Paul Verhoeven Film Restrospective - Showgirls

In Hollywood, it is often said that you are only as successful as your last film. That has never been more true than with Paul Verhoeven and Showgirls. Despite having huge successes with Robocop, Total Recall and Basic Instinct, none of those films would have as much impact on his career as Showgirls, a film that is so notoriously bad, it was nominated for a record breaking 13 Golden Raspberry awards and was the winner of 7. Verhoeven at least had the integrity to admit to the films failures and actually attended the Razzies, picking up the awards himself, being the only Hollywood director to do so in the events entire history. With all this notoriety the big question is, is it really that bad? The answer is both Yes and No.

The film tells the rags to riches story of Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley) who travels to Las Vegas in order to seek fame as a dancer. Whilst there, she starts work as a stripper before getting her big break in a show. That story, which cost the studio a whopping $2 million, was the brainchild of Joe Eszterhas, who had previously worked with Verhoeven on Basic Instinct, yet offers nothing that the viewer hadn't seen before. Had she not been a Vegas stripper and exotic dancer, then it would have been the same story seen in many other Hollywood films. The only new thing in the story was all the sex and nudity, but even that had been seen hundreds of times before in many a soft-core B-movie. Verhoeven himself has even stated that the story is probably the main reason the film failed. Had there been a murder mystery or thriller element to it, then it would have more likely been accepted by the masses, as was proven with Basic Instinct.

To blame the films failures solely on the story though is not fair. As bad as the story is, the way it was filmed didn't help. Verhoeven's early Dutch movies dealt with sex and nudity without the need of a murder mystery aspect in which to hang it on, and they weren't seen as failures. Had Showgirls been filmed in a similar manner, with a more gritty edge, it may have been accepted as a serious drama. Instead, it was filmed with a glossy look to highlight the look of Vegas, yet, ironically, it's this expensive look that makes the film look so cheap, giving the appearance of some bad daytime soap opera. There is no mood or style in the way it is filmed, making the expensive sets look cheap and tacky, which may also have been deliberate as a way of portraying the tackiness of Vegas.

The other problem with the film is the acting. After pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable with Basic Instinct, Verhoeven's intention was to make a big, expensive, Hollywood movie that pushed these boundaries even further, but then filled this expensive movie with a cheap cast of B-actors and soft-core porn stars. Had we seen the likes of Drew Barrymore and Charlize Theron, both of whom were considered for the lead role, as well as some respected character actors in the smaller parts, then he might have succeeded. Paul Thomas Anderson proved it possible only a few years later with Boogie Nights. Instead, the film's biggest star was Kyle MacLachlan, sporting one of the worst hair-cuts since Dumb and Dumber, but without the intentional laughs.

Instead of the aforementioned Barrymore and Theron, the lead went to the stunning star of Saved By The Bell, Elizabeth Berkley, in a role as far removed from that family sitcom as possible. The reasons for casting her were obvious. Saved By The Bell proved she can act, but she also had the credentials as a trained dancer. The film should have turned her into a star in the same way that Basic Instinct made a star out of Sharon Stone. Unfortunately, where Stone looked classy in Instinct, Berkley just looks tacky, which was probably deliberate seeing as she was playing a stripper. Despite a few subsequent and acclaimed appearances in Oliver Stone's Any Given Sunday and Woody Allen's The Curse Of The Jade Scorpion, it killed her career stone dead.

The main reason the film failed though was simply because Hollywood just wasn't ready for so much sex and nudity in a big Hollywood film, and unfortunately, it still isn't. Even though the horrific gore and violence of the Saw films is perfectly acceptable for an audience of 15 year olds, if you dare to show a bit of nudity in Hollywood, without any gore and violence to hide it amongst, then the film is automatically given the death rating of NC-17. Originally conceived as a rating to highlight the fact that a film is intended for mature audiences, Americans had translated that to mean it's of a pornographic nature. This is a shame as it is forcing film-makers to be restrictive in what they can show. Whereas in Holland, Verhoeven didn't even need to think twice about showing full frontal nudity in Turkish Delight and Spetters, in Hollywood, it was a different matter. Verhoeven's biggest mistake when making Showgirls was simply that he made the film with a Dutch mindset, but for an American audience. Had he made the film in Holland, it would probably have been declared a masterpiece.

