it.

I was shocked to see Jessie from "Saved by the Bell" doing lap-dancing, and pole-dancing.

Brilliantly Bad, Terrifically Terrible
As an avid fan of the wonderfully worthless "Valley of the Dolls", I thought I had seen the ultimate in the "so bad it's great" filmmaking genre. Then along came "Showgirls", which showed me just how wrong I was. Glory hallelujah, I have seen the light! Yes, friends, this is the most delightfully deplorable motion picture of all time.

As if Joe Eszterhas and Paul Verhoven (who apperantly have some SERIOUS issues with women) hadn't squeezed enough gratuitous nudity and sex in their thoroughly unenjoyable "Basic Instinct", they have topped themselves in one of only two movies ever to get an NC-17 rating ("Crash" is the other one, and it's actually pretty good). This perfectly pathetic film follows the adventures of Nomi Malone, a hot-headed drifter who hitches a ride to Vegas and becomes the biggest thing to hit the sex industry since former president Bill Clinton. Along the way, she'll throw many a hissy fit, befriend an angelic stripper, lock horns with a self-absorbed rival, avenge a brutal rape, and utter some of the worst lines of dialogue ever written for the silver screen. Former "Saved by the Bell" star Elizabeth Berkely plays Nomi like John Travolta played Terl; she overacts to the brink of Spontaneous Human Combustion, shouting the horrid dialogue at the top of her lungs, which surprizes me because they are buried under twin Everests of silicone. The other actors don't fare much better, partially because they are acting to the worst script ever, worse even than the plotline to the Carrot Top movie.

So why five stars? Because you'll love every minute of it. The film is howlingly hilarious, from the actors to the script to the dialogue. You'll be awestruck by the film's monumental depravity from beginning to end, and because the movie is 131 minutes long, you'll have plenty to savor. So put the popcorn on the stove, invite your closest friends, and enjoy the most deliciously detestable movie ever made. It's a guarenteed good time, and remember, this flick cost United Artists 40 million bucks. Oy!

Hea, we all know why we love this film
Let's all be honest with ourselves. This film is about Elizabeth Berkley and how gorgeous she was in the nude.

Eye candy
Showgirls is one one of the most universally panned movies of the nineties. Everybody hates it, or laughs at it.

Frankly, I don't know why. Or rather, I do know why, and it is not because it is bad. OK, granted, it is pretty bad when you consider some of the acting, and most of the story. But how many movies is this not true for? Certainly it is no worse than most action flicks, and you don't see Jean-Claude van Damme being drop-kicked all over Hollywood.

The thing is that this film is obviously eye candy. And today you cannot be politically correct and not attack something like that. I notice that it moved straight to the third place nationally when it came out on video, and that it has an average rank of four out of fives stars with the audience at Amazon. Critics; can't live with them.

See it for the girls. What girls! They can even move. Elizabeth Berkley's moves are smoking sexy.

And that's all I have to say about that... (Lahf is lahk a box of chokolates.)

Paul Verhoeven's most daring film to date.
Paul Verhoeven's Showgirls is a great film. It's flawless, it's funny, erotic, realistic, intense, violent, etc. It was very well received in Europe. It has a lot of cool modern dancing in it, being very close to be a musical. "Showgirls" is the "Dirty Dancing" of the 90s. See it for yourself. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A rarely screened cult favorite from Paul Verhoeven, this story of medieval war and revenge should please action fans and admirers of the director and his semi-regular leading man, Rutger Hauer, but its graphic scenes of sexual violence earmark it for mature viewers only. Hauer stars as a 16th-century mercenary hired by a Western European ruler (Fernando Hilbeck) to assault a neighboring kingdom; when the king reneges on his promises to Hauer and his men, they kidnap his son's fiancee (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and hole up in a nearby castle. Hauer and Leigh are standouts in a strong cast that includes Tom Burlinson, Bruno Kirby, the late Brion James, and Susan Tyrrell; Verhoeven's realistic approach to the down-and-dirty facts of medieval life and the bloody aftermath of warfare offers a refreshing alternative to most Hollywood period films, but a pair of brutal rape scenes may be too much for some audiences. MGM's DVD is widescreen. --Paul Gaita ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Flesh and Blood - a movie for a New Years' Eve
This movie is such a pleasant surprise! Rutger Hauer is soooo handsome and sexy. As "Martin" he and his band of mercenaries roam the 'northern european' countryside (where is this supposed to actually be?) with a statue of St. Martin (Martin's patron saint) guiding them to their destiny--a castle with the plague awaiting them.

Agnes looks very much the part of the child princess bride. Some of this movie reminds me of the (in)famous "War Lord" with good 'ole Charleton H.--princess bride ravaged by the warrior--only in this one the bride isn't long suffering but actually has some fun with Martin too.

The war machines add to the plot but man did the director take liberties. How did the wood on the 'telescoping' ladder keep from burning? Did they have dynamite for the 'bomb' invention back then? And how would the Arab medical texts suggesting the plague swellings be cut open rather than bleeding the victim make it all the way up there?

The dialogue is so camp! At the most inappropriate times you find yourself laughing outloud--like at the end of the rape scene where Martin says: "I'm done, I hope you are". And the scene when Martin's first woman is having a baby and she says: "That hurts!"--an understatement if I ever heard one. The sexy bath scenes are very seductive--a mideaval hot tub, candles and all sorts of frolic.

The film is shot in SPAIN--Avila and other beautiful locations but the weather is not always all that sunny--the rain and mud--whew!

Loved this movie--you will too!

Paul Verhoeven's "transition" film
Flesh and Blood can be considered Paul Verhoeven's transition between Holland and Hollywood. This film was his first English-language one and was funded by an American studio (Orion), but was filmed with a largely European crew in Spain. It is interesting to note that the shoot was absolutely miserable, with terrible weather and infighting on the set that caused a years-long rift between Verhoeven and leading man Rutger Hauer. The bad feelings really seem to come through in both the directing and the acting. It was after this movie, having severed ties with his former producer and star, that Verhoeven blew town for Hollywood and filmed Robocop.

I've been waiting for this on DVD for a long time, and now MGM has finally announced a February 2004 release for Flesh and Blood. Now if we could only get the Dutch miniseries "Floris" translated to English and released, our Verhoeven collections could be complete!

FLESH + BLOOD
Well, this is a good movie, although it has some bad parts it still is worth watching. It has everything in it to make it a good movie and it has a heart. This is a good movie. GREAT!

what a mess!
This was one of the worst flicks I've ever seen....the acting was atrociously bad--especially Jennifer Jason Leigh (was this her 1st movie)? The plot is ridiculous, the fighting is amateurish and completely unrealistic and the actors look like they were just handed a script and asked to improvise. Rutger Hauer looks like he can't wait to get this mess over with.
You'll need to see "Braveheart" to cleanse your palette after viewing this mess.

