Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004)

In a word: Ick. In two more words: Don't bother.

Robert A. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers was a story about the conflicts inherent in anybody in military service. The tear between duty and what's right. The often necessary evils one must do in order to save the greater good....

Then there was the 1997 film of the same name. While taking most of that and chucking it out the window, it at least served as a strange sort of parody of war movies and war-time propaganda, with the smiling faces of the young attractive folks torn to shreds by the bugs, and the constant happy recruitment and gung-ho going on around them....

And then there is Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation. Directed by visual effects genius Phil Tippett, this travesty should have been left as a proposal buried on somebody's desk.

Here's the rub: Take every over-the-top war movie cliche and characterization you can think of, and throw them into a squad pinned down by a nasty evil enemy. Then multiply that by 10. Then introduce some silly and over-the-top effects and try to end the picture on a high note. That's what you get here. A whole lot of bad acting, corny writing, and even more bad acting.

The only high point of the film is a detailed look at Kelly Carlson's anatomy. Yeah, that's about it, really. Guys of the world rejoice.

I imagine the producers and Tippett were going for the same sort of thing that they pulled off with the original film. Unfortunately the whole thing is sorely lacking in combat, as the story turns into a haunted house-style monster movie real quick. There's no tongue-in-cheek parody of the war machine here, just a lot of overplayed cliches. Haven't I said that already? Yeah, I did. Two stars, one for trying and one for Kelly Carlson, whoo!

Here's a trailer. Don't believe what you see here. I think they squeezed every human-vs-bug combat scene into it, and none of the other junk, which makes up most of the film.

Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004) on Spout.com

Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

Stalingrad (1993)

I'm not even sure how to begin with (or end, or even put the stuff in the middle of) this review. On the one hand, Stalingrad is a stark depiction of what it must have been like during the battle of the same name. Full of vivid, graphic, and disturbing imagery, it paints a depressing picture, and rightly so. Not only in the production and effects, but the main characters, a squad of Germans, themselves get torn apart, inside and out, until the very end.

On the other hand, I found the film lacking in a few respects. The characters themselves don't seem to have much personality at all. The one exception might be the company Lieutenant, Witzland (Thomas Kretschmann.) He is the epitome of the man thrust into the heart of an evil situation, trying hopelessly to do the right thing, and it winds up the method of his destruction....

The squad is sent off to Stalingrad early on, Rohleder (Jochen Nickel), Muller (Sebastian Rudolph) and the rest think this will be the proverbial walk in the park, shouting at the Russian farmers from the train. They are, of course, in for a surprise.

They are thrust into the battle, and wind up in the typical standoff. They agree to a temporary cease-fire to get their wounded, and of course that goes terribly wrong, and they wind up capturing a few Russians, including a young boy. These guys seem to be a lot like them in most respects. They wind up in a lot of situations like this that prove typical in war movies. Whether or not they are reflective of actual events, these are the types of events we are shown. Nasty decisions have to be made, cruelties delivered, things done that under any circumstances would blacken your soul.

Maybe if I hadn't already seen the documentary on Stalingrad first, and didn't know what to expect it would have been a lot more compelling, shocking, and disturbing. But as is usually the case, the truth is stranger, and darker and more evil than fiction. I already had a picture in my mind of what these situations must've been like, and while this film went a long way towards realizing that, as dark and gritty as it was, it just didn't seem to measure up.

I found the first 2/3 to be mostly mechanical in that respect. However, as the squad is unable to make the last plane out, their situation enters a surreal nightmare from which there is no return. And then the film really starts to get interesting, and really quite good. The real madness begins when they intercept a supply drop before the commander (who has been a thorn in Witzland's side) can get to them. They wind up killing the officer, who informs them in desparation of his own personal stash.

They briefly escape the cold and starvation into a horde of supplies and relative luxury, and find a Russian woman prisoner, which the German officers have been using for less-than-honorable purposes. They free her, and as they share in their final moments of desparation and sadness, you really get a feel for what this picture is ultimately about.