Despite it's reputation and the copious amounts of it, the nudity is never that gratuitous. Verhoeven never lets the camera linger on the breasts and buttocks of it's stars, and there are only a few moments of full frontal nudity. Instead, he just films the scenes regardless of the nudity on show, rather than because of it, the idea being that after a while it no longer becomes an issue for the viewer.

The film isn't all bad though. If you can get past the nudity, then you will find the film is surprisingly enjoyable, so much so that it has attracted a cult following in America and had become one of MGM's top 20 all-time best sellers. The film also has a satirical edge to it, as does all of Verhoeven's Hollywood films, that was widely missed at the time. Besides, it also has a great poster.

Despite IMDb giving it an understandably low rating of 4.1, I'd have to give it a higher 5.5, definitely Verhoeven's worst film, but not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

Paul Verhoeven Film Restrospective offshoot - Basic Instinct 2

What has surprised me about Paul Verhoeven's career is that all of his Hollywood films have sported sequels or remakes. Robocop had the abysmal parts 2 and 3 as well as a spin-off TV series and cartoon. Total Recall spawned a short lived TV series and a remake is currently in the works. Hollow Man and Starship Troopers both had Direct-To-DVD sequels. Even Showgirls has a sequel that no-one has seen. Of all these sequels, Basic Instinct 2 is the most famous, and as it turned out, one of the lowest earning sequels of all time.

Why Basic Instinct 2 flopped is difficult to say, as it's not that bad a film. Don't get me wrong, it's not a great film, but there are some serious flaws that outweigh any of the good stuff, and there is a lot of good stuff there.

The sequel was, at one time, due to be directed by David Cronenberg. When asked why he would do a sequel to Basic Instinct, he responded that the film had an amazingly good script. He wasn't wrong. The script is really good, with a great twist, and had that script not been turned into a sequel to Basic Instinct, but was instead allowed to become a film in it's own right, it could have been a great film.

The direction isn't that bad either. It's director, Michael Canton Jones, has directed some great film such as Scandal, Doc Hollywood and the under-rated This Boys Life, with a young Leonardo DiCaprio more than holding his own against Robert De Niro. His direction of this film oozes seriousness and quality, and you get the feeling that he is trying to make a really good film out of this really good script.

Unfortunately, the reasons this film fails is because it's a sequel to Basic Instinct. As I said, if it had been a stand alone film, it could have been really good, but it constantly reminds you of the first one in the way it name-checks the characters of that film, and re-uses it's famous Jerry Goldsmith score. All these name checks do is remind you how much fun the first film is, but in his attempt at making the sequel something good and classy, much of that fun is missing resulting in a film that is surprisingly dull.

Also, by having it as a sequel, you are forced to buy a 50 year old Sharon Stone as a sex goddess that a famous psychiatrist would risk ruining his career over. Although she looks surprisingly good for her age (again, down to surgical enhancements), her sex scenes come across as a bit embarrassing, in the same way that Madonna is when she tries to act like a 30 year old in her videos. Instead of having someone create another great character, Sharon Stone seems to be doing a bad impersonation of Catherine Trammell, still trying to shock like she did in her youth.

Those moments of this film where they try to shock come across as forced, which is again down to them trying to re-create the shocks of it's predecessor. Had they made the film sooner, then maybe it would not have turned out too badly. Stone famously got a Play Or Pay deal for this film, meaning she still would have got paid even if they didn't make it, and when they almost didn't make it, she took the film studio to court for breach of contract. Had they have just given her the money, things may have turned out better for everyone.