One of my favorite films EVER!
Flesh and Blood is one of the most wonderful films of all times!
I saw it for the first time when I was 8 years old, and it immediately become my favorite! I was longing for this films launch on DvD for a long time!
It is dark, and raw but it has many elements apart from what is apparent. It is actually a love story, surrounded by sin, war, plague and lust; and all these in an incredibly mystical setting and time...Definately reccomend it! ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Writer that has back is killer
This isn't an intelligent film, even for American standards. The police are so dumb they couldn't find a giraffe in a field of wildebeasts. Even the US army would be able to find the killer in this movie.

Having said that, this movie did make me quite hot. I walked down to the well and jumped in.

Here in Africa most people don't wear clothes anyway so nudity alone isn't enough to satisfy me.

Relied on erotic images to sell the film
BASIC INSTINCT is easily the most over-rated film of the 90's. I didn't like it in 1992, and watching the full uncut DVD version in 2004 I still feel the same.

BASIC INSTINCT tries to be a Hitchcock type film in many ways. Firstly, it has an annoying 'suspense' music score that plays throughout the film even when a scene doesn't warrant it. Next, the film reveals the killer but attempts to leaves you wondering if he/she is the real killer. The problem with BASIC INSTINCT is that it is so obvious that Sharon Stone is the killer. Not that we really care, afterall the storyline is so sleazy, that you feel no empathy for any of the characters.

The film relied on lots of erotic images to sell the film, and there is a reason for that. The Director must have realised from the begining that it was very ordinary storyline, and needed something to make it appealing. Problem solved: include lots of erotic images and a naked Sharon Stone ... and people will go to and see it for that alone. Clever marketing.

DVD SUMMARY: Basic Instinct has been released three times now on DVD, its first release way back in 1997. The version I saw was the second version which sports a DTS soundtrack, and some interesting special features. These include a "comparison with TV and Uncut version", and a documentary on the "making of" which reveals the problems that plagued the film set in San Fran. The DVD copy I have has a very soft film print which I would consider similar to VHS quality (it's that bad), however it is in Widescreen (five points for that).

Eye Candy and More...
I can't believe I waited so long to see this movie! It left me nearly speechless. The sex! The plot twists! The madness! How can it all be processed into words. First, the love scenes (if I can even call them that) would make Billy Bob and Hallie blush any day of the week and the famous "interrogation" was all that it was cracked up to be. By the end of the film I didn't know whether to be aroused or in complete shock. I thought I had it all figured out, but I was thrown for a loop (probably because of Stone's privates and Douglas's bottom all in my face). The last word: a must see, but not with your mother.

Sex, sex, sex, sex and more sex. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's hilarious how worked up people got when this movie came out. The PC crowd decried the fact that a lesbian was the killer and, therefore, must have been the villan. The right wing crowd then immediately accused the PC crowd of being too hysterical about the alleged prejudice against homosexuals. Basic Instinct, they contended, was bad because it was a dirty movie. The producers, of course, loved all this publicity because EVERYONE went running to see the move and, in the words of Liberace, cried all the way to the bank. Telling audiences to not see a film because of homosexual activity and graphic sex scenes is like trying to scare ants away from a picnic by pouring sugar on the ground.

First of all, Sharon Stone's Catherine Trammell who is the killer lesbian (actually bisexual) in question, IS THE MOST SYMPATHETIC character in the whole film! EVERYONE is a slimebag! From Michael Douglas' hot tempered, tourist killing, chain smoking, cocaine snorting, oversexed police detective to Jeanne Tripplehorn's neurotic, kinky police psychiastrist who is more messed up than any of her patients to the rest of the morally compromised sleazes who pass for cops who laugh at murder victims and have the compassion and sensitivity of storm troopers, EVERY single character in this movie is a cesspool of a person! The way I see it, Sharon Stone is the most sympathetic person in the entire film -- at least she makes no bones about being sleazy. If you take the position that lesbians should be offended by their negative portrayal in Basic Instinct, then you could say the same for psychiatrists, cops (especially members of the SFPD), mystery writers, drug addicts, San Franciscans, smokers, country/western fans, chilli eaters, Mustang drivers and basically all human beings in general.

Of course, the right wing is just as clueless when it comes to Basic Instinct. I went to see Basic Instinct BECAUSE of all the sex in the movie! Anyone who tells you that they saw Basic Instinct for any reason other than to see loads of nudity and sex is so full of it, they should be slapped! I went to see Sharon Stone's nether regions in the police interrogation scene. I went to see the sex scene between Douglas and Stone that seems to go on for about half the movie (although I had to wait until the home video release to see ALL of the sex scene -- what a rip-off!). I went to see Sharon Stone display the wares she only hinted at having in Total Recall. I WANTED TO SEE SEX AND NUDITY AND, BY GOD, THAT'S WHY I WENT TO SEE BASIC INSTINCT!!! So many hypocritical prudes tsk tsk at all of the sex in movies today. Get a clue! This movie is like a huge bug zapper: drawing us in with loads of sex and nudity even though we're going to get zapped when we realize what a piece of sleazy trash we're watching (Joe Ezsterhaus must read tons of pornography in order to form his views of women).

But please don't get me wrong, this is INSPIRED sleaze that I am wholeheartedly recommending you at least rent, if not purchase. It may be sleaze, but it's really, really enjoyable sleaze which will have you "standing at attention" for a long, long time afterward (even after you see not one, but two, gratuitous shots of Michael Douglas' butt). And for those of you who have moral objections to Basic Instinct, please, go out and get a life!

Brilliant trash
Is this film trashy, exploitive and misogynistic?
Yes.
Is this film exciting, thrilling, titillating and fun?
Yes.
Is this film basically just a sexed-up version of Hitchcock's "Vertigo"?
Yes.
Does it work anyway?
Yes.
Did this film do us all a favor by introducing the world to Sharon Stone, who, as an actress is hit-or-miss, but as an icon and diva is one of the greatest?
Yes.
Could I go the rest of my life without ever having to see Michael Douglas' butt again?
Yes. ... Read more

Reviews (243)

An entertaining FX thrill ride
"Hollow Man," directed by Paul Verhoeven, is a sci-fi thriller that takes on a classic theme: invisibility. Although this topic has been portrayed in numerous movies, TV programs, and comic books, "Hollow Man" distinguishes itself with a combination of cutting edge special effects and menacing thrills. Kevin Bacon plays the film's main character, Dr. Sebastian Caine--whose name struck me as a subtle biblical reference to the "mark of Cain" (Genesis 4:15)

The effects are truly the star of the film, and the filmmakers exploit the invisibility motif in many memorable scenes. Sequences such as a hunt for an invisible escaped gorilla are shot with flair. Good production values add to the film's visual appeal: every would-be "mad scientist" would drool over the high-tech laboratory created for Dr. Caine. But be forewarned: the film's gory violence may not be suitable for all viewers.

