- Werner Herzog. Makes some great nature documentaries, biographies, and standard films. Also a really incredible human being.
- George Lucas. Wasn't always directing, but did a fair bit. On here for giving us Star Wars, and for still being involved in a lot of the projects (apparently he and Filoni are pretty tight).
- Steven Spielberg. One of the greats. Throw a rock, and you'll hit an amazing movie he made.
- Denis Villeneuve. Has made some great films in the last 10 years in my opinion, specifically Dune, Arrival, Bladerunner 2049, and Sicario. Prisoners was pretty good too, and I haven't seen it but I hear Incendies and Enemy are good.
- Robert Eggers. The Northman is the last film I saw from him, and I loved it. I loved how it forced you into this world where myths were real, fate and destiny were almost tangible things. Really Shakespearean. The VVItch is also one of the better horror movies in recent memory, and I hear good things about The Lighthouse.
- Martin Scorsese. A demi-god of a director, dude has been making films since the early 60's. Despite this, he has managed to stay current and releases hit after hit.
@uninspiredcup said:
Hard one. Guess toss up between John Carpenter, Paul Verhoeven and Sergio Leone.
Watched Starship Troopers again for the first time after, 20 years? Man, that thing has aged well. And with adults eyes really appreciate it more.
Hard to believe this was when CGI was just becoming a thing.
Yeah, great movie. Good satire and commentary lol.
Perfectly cast, too; got some cult favorites (Ironside), the respectable one (Clancy Brown and NPH), and the corny one (van Dien, Richards).
And yes, the CGI was (and still is) pretty damn great. I just don't know how modern low-budget movies can somehow be worse than Starship troopers, a movie that's damn well over 20 years old. Those ScyFy made-for-TV movies have some catching up to do.
----------------------------
Long related note:
I'm reading the book now. It is very different, but also the same lol. Apparently Verhoeven didn't even read the book that Heinlen wrote, was just given some notes about it. I think he did pretty good overall, all things considered. Some key differences between the book and movie (spoilers below):
- The book is not a satire, though it offers a lot of commentary.
- Promotes militarism; it was written in two weeks (!!!) after the the US military suspended nuclear weapons testing. I guess Heinlen thought we needed nukes and war rofl.
- Seriously promotes corporal punishment
- Expands upon post-WWII culture as lacking discipline
- Rico is Filipino, not Brazilian. Though in a "one world order" type of government, it means little I suppose.
- Ironside's character does not join up (though Rico's dad does after his wife/Rico's mom dies).
- They wear these really cool mecha-suits.
- About half the book takes place in boot camp.
- The bugs are a minor part of the conflict, though they are emphasized as winning the war. There is also another alien race in the beginning of the book Rico and his cohorts are tasked with terrorizing.
It still promotes the whole caste system (citizens vs civilians) and is very militaristic and all that stuff, and reading it in context (but also at odds) with the movie version has been pretty funny. I find myself laughing, then sort of attempting to put myself in the shoes of a post-WWII pro-war man and it get's kind of scary.
Especially scary as this novel was intended for young people. It reads like propaganda for young people who are directionless and angry and might think the military would be a fun thing to do.
All in all it is a fun read if you don't take it serious. A lot of the stuff in it really laid the work for a lot of modern sci-fi stuff: cool sci-fi wars, mecha suits, interstellar travel. If you could read one novel that sort of acts as a generic guide for all the modern sci-stuff I think Starship troopers would be it. Obviously there are better works of sci-fi.
Log in to comment