IMDB currently gives Basic Instinct 2 a shockingly low 3.9, but I'd has to give it a slightly more generous 4.5. There's some good stuff in there and a great script screaming to get out, but by making it a sequel to a hugely successful erotic thriller from 20 years earlier, it has turned into a huge failure.

Paul Verhoeven Film Restrospective - Basic Instinct

After the huge double whammy of both Robocop and Total Recall, Paul Verhoeven was free to do whatever he wanted, and after 2 films with almost no nudity, he chose to reinvent the erotic thriller by directing Basic Instinct, creating what was at the time the most sexually explicit Hollywood film ever made.

In Basic Instinct, Michael Douglas (Wall Street, Romancing The Stone) plays a cop who is drawn into the world of author Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone - Total Recall, Sliver) who may or may not have murdered a boyfriend in a manor that mirrored a scene from one of her books.

It's hard to believe that this in Verhoeven's only attempt at an erotic thriller, so synonymous is he with the genre. Of his Hollywood movies, only this and Showgirls weren't Sci-Fi movies, and Showgirls isn't as much a thriller as it is an erotic drama. Although his early Dutch movies have plenty of eroticism and nudity in them, they too are mostly dramas. The nearest he came to the erotic thriller was The 4th Man, yet despite being both erotic and a thriller, I still wouldn't describe as it as such as the sex scenes are quite minimal and there are supernatural elements to it. Verhoeven himself, however, does consider it as a sister piece to Basic Instinct.

Before watching Basic Instinct again for the first time in years, I was fully expecting to refer to how much the film has aged, yet was surprised to find that wasn't the case at all. Sure, some of the fashions are decidedly 90's but that is the period that the film is set in. I was also expecting to give the film average marks as my memory seemed to remember it as being quite corny, but while watching it again, I was surprised by just how good the film was. The direction is taut and ground breaking, with plenty of inspired moments. It's just that there is something about the film that stops you remembering how good it is. You forget about the intelligence that seeps into the film through the inspired direction because any flaws in the film are down to the story by Joe Eszterhas. 

Having written such successful films as Flashdance and Jagged Edge, Eszterhas was hot property in Hollywood, and it was that heat which allowed him to charge a cool $3 Million for the Basic Instinct script, at the time making it the most expensive film script in Hollywood history. Despite this films success, he quickly followed it with the likes of forgettable misfires, Sliver and Jade, both of which helped his career stall. His other big post-Instinct film was another team up with Verhoeven, but unfortunately, that turned out to be Showgirls.

As both Jade and Sliver proved, it takes some clever directing skills to turn a Joe Eszterhas script into an intelligent and exciting movie going experience, so it was fortunate that Basic Instinct had Verhoeven behind the camera. In a lesser director's hands, the twists and turns of the plot could have come across as contrived and ridiculous, and the sex scenes could have come across as embarrassing, but Verhoeven always keeps you guessing and second guessing whether or not Sharon Stone is a cold blooded killer.

When directing this film, Verhoeven stated that he was heavily influenced by Hitchcock's Vertigo, and you can see that influence, not just in the San Francisco setting, but throughout the film in the camera angles and cinematography. There is a great car chase scene in the film that invokes vertigo and fear in the viewer, as Michael Douglas follows Sharon Stone, attempting to overtake on blind corners while driving along high cliffs and hills, leaving you feeling more than a little giddy.

Basic Instinct does have a lot of sex in it, and it's because of this sex that the film has become so infamous. The most famous moment from this film, if not Verhoeven's career, is the interrogation scene, with the now legendary upskirt shot of Sharon Stone. This scene has been parodied throughout cinema in countless spoof comedies and TV shows. Other sex scenes in the film are surprisingly long and extremely explicit for their time, yet despite looking stunning in Total Recall, Sharon Stone is considerably less sexy in this film and I'm not sure why. One of the reasons may be down to the surgical enhancements she had between the two films. Jeanne Tripplehorn (Mickey Blue Eyes, Waterworld), on the other hand, is stunning in this film, both with her looks and her performance. It's a shame that we don't see more of her.