The only real flaw of the film lies in the characterizations. Bacon's Dr. Caine is an unlikeable, arrogant creep who shows his disregard for both human and animal life from his first scenes. The film's one almost sympathetic character, a soft-hearted veterinarian, is whiny and annoying. As a result, I found myself not caring much for any of these characters. But this criticism aside, "Hollow Man" is an entertaining and visually stunning thrill ride.

Great special effects, horrid script
Hollow Man could've been so much better but it just wasn't. Hollow Man takes the idea of the classic Sci Fi movie The Invisible Man and gives it a total shake up. Kevin Bacon plays a government scientist that is testing the possibilies of becoming invisible.

He and his team test this new and possibly revolutionary idea on of course, animals and finally, their hopes and works come true as they rematerialize an invisible gorilla. Thinking that Bacon is safe, he has his team turn him invisible hoping that he will be able to rematerialize as well. Things start to go wrong as Bacon and his team are unable to bring him back, he then goes insane and furious and starts taking his revenge on his team, government officials and anyone else that gets in his way.

O.k. now here's the bad news. Now normally that sounds really good, but in this day and age, 5 star special effects don't and can't help a poor script and bad plotted movies. I'll say it, it was a great idea but it was poorly executed. Don't get me wrong, the effects are awesome, phenomenal and nothing else was like them. The problem was that the plot was so vast and doubtful (even for Sci Fi) that it made the movie cheap.

The other thing that made this one bad was that the characters in the movie (aside from Bacon), might as well have been air brushed in because for the most part, it seemed like they didn't matter because the supporting cast felt nonexistant. None of them gave strong performances or even had adequate dialogue to match Bacon's (and even his was not that impressive).

I think the lesson here is that it's no longer the 80's and that when movies have great effects and bad scripts, don't be too surprised if you feel let down because of that. It's good to have high expectations in the viewing of your choice. It's just that Hollow Man shouldn't be a part of that.

come on, show some love
Think of this movie as a big budget slasher flick, sci-fi hybrid,and you might enjoy it.It has a mean streak a mile long and jaw-dropping effects.you can pin point when it shifts from sci-fi to slasher flick. the dvd is packed listen to the commentary its a good one.a guilty pleasure for sure,its better than the 2 1/2 star rating above.

Great Movie, Takes a Little Long, But Still Great!
Sebastian Kane is a scientist for a secret government organization. His ex-girlfriend Linda and her boyfriend Josh are his co-workers, as well are Sarah, Frank, and Carter. They work deep underground planning something secret. It's so secret, in fact, that a dozen other movies were made about it. It's called "The Invisible Man." Great movie, but I can get some more originality when I'm spanking it. Basically, Sebastian (Kevin Bacon, omg so sexy, no just kidding--Elizabeth Shue is hot!) volunteers himself to be a guinea pig for an invisibility serum and when he is unable to be brought back, he takes revenge on his co-workers in various Paul Verhoeven-gory fashions. Paul Verhoeven is a genius: he brought us classics like Starship Troopers, Robocop, Total Recall, and Basic Instinct, and this movie is going into those classics. It's scary (loved the dog scene), it's gory (loved when ___ is dropped onto the metal and it dices his throat open), and it's got a lot of high points to it (the fight between Sebastian and Josh is the best part). It's got good acting (loved the guy who played Carter--is he in anything else? The guy does good!), some sensual parts, some genuine "holy hell!" parts, and some good one liners ("And I thought killing you would be hard!"). Enjoy this flick! It's fast-paced, and great.

HOLLOW MOVIE
Yes, the effects are brilliant; director Paul Verhoeven hasn't lost his flair for cinematic flair. Elisabeth Shue is lovely; Josh Brolin is studly; and Kevin Bacon is appropriately malevolent. The movie's focus however is so shallow and the characters at times so unlikeable, we find outselves wondering how much of ourselves to invest. HOLLOW MAN is entertaining enough, although I can't for the life of me figure out the allure of being invisible. The climactic scene is tense and well done, but the Michael Meyers when is the villain really dead schtick is still getting old.
Not a bad movie for a popcorn Friday night, but it could and should have packed more punch! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Although the confectionary does make an appearance at the end of the film, Turkish Delight, as a title, may be interpreted in a number of ways. This violent tale of love is told in flashback from the perspective of bohemian artist Eric Vonk (Rutger Hauer, collaborating for the first time with director Paul Verhoeven). When the film opens on a brutal attack and then a succession of one-night stands, it seems that the guy's a complete jerk. Then a sudden lurch backwards two years reveals the motivations for both his dreams and behavior, as well as the subject of the photos he spends his time pining for. He meets Olga (a fantastic Monique van de Ven) as the result of a car accident. But their tempestuous relationship is shaken by many peculiar events: a surreal wedding ceremony, unveiling a statue to the Queen and the death of Olga's father. The real problem is Olga herself, however, which leads to a shock ending many have compared to Love Story.

Somewhat dated now, and made long before his move to Hollywood, Turkish Delight is nonetheless unmistakably a product of the now-familiar Verhoeven style. The film's language and images still have the power to shock or offend, and we certainly get to see far too much of Hauer's private parts, even though some amazing visuals (mirrored candles, inspired beach art, and a nightmarish red Chinese restaurant) are some compensation. --Paul Tonks ... Read more

Reviews (12)

Instinct (Basically)
Wow! When Paul Verhoeven is on, he is really on. This film has one of those openings. Fantastic, sucks you right in, and then you find out what the film is really about. From what has been previously written about this film, suprisingly, it was not what I expected. In a film that opens with extreme violence and sex (Verhoeven staples) it quickly evolves into an interesting and insightful character study on love and death.

Eric (Rutger Hauer) is a sculpter who lives impulsively and freely until one day, on one of his impulsive adventures, he meets Olga (Monique van de Ven). It takes Eric about a minute to "convince" Olga that he loves her and their meeting ends with a bang, literally (I don't want to give too much away). There relationship goes through the normal ups and downs, oh, and there's plenty of "affection" in the relationship. The film takes some unexpected twists and turns and there are several bizarre scenes involving Olga's mother (she was great) and her family which culminate in an unusual (if not unpredictable) ending.

This film scores on many levels. The acting, the story, and the cinematography are all top notch. Rutger Hauer's character is especially engaging (I love how he molds trash into art) and he turns in one of the best performances of his career. What really sets Turkish Delight apart from other films though is Verhoeven's willingness to go to the extreme. The graphicness of his films (i.e. violence, sex) is something he has fought the censors and the critics on his whole career. But with good reason, it makes his films more interesting and it sets them apart from conventional cinema. He wants to show it all, and while some of his American films may have been graphic or risque, they are tame compared to Turkish Delight. He held nothing back as a filmmaker on this one.