It's about the waste and destruction and senseless loss of life that was put upon the city then, and which you'll find in any war. It's also a damning indictment of the Nazi regime, from the eyes of the soldiers who were forced to fight under it, whether or not they subscribed to that whole philosophy, which this squad did not.

I may as well spoil it for you. Nobody makes it out alive, whether by choice, by bullet, by painful degradation or simply freezing to death. The final scene with the two men frozen solid in the field is a heart-wrenching one, and sums it all up perfectly.

Nothing good came out of Stalingrad. In reality I mean. The only good thing to come out of this movie is a more-or-less accurate depiction of what it must have been like to be there. I can't say I enjoyed it, if you can even call it that, but it was certainly an interesting ride, especially the stark and surreal ending "act".

I wouldn't put Stalingrad on the same level as classics like Saving Private Ryan or other films lauded as "World War II Classics" though, as some have done. I don't know, to me, accuracy and realism doesn't necessarily mean a superb war film. I'm sure I'll draw some grief for that, but I just didn't like as much as a lot of people do.

Here's a clip from one of the more engaging battle scenes.


(Oh, and the guy with the wooden arm kept reminding me of the guy from Young Frankenstein. I could not get that out of my head, after he adjusts his arm a few times, you'll see what I mean!)

Stalingrad (1993) on Spout.com

Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

Stalingrad: The Attack, The Kessel, The Doom (2003)

Stalingrad. The name conjures up many images, none of them pleasant. This 2003 three-part documentary explores the fiasco that was the Battle of Stalingrad, through interviews with survivors on both sides, reenactments, and still imagery. Produced in Germany, I was actually surprised how frank it was, and also on how apolitical it was. Neither side (the Nazis or the Russians) were portrayed as particularly "good" or "evil", but rather both armies got equal treatment. That is to say, only the terrible facts and the stories from those who were there, and how they remembered it.

For those wondering what I'm talking about, in 1942 the Nazis made a huge push into southwest Russia, heading for the oilfields on one front, and attempting to take the city bearing the name of Hitler's archenemy, Stalingrad. The fighting was intense and bloody, and the Germans spent the winter pinned down in "the Kessel", surrounded. It turned out to be the bloodiest winter of the war.

What really makes this film compelling, and curious, is the varied yet familiar stories and opinions shared by the interviewees. The terror of the events is evident in these mens' eyes as they recall the battles, and the desperation of their situation. You can feel the survivor's guilt in some of their tales of escaping the Kessel via airlift.

I've read some other reviews which seem averse to the producers (of this DVD) decision to overdub the interviewees with their English translation. I didn't mind this at all, in fact, I didn't find it distracting or demeaning in the least. It's a documentaary, and you can still hear the original voice and all the emotion underneath the dub. Stop nitpicking!

The facts surrounding that winter and the events were all quite interested. I learned a great deal about the battle that I never knew, except from pop-culture fare like Enemy at the Gates and the like. Sure the sniper battle aspect is touched on, but there was so much more to the story. The near coverup of the defeat by the Germans, the conflict between Hitler and the 6th Army command, the role of the neighboring Balkan states in the fight.... Things that we don't hear about.

The first episode, "The Attack", chronicles the German offensive, and the eventual pincer move which left them cut off. "The Kessel," part two, refers to what the cut-off Germans called their situation, aka "The Cauldron." A place of no escape. In "The Doom," we see the events which led to the inevitable defeat of the 6th Army.

I really can't say much else about it. It's a documentary, there's no other way to put it, but its a very, very good one. I wouldn't suggest it for younger, even high-school, audiences, as some of the stock footage, still images, and eye-witness accounts can get rather grisly and emotional. Neither is it particularly "exciting", but that's how it should be.

If you want a good fact-filled few hours of hardcore education about an event of World War II that we in the west don't hear much about, then Stalingrad: The Attack, The Kessel, The Doom is one I'd highly recommend.

(I think this might be a clip from this series, but I'm not positive...)


(and yeah, to those who recommended I review "Stalingrad", I put the wrong one at the top of my Netflix queue! doh. I should be getting the 1993 film soon.)

Stalingrad: The Attack, The Kessel, The Doom (2003) on Spout.com

Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News