Basic Instinct is a great film when you are watching it, but memory tricks you into thinking it is something lesser than it is. Maybe this is the reason IMDB currently gives it 6.9, but I'd give it a slightly higher 7.5

Paul Verhoeven Film Restrospective - Total Recall

Philip K Dick is a writer whose stories have influenced some of the best sci-fi films of recent years, from Blade Runner to The Adjustment Bureau, with Minority Report in between. Total Recall was the second big Philip K Dick adaptation, being based on his story We can remember it for you wholesale and ties with Blade Runner as the best.

Total Recall had been in development for over 10 years before Paul Verhoeven became attached. Earlier attempts saw Patrick Swayze in the lead role before production fell through, while David Cronenberg was also interested in directing a version before he left to make The Fly. Arnold Schwarzenegger then became interested in starring and, being a huge fan of Robocop managed to persuade Paul Verhoeven to direct.

It's hard to picture it but at the time Arnie wasn't yet the huge star that he was to become. Before this, he'd had reasonable successes with both Predator and Commando and was well know as the cyborg in The Terminator, but Total Recall was to be the big one. Despite having one of the largest budgets ever seen at the time, the film would go on to be both a massive critical and commercial success, cementing Arnie's status as the biggest star on the planet.

This success is fully deserved. In only his second Sci-Fi film, Verhoeven has created a classic that is not only really great fun, but one that also requires you to think as you watch it. Although Total Recall can be viewed in 2 different ways, I've always watched it at face value, where the events in the film are real and reasonably straight forward. Arnold has had false memories implanted and upon realising this, travels to Mars, gets the girl, kills the bad guys and saves the entire planet. However, the other way of perceiving the film is that it is all a dream. Nothing weird happens to Arnie until he starts to have false memories implanted, and everything that happens to him afterwards is suggested to him by the team doing to memory planting. Even the imagery of the films climax appears on monitors in the surgery room.. Also, half way through the film, a doctor walks into Arnie's hotel room and lays out the plot for the rest of the movie, again suggesting that everything which occurs after the initial memory implant all takes place in the heroes head. It's this level of duality and hidden meanings that typifies Verhoevens films, but this is the first time any of it forms such a huge part of the plot

Also being typical of Verhoeven, the director doesn't shy away from showing the realities of violence, when firing a gun in a crowded subway station results in the horrific death of an innocent bystander. Another shocking yet memorable image occurs on the surface of Mars when, devoid of any atmosphere, Arnie's head horrifically expands, his eyes bursting out of their sockets. Rob Bottin, who created the iconic Robocop costume also created the animatronic effects for this and many more amazing images throughout the film.

Other than Arnie, the film also features a great cast of supporting players, the most noticeable being Sharon Stone in a role that finally allowed her to say goodbye to a string of poor B-movies and finally have a taste of stardom. She is genuinely great in this film and looks amazing. Verhoeven was so impressed, he cast her as the lead in his next movie, Basic Instinct, which turned her into a global superstar. It's unfortunate that the films she made after Basic Instinct were such duds.

Despite playing against type as a bad guy for the first time in Robocop, Ronny Cox did such a great job that he plays a near identical role here, while Michael Ironside plays the film's other main baddie. Michael Ironside is one of those great character actors whose face constantly appears in TV shows and B-movies, usually involving him losing and arm or two. That is a strange craze that began with Total Recall, and after Verhoeven recast him again in Starship Troopers as another character who horrifically loses both arms, he would go on to repeat the trick in both Guy X and the excellent The Machinist.

When reviewing Soldier Of Orange, I considered it to be Verhoeven's best film, but after watching Total Recall again, I realised I was wrong. For the few people who haven't seen it, I'd highly recommend the film as it is quite rightly regarded as one of the best sci-fi movies ever made. Coincidentally, rather than letting the man make a new film, this is the second Verhoeven film in a row that is getting the remake treatment, with Colin Farrell in the lead role. This is strange as it's the only time I can think of that they have remade a film that is based on a book, rather than re-adapting the book itself. Despite advances in technology since this film was made, I doubt the remake will be anywhere near as good as this version, especially as it's being done by Len Wiseman, the hack behind the Underworld movies and Die Hard 4. On the plus side, it may very well make some people realise just how good a job Verhoeven did, allowing him to make some new films.