I can understand why this film ruffled some feathers when it was released in 1973. Somewhere around this time Pauline Kael was writing her famous article for the New Yorker exclaiming Last Tango in Paris as a revolutionary film and Turkish Delight would certainly fall into the same catagory as it. However I think it is even more provocative (in terms of the sex scenes) than Last Tango. Definitely not what I was expecting, but a very good film regardless.

Thoroughly depressing
Can't really say much more. When I first watched this the start of it made me laugh.....don't know why but it just did. There was a scene in it where Rutger Hauer says he's better than Jesus ( in the bedroom ) but come the second half of the movie, the film is ultra depressing and you'd have to have a heart made of stone not to be a little emotional. The thing is is that it feels so real what's going on that it's hard remembering that it's only a film. For weeks I couldn't get this out of my head and even now I'm a little reluctant to put it back in because the film although I haven't seen it since I bought it but there are parts in the film I can remember too well. When Erik ( Hauer ) brings home another girl that was prime for the bed there's the statue of Olga ( the amazingly beautiful Monique Van de Ven ) and for a split second Hauer thinks he sees Olga in the flesh until the girl turns the light on and sees that it was just the statue. It's enough to turn off Erik's passion for sex in an instant. It's truly chilling when you see it again ( OK I admit I tried watching it again but just couldn't after I saw that scene )

The love that Erik has for Olga is beyond intense. He's so obsessed that he cannot bear to see her with another man. And like Erik this is the sort of film that transcends that message across to the viewer. Some relationships that have broken up can still have the " we can still be friends " and can happily go on but for the others they may not want to go through the pain again knowing the things they know. It's my opinion that in some respects this movie could also leave you ending up one or the other

Musique?
Great movie!
I thought he music was an important part of the film.
All these reviews are helpful, but the main theme starting with the beach scene was credited wrong.
In the directors commentary he credits Szymanowski-King boris, but the only thing close to that title is King Roger, which i purchased, but that music is not on the king Roger CD.
does anybody know?

Powerful Love Story
Ranks as one of Verhoeven's best films with hypnotic and electrifying performances by Monique Van De Ven and Rutger Hauer. I was completely blown away by the images in this film and its frank honesty. This is a must see film that is easily of the best love stories ever captured on celluloid.

A VERY ADULT LOVE STORY....
Paul Verhoeven's 1973 far-from-Hollywood film opens with the [physical] escapades of Erik (Rutger Hauer) a womanizing self-destructive artist. Alone in his apartment/studio, he reflects back on his life and a painful episode that he can't forget. He met Olga (Monique Van de Ven) in a car accident. They embarked on a wild [physical] affair and Erik fell in love...hard. Olga had personality quirks that confused Erik but he just wrote it off as part of her nature. They married and Olga's behavior became more disturbing until she finally retreated to her mother's and refused to see Erik. Confounded, Erik demanded to see her and still didn't understand the problem. Then Olga winds up in the hospital seriously ill and her problem is revealed to Erik's shattered disbelief. "Turkish Delight" is the name of Olga's favorite candy. He brings it to the hospital to try and get her to eat. This is a powerful, moving and , yes, erotic story beautifully done by Verhoeven and brilliantly acted by Hauer and especially Van de Ven. There is very frank nudity and [physical] scenes that threaten to push your buttons but Verhoeven is the type of director who just throws back the curtain and tells the story. You understand why Erik is the guy he is. Love and [physical attraction] are powerful drugs and death can make you extremely bitter. "Turkish Delight" was nominated as Best Foreign Launguage film in 1974 at the Oscars in Hollywood. Once seen, it is not easily forgotten. It's a very potent adult love story and a gut wrencher. Excellent DVD transfer from Anchor Bay. ... Read more

Reviews (659)

Underrated Science Fiction Classic
Starship Troopers is a truly underrated classic. Directed by Paul (Robocop) Verhoven, the story takes place far into the future where the world has become a 'Facist Utopia'. It's a world where citizenship is earned through military service and values are taught in war. The original story, written by sci-fi master Robert Heinlein in 1959, took such a future very seriously. Not so with Verhoven, he attempted to approach this Brave New World with camp and satire and I think many people missed this point.

Narrated by a futuristic internet that includes satirical recruiting commercials, we follow the lives of a group of friends - Johnny Rico (Casper Van Diem), Carmen Ibanez (Monica Richards), Dizzy Flores (Dina Meyer) and Carl Jenkins (Neil Patrick Harris). Johnny joins the service because of his girlfriend (Carmen) but is followed right along into service by another girl (Dizzy) who has a major crush on him. However, it becomes clear that they all joined the service just in time as attentions soon turn from each other to that of the enemy - Giant bugs. These giant, killer bugs have declared war on the Earth from their home world of Klendathu and are using long distance asteroids to inflict catastophic damage.

The movie kicks into high gear when soldiers are sent to the extraterrestrial battlefields of Klendathu - a kind of out-world Armageddon. A violent and graphic war is under way as soldiers are ripped apart by these giant bugs, some of which include built in flame throwers. The interaction between the bugs and soldiers is nothing less than spectacular. Indeed, in this era of The Matrix and The Phantom Menace, the digital FX in Starship Troopers easily rank as some of the best you will ever see. At one point, the soldiers are defending a fort against a HUGE army of insect warriors, some of which fly, in a scene that looks like some sci-fi version of the Alamo - Very effective. I will say, however, it struck me strange that a people who have created such advanced interstellar travel would not create better insecticide as the soldiers use pretty standard machine guns that take awhile to put a bug down. Also, Klendathu looked dull - colorless and full of rocks. Oh, well.

All in all, this movie is great. Don't take it too seriously, have fun with it.

Revised Review After Re-Viewing
"Starship Troopers" is a great, action-packed, shoot-'em-up, kill-the-bad-guys (bugs) science fiction adventure film with lots of great special effects. The battles scenes, both in space and on the ground, are graphic, complex, and exciting.

The movie is supposedly based upon Robert Heinlein's science fiction classic, written in 1959. He had three goals:

1) Put forth the idea that a true American patriot could be anti-war and need not be fanatically anti-Communist, a la Joe McCarthy.

2) Satirize war by glorifying it in a tongue-in-cheek manner and by shoving its horror in your face, much like "Saving Private Ryan" did seriously, and much like Archie Bunker did comedically to racism and bigotry.

3) Put forth the philosophy that freedom and responsibility are inextricably linked. Many people today have forgotten that, and moral decline is the result.

What does the movie do with these ideas? It misses the point entirely and sarcastically (not satirically) attacks war, patriotism, AND responsibility. It does this by turning the whole story into a farce, and by minimizing the role of the teacher of responsibility and sometimes portraying him as a bitter fanatic.