IMDB currently gives Total Recall an impressive 7.4, but I'd have to give it a far higher 9. Great fun that requires a certain amount of intelligence, and outside of Terminator, remains Arnold Schwarzenegger's greatest film.

Paul Verhoeven Film Restrospective - Robocop

Robocop is perhaps Paul Verhoeven's best known and most loved film. It was both a cult classic and a huge hit, and instantly placed the director into the Hollywood mainstream. It spawned 2 increasingly poor sequels, a short lived TV show, and a kids cartoon. How anyone would think a shockingly violent movie would make a good kids cartoon, I will never know.

Despite how well known this film is amongst the masses, it's a film that I wasn't that familiar with. Not that I wasn't familiar with the film itself as there are so many moments that have entered our culture with parodies and riffs on sight gags throughout programs such as Spaced and The Simpsons. It even remember a hit hop-hop record by Silver Bullet, constantly sampling the lines “You think you're pretty smart, huh! You think you can outsmart a bullet?” and “You have 20 seconds to comply”. I was very aware of the film and the moments that live on in infamy, it's just that I'd only ever seen it once, when I was very young, and couldn't remember anything about it other than those famous moments.

So, at last, I've finally sat down and watched it and I'm extremely glad I did. Robocop is an amazing film that could have very easily turned into a pile of crap. For proof of that, you only need to watch it's 2 sequels (How Irvin Kershner could make both one of the best sequels ever made in Empire Strikes Back, and one of the worst in Robocop 2 is beyond me. It does suggest that Empire was just a fluke.) or any other cyborg killing machine movie out there.

For the few people who haven't seen the film, it is, as the name suggests, about a robot cop. After being horrifically killed in the line of duty, Police Office Murphy is turned into Robocop. It's that simple description of what the film is about, as well as it's title, that put off any director approached to make this film. Even Paul Verhoeven himself threw the script away after reading just the first page. It's only because his wife picked it up and read it that she managed to talk him into directing it. The reason he did make this film was because it was so much more than that simple description. Yes, it's an action movie about a robot cop, but it's also a really funny comedy and there are moments in this film that caused me to laugh out loud. It's also a satire about the Reagan era as well as an analogy on Christ. It's this hidden level of complexity that Verhoeven does extremely well in his Hollywood films and how they work on different levels. When I get to Starship Troopers, I'm sure to refer to the Nazi symbolism that exists in that film, and I've already talked about the religious symbolism in his earlier films. The Christ analogy in Robocop has been well documented elsewhere and is talked about in the DVD's special features, where Murphy is symbolically crucified during his death, replacing the nail through the hand with a shotgun blast. He is then resurrected as Robocop and can be seen walking on water during the films climax. One trick that Verhoeven didn't do for a change was to picture Robocop with a halo around his head, but I supposed using that trick 4 films in a row would have been pushing it a bit.

But it's not just the symbolism, hidden depth and meaning that makes Robocop so great as the film is just so darn entertaining. A lot of that is down to Peter Weller's acting and movement. In order to get the movement right, they hired a mime artist to help Weller, and it shows. When he simply walks, there is a certain grace to his movements, most obvious when he turns corners as his body turns and his head slowly follows. The best example of this movement comes during a shoot-out in a drug factory. There is a certain air and grace to his stance as he fires his gun that makes the scene resemble a ballet. It's quite extraordinary to watch.

Unusually for a Verhoeven film, there isn't much nudity in this. The only nudity that does exist in the film is a quick flash of some breasts in the Police locker rooms, and that is to highlight the fact that in this militaristic state, they are beyond such sexual reactions. Verhoeven himself has admitted that this didn't come across too well in this film, so it's an idea he tries again in Starship Troopers during a communal shower sequence.

Instead of gratuitous nudity, this film gives us gratuitous violence, except, is it really that gratuitous? It's extreme, I'd admit, but one thing Verhoeven hates is unrealistic violence in films. If someone gets shot, then you need to show the realities of that shooting, and the reality is that there would be a lot of blood. To have someone fire a stream of bullets into a crowd without any innocent bystanders getting shot, or even not showing any blood or bullet holes is just irresponsible in his eyes. I remember being shocked and sickened during the boardroom scene near the start of the film when ED-209 utters those immortal words “You have 20 seconds to comply”. Now I find the scene funny.

Finally watching this film now is quite timely for 2 reasons. Firstly because there are plans to mount a Robocop statue is Detroit, where the film is set. That is seriously cool and helps illustrate just how successful this film was. How many other films made such a mark that they erect statues in it's honour? I can't think of any, but if you can, please post them in the comments.

Secondly, there are currently plans to remake the film, although that could very easily be a bad idea as, like the sequels, it will have a hard time matching both the satirical wit of the original, or be able to get away with the shocking violence that it portrayed. Robocop's success was a one-off. A complex cocktail of perfectly measured ingredients. If you try and make a new cocktail and get any of those measurements wrong, you can easily be left with a disaster.

IMDB currently gives Robocop 7.6, which I can understand as a lot of people are put off by the violence and the fact that it's about a robot cop, but I have to give it considerably higher. It's a modern classic movie that had no right to be anything more than a cheap b-picture and that is down to Verhoeven's inspired direction. Personally, I'd rate it as high as a 9. Is Robocop that good? Well, as the man says, “I'd buy that for a dollar.”

Paul Verhoeven Film Restrospective - The Hitchhiker: Last Scene

The Hitchhiker was a 30 minute anthology TV series from the mid-80's and was also one of the first programs to appear on the newly created American cable TV channel, HBO. Being an anthology series, each week a different story was told with a different cast playing different characters. The only connecting thread was that of The Hitchhiker, who did no more than provide bookends to the story in the same way Rod Sterling did with The Twilight Zone.

Although largely forgotten now, the series does feature a considerable number of actors and directors who have gone onto far better things. Bill Paxton (Aliens, Twister, Titanic), Willem Dafoe (Spider-Man, Finding Nemo), and Michael Madsen (Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill, Thelma And Louise) have all appeared in episodes while Phillip Noyce (Salt, Patriot Games) directed 4 of them.

Paul Verhoeven directed a single episode of The Hitchhiker titled Last Scene. In it, Peter Coyote (E.T. The Extra Terrestrial, Erin Brockovich) plays a movie director, trying to get an actress into the correct emotional state to shoot the last scene of his slasher movie. Even though many people have never heard of it, and even less have seen it, Last Scene may very well be the most important thing Paul Verhoeven ever directed. 

When he started his career, it was relatively easy for him to make the films he wanted in Holland, but by the time of Spetters and The 4^th Man, it was proving increasingly difficult to find financing. Verhoeven dabbled with Hollywood by making Flesh+Blood, but even then, he managed to do so without ever leaving Europe. Unsure whether he'd have the freedom to make the films as he wanted to, and also nervous about leaving behind the country he knew and loved, he agreed to go to America and direct an episode of The Hitchhiker as a trial run for a Hollywood career as he'd only be required for a few weeks. If he hated it, he could easily return to Holland.

As it turned out, he had a fantastic time, quickly deciding before production had even finished to make the transition to Hollywood full time. Had he not made this episode of a TV show, he would have stayed at home and there would be no Robocop, Total Recall or Basic Instinct, or at least in the forms that we all know and love.