The young cast, whom I attacked before revising my review, actually did the best they could with a script that sometimes sounded like it belonged in a Saturday morning cartoon. In their defense, I would guess that most of the cast read the script and not the book. They also did not live through the threat of global war, which was fanned as much by McCarthy's inflammatory anti-Communist rhetoric and fanaticism as it was by Stalinism, Leninism, and Marxism. What defense does the producer and the director have?

The voice-over narration was a big mistake. It furthered the effect of having this film become a caricature of the book, and it was totally unnecessary.

If you want to watch a good science fiction adventure film with lots of special effects, action, and gore, this movie is for you. But, please do not take it seriously or think that it represents Heinlein's book faithfully. If you want to think about this movie and its ideas, please do two things first: read the book it was supposedly based upon, and either read the history of the era that birthed the book or talk with someone born before 1934 at length about the era.

listen up all n64 fans.
in the far future,the armed forces battle giant bugs on thier planet.one of the drill instructers is played by the pervert in sleepers.this movie is far to violent for chilkdren.i cant belive the second part even came fromthis one.this one rules but the sceond one left a lot to be desired.i think military,action and sci fi fans will all enjiy this one.anyone who is squeamish will not like it,as it is very graphic and very violent.there are 2 basic chicks in this movie.a air force chick whose playing two guys and a sexy red head who pines after one of those guys.i think the first chick is nasty but the red head is awesome.she must be pretty co mfortable without a shirt because she takes it off a number of times.this movie kicks butt!some of its futuristic concepts are neat.the violent parts are very graphic.legs flying,guts spraying...........its great.

A complete wast of budgeting
Starship troopers, probably set in the year 4000AD or something is a complete fasico, honestly. What kind of sick moron would create a movie about a bunch of sexy, small titted geeks joining the federal service thing to fight a bunch of mutated insects on the other side of the galaxy. attack, then lots of blood and death (and yet Rico some how manages to be listed corps, but he lives in a bath of green goo) and then they go back for more. Whoopee doo da. Rubbish, and i dont core if you disagree. The most unrealistic film since, well, since ever! From psycic people to roughneck. Thats not the human world. no way! The human world would probable nuke the hell out of "klendathu" the archnids home planet leaving a larghe collection of ash and rubble. And the real world probably wouldn't waste billions of pounds of huge space ships that are going to blow up from cosmic sperm. Nah, we would send thermonuclear probs or something, dodge in and out of the sperm and fly into a random guess at the best spot. Or, instead of using nuclear weapons we could take the right piss. Build a hug maginifying glass over the planets and use there own stars against them and magnify the heat 10,000 times and fry the bastards.

Denise richards must have been pissed to have said yes to acting in this film. What was she thinking?! Why is her hair so long?! and why does she have to smile all the time?! Does here mouth ever close? She did my head in in this "film" her acing may be up to scratch compared to the other actors but she could have done better (compare "the world is not enough"). Johny Rico quite cleary is dressed up to look like one of those life sized action men, the right hair anyway. His freak friend, I forget his name but I know he has been in many other films before. He didn't show up often which was a releif because he is quite ugly. but i suppose being able to mentally control and read the emotions of other animals counts against it.

On the plus side of this film (Yes there is one!!) the graphics and that of the big sacestations is quite good, not as good as say the matrix but it is good. just good. I admit to enjoying them little news reports from the "federal network" but thats about it. Starship Troopers is the perfect example of an over budgetted film and too many speciall effects which drive the film prducers of making a film of good acting. I think the proper scientific definition of this is the matrix revalutions and reloaded.

Only good bug's a dead bug.
Early on, in my formative years, I was introduced to horror films by my mom. Our local late-night horror-fest was Creature Features, hosted by the immortal Bob Wilkins. Through this forum, I was exposed to the great Universal horror films of the 30's, the silly Japanese rubber-suit monster movies, and my favorites, the atomic-age big bug films of the 1950's.

Fast-forward to winter, 1997. I'm sitting in a theater watching Starship Troopers, and it feels like I've stepped into a time machine. This is possibly the best of all the big bug movies, and it's not afraid to show its roots. Sometime in the future, Earth is under attack by huge bugs from another planet. We follow the lives of a few of Earth's best and brightest, as they join the army and head off in different directions. What really struck me about this film is that they actually took the time to develop a three-dimensional world for the characters to inhabit. That's what makes the difference to me. Yes, the young actors are mostly pretty eye candy, and their performances, while not Oscar-caliber, are light years beyond their forebears of the 50's. The world of their future is seemingly fascistic (service in the military guarantees citizenship and other perks, such as the right to vote and the right to have children. Hmm - a future in which people's active participation in their country allows them greater freedoms, provided they take personal responsibility for themselves and their future? I've heard worse notions...). We follow the idealistic youths through basic training, all the way to several epic battles on other worlds and we see their progress as soldiers and as humans along the way. It's this kind of attention to detail and character development that sets this film apart from many others. And yes, everyone makes noise about the coed shower scene, but I have to say that is one of the more important scenes in the film. It shows that the cadets have grown as soldiers, that they are capable as seeing each others as parts of a team, instead of just a bunch of good-looking naked people. Those who have a problem with this scene - grow the heck up. It just adds to the sense of realism of the whole movie. Oh, yeah - there's the bugs, too...

As far as I'm concerned, the bugs are real. I don't know that I've ever seen the make-believe so realistically brought to life in any other movie. These are truly nasty creatures, devoid of compassion or humanity in every way. The effects work (courtesy of master Rob Bottin) is truly incredible. The beasts take apparent glee in tearing apart their human foes, and they do so in spectacular ways. The bugs are so magnificently realized that I literally found myself on the edge of my seat as the troops find themselves ambushed in a deserted fort, with the entire horizon blocked out by herds of thundering bugs.

Paul Veerhoven (Robocop, Total Recall) has a fanatical eye for detail, which is yet another aspect of this film that just compels the feeling that what is happening might just be real. He maintains a sense of humor throughout, which works brilliantly when contrasted to the raw, brutal carnage we're being subjected to. The primary actors, the pretty young kids, do the best they can within the limits of their youth and talent (the standout is Dina Meyer, who's just great), but the real stars of this movie are Clancy Brown as the quasi-sadistic Sergeant Zim, the cadet's Drill Instructor, and genre favorite Michael Ironside as Lt. Rasczak, the kids' teacher at home, and also out on the battlefield. These two guys deserve as much attention and credit as possible for always turning in great performances in character-driven roles. They, even more than the bugs, give this film its heart.