So, how is his first stab at Hollywood? Is Last Scene any good? Well, yes and no. It's OK but not great. Verhoeven had a choice of what episode he wanted to direct, and he chose this episode as it blurred the lines between fantasy and reality. There are many moments where you think you are watching the actress being chased by serial killer, only to find you are watching the film that they are making. This is deliberately confusing and Verhoeven is having great fun twisting our sense of reality. In that sense, this episode could easily be seen as a forerunner to Total Recall, where you also don't know what is real and what isn't.

As this is a TV show, Verhoeven does hold back on his usual style of full on sex and violence, but as this is an HBO show, there he doesn't hold back entirely. What I did find amusing, and I presume this was deliberate, was a moment later in the episode where the characters go to a night club on fancy dress night. The club has many references to other horror films on display, including a recreation of an important and horrific moment from The 4^th Man. Despite this though, the episode seems rather bland and cheap, which can only be expected given the limited budget available.

All in all, it was one of the better episodes of an OK TV show but nothing too special. I'd give it a 5.5 as the only real things of interest is that Verhoeven directed it and what it allowed to happen after filming had been completed. That makes it an interesting footnote in an interesting career.

Talking of footnotes, when I started this retrospective, I thought I would have to give up on finding this episode. It may have been posted online, but it would probably take me ages to find. Imagine my delight when I popped into HMV in Braintree and found the DVD for the bargain price of less than £2. It was worth that price for the commentary alone, which is where Verhoeven talks in great depth about how important this episode was for him in allowing his move to Hollywood. The other episodes on the disk have been quite average so far. When I finish watching them, I will try and update this blog.

Paul Verhoeven Film Restrospective - Flesh+Blood

Flesh+Blood was Paul Verhoeven's 7^th film, and his first fully in English. After the extreme critical mauling he received for Spetters, and some recommendation from Steven Spielberg, he tried his hand with Hollywood movie, even if it was set and filmed in Europe.

Reuniting for the 5^th and final time with Rutger Hauer and also starring a young Jennifer Jason Leigh (Single White Female, The Hudsucker Proxy), Flesh+Blood tells the story of a small gang of mercenaries led by Hauer at the start of the 16^th century who are betrayed by their king after helping him regain control of his castle. After they accidentally kidnap his fiancé, the kings son tries to rescue her.

I have a very clear memory of the chat show host Michael Parkinson reviewing this movie on Film 85 while Barry Norman was taking a short break. The reason I remember it was down to Parky's absolute disgust in the film. After being horrified by the sad scene of the still born baby, he finally walked out after a young couple had sex underneath the rotting corpses of two hanging men. You can see why he didn't like it as there is a lot in this film that steers very close to extremely bad taste. If that scene with the two corpses didn't offend him, then the gang rape certainly would have.

After Keetje Tippel and Spetters, this is the third Verhoeven film to feature a rape scene, and this is the most brutal of the three. The big difference between those two films and this one is that neither of those films are meant as pure entertainment like this film is. However, the way she turns around the actions in that scene shows a lot about her character. Instead of letting the whole gang horrendously rape her, she becomes the sexually forceful one with their leader, knowing that he'd stop anyone else following him. It's an easy scene to misunderstand. Her pretending to enjoy it so that she can escape far worse can easily be misconstrued as women enjoy being raped. Even after this scene, there is ambiguity in the viewer as to whether she enjoys life with this gang after a lifetime in a nunnery, or whether she is just pretending while waiting to be rescued. After she becomes aware of circumstances that would kill their leader, Hauer, along with the rest of his gang, she still inadvertently stops him falling victim to it.

There are not many films set in the middle ages that don't turn out to have some sort of fantasy element to them. Other than The Name Of The Rose, this is the only other one I can think of. Even Ladyhawke, which also starred Rutger Hauer had him turning into a wolf at the end of the day. Although this film was set at the very end of the middle ages, during the start of the Early Modern period, it is still seen as a swords and sandals epic, a genre only recently revisited by Ridley Scott in Kingdom Of Heaven.