All in all, you just couldn't ask for a more fun Saturday afternoon monster movie. Just avoid any sequels, because invariably, they just can't live up to this fun, breathtaking achievement. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Based on real events, Soldier of Orange tells the story of Dutchman Erik Lanshof (a star-making performance by Rutger Hauer) and a small group of students as they struggle to survive the Nazi occupation to the end of the Second World War. The destinies of the characters range from joining the German army to making for England, the OSS, and the Resistance. Across a canvas lasting almost three hours, director Paul Verhoeven unfolds a saga of friendship, espionage, and romance with almost documentary realism--though not as graphically violent as his later American films, the torture scenes are intense--crafting a deeply affecting film widely regarded as the greatest ever made in Holland. Comparable recent films such as Enigma (2001) and Charlotte Gray (2002) do not come close. Hauer is brilliant at the heart of what is a detailed and thoughtful drama made with integrity and passion. Twenty years later in 1997, Verhoeven made Starship Troopers, a satirical science-fiction companion to this modern European classic. --Gary S. Dalkin ... Read more

Reviews (20)

"A Dutch Treat"
"Soldier of Orange" is the story of several young residents of the Netherlands who become involved in World War II. I believe it is the best film directed by Paul Verhoeven - far better than anything he has made since coming to the U.S. from the Netherlands. Rutger Hauer is also excellent in the film. A VHS version of this film was available some years ago in the U.S. but letterboxing brings the film back to its original theater experience. This film is absolutely in my "Top 10" of all time list.

Pretty Good Stuff
I'm a big fan of Paul Verhoeven's American movies. Once I moved to Holland, I thought I'd check out his older Dutch movies. I found an English-subtitled version through Amazon.com and I wasn't dissappointed. It is one hell of a war movie. One of the best I've seen. It was pretty cool to see Rutger Hauer acting in his native Dutch language before he went off to Hollywood as well. Another recognizeable actor, Jeroen Krabbe, is in this too.

I didn't even mind reading subtitles through almost the whole movie(some parts of it are in English).

If you like war movies, check this out. If you like Paul Verhoeven's weird sense of humor, check it out too.

Soldier of Orange - DVD with commentary by Verhoeven
Soldier of Orange with commentary by Director Paul Verhoeven is a must-see for all history buffs, WWII historians and lovers of war movies. Based on the life of Erik Haselhoff Roelfzema, it chronicles his life in the resistance and that of a small group of law students in Leiden, The Netherlands. Verhoeven's commentary is worth the price of the DVD as he explains scene by scene what he tried to portray, while asking some very thought provoking questions. Verhoeven and I are the same age, and both of us lived in Holland during the occupation. His view of the conditions in Holland and the responses of the Dutch under occupation are very different. I also think his references to Das England Spiel are inaccurate. Having said all that, I still consider the DVD one of my most favorite productions, including the film itself. Soldaat van Oranje is my choice for best ever Dutch film. Those interested in learning more about the real Eric Hazelhoff Roelfzema should read "Soldaat van Oranje Omnibus" which includes "De Verre Tamboer (The Distant Drummer)" and "Op Jacht naar het Leven (In pursuit of Life)" all by Eric Hazelhoff Roelfzema.

Excellent Foreign WWII movie
One of the best WWII movies I have ever seen, and the only one I recall from Holland. The first time I saw this I was amazed by the fact this was one of the best foreign films I had seen up to the mid 80s. I had seen Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner a few years before I caught this movie and I thought he was great. After I saw this I knew it. This is by far one of his best dramatic roles, if not his best. Anyone that enjoys war movies will probably like it. If you enjoy the dramatic ones like "Schindler's List" and "Das Boot" you will definitely enjoy it. Although it is a bit long it did not seem long to me since the pace was good. Keep an open mind about when it was made when you see the special effects and you will find it both compelling and a movie of craftmanship. I have ordered this on DVD because it is difficult to find anyone renting this any longer. Unfortunately it is not a mainstream war movie so most the local rental stores don't carry it. I highly recommend you see it and any fan of war movies will probably want it for their collection.

Great movie
I couldn't buy this DVD in the Netherlands (had to buy it in the UK)... what kind of crazy world is this? :s

Anyway, the movie starts with a recording of queen Wilhelmina stepping out an airplane at the army airport "Valkenburg" (near Leiden) at the end of the WWII. She's accompanied by Eric Hazelhoff-Roelzema, adjudant to the queen and soldier of Orange. The movie tells the story of Eric Hazelhoff-Roelzema (Eric Lanshof in the movie). He studied law in Leiden and was in fact one of the last students to graduate at Leiden University during the second world war. He also was a member of the Dutch resistance. Eventhough the movie and the book he wrote about the war are not very similar, the situation and circumstances of the war in Holland are nicely shown.

In Leiden you can still see the room right accross the Academy Building, where Eric lived at the beginning of the war.

A great movie for its time. Not as good as warfilms like Schindler's List; the Pianist; or The Band of Brothers series, but good nonetheless. The music of Rogier van Otterloo is just perfect. For a Leidener and lawstudent in Leiden as myself, a must have! ... Read more

Reviews (191)

The Strong Arm of the Law
The future of law enforcement is now available in the thrilling Sci-Fi actioner "Robocop". In the near future, police officer Alex Murphy (Peter Weller) is brutally gunned down by ruthless criminals but a powerful corporation rebuilds him as an indestructible high-tech cyborg with the mission to bring justice in violent streets of Detroit. Tormented by nightmarish images of his former life, Robocop seeks revenge on the criminals that took his life. "Robocop" is still director Paul Verhoeven's (Total Recall) best work to date. This film is a fiercely entertaining action-packed joyride. It contains a sharp storyline, high-voltage actions and some surprising bits of wicked satire. The cast also includes Nancy Allen, Ronny Cox, Kurtwood Smith and Miguel Ferrer. The 1987 hit actioner is presented in its theatrical 1.85:1 widescreen format. The DVD contains a good video transfer and well-balanced 5.1 Dolby Digital sound. Its only supplement is its original theatrical trailer. Though fans are more interested in the Criterion Edition, this simple edition is a worthy bargain purchase and gets a "B-".

Not a bad movie, but one scene makes me sick
Dutch director Paul Varhoven takes us on a ride filled with the demise and downfall of our own society in his first American action adventure film, ROBOCOP. It is worth while to mention that ROBOCOP was shot in a time period where Detroit was known as the murder capital of the world. Since than, Detroit has cleaned up its act, and New York has lifted that title from the motor city's back. But in Varhoven's vision, Detroit is a spiraling downward paradox, filled with drugs, violence, and prostitution. The picture is dark and monochromatic, with a grim look upon our future. Its actually a bit depressing to tell you the truth. ROBOCOP is a satire, cracking jokes at modern day aspects of life such as the automotive industry, television commercials, and corporate development (the OCP portion of the film.) The movie has a solid script and a convincing cast, probably most entertaining are the OCP corporate hot shots, but no one steals the show like ED-209. Peter Weller does well with the material he is given to work with, even if he is a little on the monotone side. Kurtwood Smith is all too believable as the dark and sinister villain, Clarence Bodiker. The villains in this film are the most convincing, although its not that hard to make someone seem evil. Basil Poledoris's music score is commanding, even if a little overemphasized with synthesizer, but I guess that's how the 80's were. It really adds a whole other dimension to the film, and multi-academy award winner Phil Tippit's stop motion effects are amazing. I have mixed feelings about this film. Like I may have mentioned above, ROBOCOP is very convincing when it comes to its antagonists, almost too convincing. Along with the Robocop package comes one of the most brutal scenes in Hollywood History. Not since the ambush sequence in BONNY AND CLYDE has there been a more shocking murder in a motion picture. I'm speaking of the scene in which Murphy is, to say the least, shot to death. I felt this over-emphasis was anything but crucial to the plot, as there was no need for it, since we had already been given a display of the cruelty of the characters (can you fly Bobby...CAN YOU FLY! ) We didn't have to see Murphy take a shot between the legs, fall to his knees in agony, and lie there helplessly as his limbs are blown off one at a time. This isn't art, its savage. VARHOVEN, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF! Now I'm aware of the criterion edition, which features even more of this nonsense, in crucifixion style! I mean come on! That's just sick if you ask me. One thing off-setting about this scene is that it takes place in a very confined setting, creating a claustrophobic illusion. We can sympathize for Murphy, especially us males when it comes to the first shot he takes. Some things just shouldn't pass through the lens of a camera, period. As for the rest of the film, three cheers, but this scene was totally unnecessary. The blade thru Kurtwood Smith's neck ain't pretty either, but at least he deserved it. The viewing of this scene leaves one feeling sick to there stomach, thanks Dad, for fast forwarding when I was a little kid.

A classic action movie that makes Kill Bill a comedy
The 1987 classic Robocop is one of my all time favorite movies next to Scarface(1983), First Blood(1982), Goodfellas(1990), Braveheart(1995), The Exorcist(1973), Animal House(1978) and The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Movie(1979). When I first saw this movie in 1988 when I was 12, I was in for a time of my life. As for the first Robocop(forget the sequels), Old Detroit has become a violent wonderland of criminal activity. New officer Alex Murphy (Peter Weller) and Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen) are partners in a police force under siege from OCP, a company that wants to turn Old Detroit into a Metropolis kind of place. Whilst pursuing particularly bloodthirsty and disgusting badguys, led by the reprehensible Clarence Boddicker (Kurtwood Smith), whom had some of the funniest lines ever uttered by a villain in film, Murphy is captured, tortured, shot full of holes and killed. This scene is rather disturbing to watch for those who don't like violence. After his death, Murphy becomes ROBOCOP. Murphy now has a mechanical body and becomes a walking weapon of mass destruction! He in initially goes out to clean up the streets and uphold the law. However, the scientists forgot that he was human and Robocop subsequently has a flashback to the night that his human form was killed and is later haunted by memories of his wife and son. The nightmare sequence sets up one of the best revenge films I've ever seen next to the first First Blood. ROBOCOP then finds out the sinister secrets of OCP's #2 man (Ronny Cox) after assaulting Clarence and must do battle with the ED-209, an earlier robotic crimefighter design with heavy-duty guns and missiles. The rest of the film is great too. I can't give more away, you have to watch. Highly recommended!

Rent the first movie now!!
Absolutely incredible! I liked peter weller as Robocop,mainly because his voice was a little quiet,wich I admire. I just love watching Robocop cream all the gang members and I never get bored of it,and the toxic waste guy.a perfect idea for the movie! I was home alone just flipping around the channels and I found the word robocop on the screen.I went ahead and checked it out,I had heard people say how violent it was and im only 13(so I was prepared..) I dropped in when the cops are first chaseing after the gang,and when they got to the gangs hide out where murphys hand like explodes from a little pistol,AS IF.Although it was still wheerdly entertaining,still I was suprised at how good it the movie was.one of the best of the 80's,rent the movie you will like it,I sware.

A good but violent film.
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD release of the film.

The plot is original for the time also.

After being killed, a police officer is brought back to life as a robot with superhuman strength.

This film is an interesting look at human memory and emotions as well as the idea on law enforcement of the future. The film is the unrated director's cut and includes violent scenes which were cut to avoid an MPAA X-rating. Though compared to the violence in today's films, it is not that graphic.

It is also an interesting look at large corporations and their potential to become corrupt, a bit ahead of its time but now apparent with the many reports in the news nowadays.

The death of officer Murphy and his 'rebirth' as a robot have been compared to the crucifixion and ressurrection of Jesus, by director Paul Verhoeven. He stated that he wanted the death scene to be as graphic as possible so the audience would have sympathy for him and not just think of him as a robot after his 'rebirth'
The scene where he discovers his old home, abandned by his widow and children is also touching and really is well written.

The DVD has excellent audio commentary by the director other crew. It also has storyboard/film comparisons. it has the teaser and theatcical trailers and an interactive essay that was origianlly in a film magazine.

This DVd remains out of print and is worth the $50 dollars it currently sells at for those who are fan of the movie. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In the first and finest RoboCop movie, director Paul Verhoeven combined near-future science fiction with a keen sense of social satire--not to mention enough high-velocity violence to satisfy even the most voracious bloodlust. In Starship Troopers, Verhoeven and RoboCop cowriter Ed Neumeier take inspired cues from Robert Heinlein's classic sci-fi novel to create a special-effects extravaganza that functions on multiple levels of entertainment. The film might be called "Melrose Place in Space," with its youthful cast of handsome guys and gorgeous women who look like they've been recruited (and in some cases they were) from the cast of Beverly Hills 90210. Viewers might focus on the incredible, graphically intense action sequences (definitely not for children) in which heavily armed forces from Earth go to off-world battle against vast hordes of alien "bugs" bent on planetary conquest. The attacking bugs are marvels of state-of-the-art special-effects technology, and the space battles are nothing short of spectacular. But Starship Troopers is more than a showcase for high-tech hardware and gigantic, flesh-ripping insects.Recalling his childhood in Holland during the Nazi occupation, Verhoeven turns this epic adventure into a scathingly funny satire of fascist propaganda, emphasizing Heinlein's underlying warning against the hazards of military conformity and the sickening realities of war. It's an action-packed joy ride if that's all you're looking for, but Verhoeven has a provocative agenda that makes Starship Troopers as smart as it is exciting. The DVD includes an above-average commentary by the director and Neumeier, several deleted scenes, a behind-the-scenes documentary and promotional featurette, cast bios, production notes, and more. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (659)

Underrated Science Fiction Classic
Starship Troopers is a truly underrated classic. Directed by Paul (Robocop) Verhoven, the story takes place far into the future where the world has become a 'Facist Utopia'. It's a world where citizenship is earned through military service and values are taught in war. The original story, written by sci-fi master Robert Heinlein in 1959, took such a future very seriously. Not so with Verhoven, he attempted to approach this Brave New World with camp and satire and I think many people missed this point.

Narrated by a futuristic internet that includes satirical recruiting commercials, we follow the lives of a group of friends - Johnny Rico (Casper Van Diem), Carmen Ibanez (Monica Richards), Dizzy Flores (Dina Meyer) and Carl Jenkins (Neil Patrick Harris). Johnny joins the service because of his girlfriend (Carmen) but is followed right along into service by another girl (Dizzy) who has a major crush on him. However, it becomes clear that they all joined the service just in time as attentions soon turn from each other to that of the enemy - Giant bugs. These giant, killer bugs have declared war on the Earth from their home world of Klendathu and are using long distance asteroids to inflict catastophic damage.

The movie kicks into high gear when soldiers are sent to the extraterrestrial battlefields of Klendathu - a kind of out-world Armageddon. A violent and graphic war is under way as soldiers are ripped apart by these giant bugs, some of which include built in flame throwers. The interaction between the bugs and soldiers is nothing less than spectacular. Indeed, in this era of The Matrix and The Phantom Menace, the digital FX in Starship Troopers easily rank as some of the best you will ever see. At one point, the soldiers are defending a fort against a HUGE army of insect warriors, some of which fly, in a scene that looks like some sci-fi version of the Alamo - Very effective. I will say, however, it struck me strange that a people who have created such advanced interstellar travel would not create better insecticide as the soldiers use pretty standard machine guns that take awhile to put a bug down. Also, Klendathu looked dull - colorless and full of rocks. Oh, well.

All in all, this movie is great. Don't take it too seriously, have fun with it.

Revised Review After Re-Viewing
"Starship Troopers" is a great, action-packed, shoot-'em-up, kill-the-bad-guys (bugs) science fiction adventure film with lots of great special effects. The battles scenes, both in space and on the ground, are graphic, complex, and exciting.

The movie is supposedly based upon Robert Heinlein's science fiction classic, written in 1959. He had three goals:

1) Put forth the idea that a true American patriot could be anti-war and need not be fanatically anti-Communist, a la Joe McCarthy.

2) Satirize war by glorifying it in a tongue-in-cheek manner and by shoving its horror in your face, much like "Saving Private Ryan" did seriously, and much like Archie Bunker did comedically to racism and bigotry.

3) Put forth the philosophy that freedom and responsibility are inextricably linked. Many people today have forgotten that, and moral decline is the result.

What does the movie do with these ideas? It misses the point entirely and sarcastically (not satirically) attacks war, patriotism, AND responsibility. It does this by turning the whole story into a farce, and by minimizing the role of the teacher of responsibility and sometimes portraying him as a bitter fanatic.

The young cast, whom I attacked before revising my review, actually did the best they could with a script that sometimes sounded like it belonged in a Saturday morning cartoon. In their defense, I would guess that most of the cast read the script and not the book. They also did not live through the threat of global war, which was fanned as much by McCarthy's inflammatory anti-Communist rhetoric and fanaticism as it was by Stalinism, Leninism, and Marxism. What defense does the producer and the director have?

The voice-over narration was a big mistake. It furthered the effect of having this film become a caricature of the book, and it was totally unnecessary.

If you want to watch a good science fiction adventure film with lots of special effects, action, and gore, this movie is for you. But, please do not take it seriously or think that it represents Heinlein's book faithfully. If you want to think about this movie and its ideas, please do two things first: read the book it was supposedly based upon, and either read the history of the era that birthed the book or talk with someone born before 1934 at length about the era.

listen up all n64 fans.
in the far future,the armed forces battle giant bugs on thier planet.one of the drill instructers is played by the pervert in sleepers.this movie is far to violent for chilkdren.i cant belive the second part even came fromthis one.this one rules but the sceond one left a lot to be desired.i think military,action and sci fi fans will all enjiy this one.anyone who is squeamish will not like it,as it is very graphic and very violent.there are 2 basic chicks in this movie.a air force chick whose playing two guys and a sexy red head who pines after one of those guys.i think the first chick is nasty but the red head is awesome.she must be pretty co mfortable without a shirt because she takes it off a number of times.this movie kicks butt!some of its futuristic concepts are neat.the violent parts are very graphic.legs flying,guts spraying...........its great.

A complete wast of budgeting
Starship troopers, probably set in the year 4000AD or something is a complete fasico, honestly. What kind of sick moron would create a movie about a bunch of sexy, small titted geeks joining the federal service thing to fight a bunch of mutated insects on the other side of the galaxy. attack, then lots of blood and death (and yet Rico some how manages to be listed corps, but he lives in a bath of green goo) and then they go back for more. Whoopee doo da. Rubbish, and i dont core if you disagree. The most unrealistic film since, well, since ever! From psycic people to roughneck. Thats not the human world. no way! The human world would probable nuke the hell out of "klendathu" the archnids home planet leaving a larghe collection of ash and rubble. And the real world probably wouldn't waste billions of pounds of huge space ships that are going to blow up from cosmic sperm. Nah, we would send thermonuclear probs or something, dodge in and out of the sperm and fly into a random guess at the best spot. Or, instead of using nuclear weapons we could take the right piss. Build a hug maginifying glass over the planets and use there own stars against them and magnify the heat 10,000 times and fry the bastards.

Denise richards must have been pissed to have said yes to acting in this film. What was she thinking?! Why is her hair so long?! and why does she have to smile all the time?! Does here mouth ever close? She did my head in in this "film" her acing may be up to scratch compared to the other actors but she could have done better (compare "the world is not enough"). Johny Rico quite cleary is dressed up to look like one of those life sized action men, the right hair anyway. His freak friend, I forget his name but I know he has been in many other films before. He didn't show up often which was a releif because he is quite ugly. but i suppose being able to mentally control and read the emotions of other animals counts against it.

On the plus side of this film (Yes there is one!!) the graphics and that of the big sacestations is quite good, not as good as say the matrix but it is good. just good. I admit to enjoying them little news reports from the "federal network" but thats about it. Starship Troopers is the perfect example of an over budgetted film and too many speciall effects which drive the film prducers of making a film of good acting. I think the proper scientific definition of this is the matrix revalutions and reloaded.

Only good bug's a dead bug.
Early on, in my formative years, I was introduced to horror films by my mom. Our local late-night horror-fest was Creature Features, hosted by the immortal Bob Wilkins. Through this forum, I was exposed to the great Universal horror films of the 30's, the silly Japanese rubber-suit monster movies, an