As is typical for Verhoeven, the film it littered with nudity throughout. Some of it pleasant in the form of Jennifer Jason Leigh's genuine blond virgin princess, to the unpleasant and shocking site of Bruno Kirby from When Harry Met Sally standing naked beside a fire. As is also typical for Verhoeven, the film is full of religious symbolism. After finding a statue of St Michael, Hauer's character, who was named after the saint, sees it as a sign from god that they should travel in the direction that his sword is pointing. This symbolism leads to one of the films most famous images, where a burning wheel behind Hauer's head appears to form a halo. It's an image that Verhoeven has used twice before, but here it forms part of the story.

Jennifer Jason Leigh is amazing in this movie, giving a performance that sometimes has you doubting where her loyalties lie, yet if you keep your eyes on her while others react to events, it becomes clear that she wishes to escape back into the arms of her husband to be, even if they have only known each other for 30 minutes. After this film, Leigh and Hauer would reunite for the excellent The Hitcher, one of the best Killer Hitchhiker movies ever made, and so much better than the Sean Bean remake. Coincidently, Verhoeven's next work would be an episode of the TV series, The Hitchhiker.

This is a film that needs to be rediscovered as a lot of people don't know about it. Although it was released in cinemas throughout most of the world, it only received a limited theatrical release in America and was instead shown on HBO. 

IMDB currently gives Flesh+Blood 6.7, which is a bit harsh but fully understandable. This isn't a film that people will love. It's more of a Like/Hate film. I liked it, but not nearly as much as some of his earlier stuff, and as Michael Parkinson himself thinks, there is a lot for people to hate about this movie.

Paul Verhoeven Film Restrospective - The 4th Man

The 4^th Man, aka De Vierde Man is Paul Verhoeven's 6^th film and would be the last one he made in his own country of Holland until his triumphant return over 20 years later with Black Book. It is also the first of his films that we come to that I had already seen as it was shown once on Channel 4 in the mid 90's. I couldn't remember that much about it other than finding it disappointing and rather pointless. I did remember that it was an erotic thriller, maybe similar to Basic Instinct. As it turned out, my memory was wrong.

The 4^th Man is a good film, but very unusual. Describing the story without giving anything away is difficult, but essentially Jeroen Krabbé stars as a bisexual author who meets and falls in love with Renée Soutendijk at a talk he is giving and sees an opportunity to get close to her ex-boyfriend who he secretly lusts after. He also has these weird dreams and visions, but what could they mean?

Like I said, The 4^th Man is a very unusual film, which might be why I didn't like it much the first time I saw it. I also think it's because it wasn't the film I was expecting to see. I was looking forward to an erotic thriller in a similar vein to Verhoeven's own Basic Instinct, but instead got something completely different. On second viewing, remembering my disappointment, I watched it with different expectations and enjoyed it considerably more. It is a film where a lot can be left to interpretation as the film deals with one man's dreams and visions. How he interprets them is not necessarily the correct way of interpreting them.

There is a lot of religions symbolism in the film, and not just within the dream sequences. The film begins with a close up image of a spider killing a fly and wrapping it in it's web that's located on a cross. As is typical for Verhoeven, the symbolism is not very subtle, but it is a fantastic bit of footage. The film also features a mother playing with a long piece of apple peel, which forms a halo behind her son's head that is reminiscent of similar imagery in both Spetters and his next film, Flesh And Blood. The religious symbolism was a deliberate reaction on Verhoeven's part to the criticism of his previous film, Spetters, and is something that he returns to in his subsequent films.

This is the first film since his début not to feature Rutger Hauer, although he does star in Verhoeven's next film, Flesh And Blood. Despite that, it does reunite him with both Jeroen Krabbé from Soldier Of Orange and Spetters, as well as Renée Soutendijk, also from Spetters. Krabbé is excellent here after finally being given a starring role, coming across a slightly slimy, troubled and maybe just a little insane, although we could have done without the full frontal male nudity at the start of the film where Krabbé gets out of bed wearing just a t-shirt, but you come to expect that in Verhoeven films.

Even Jan De Bont, returning to Verhoeven for the first time since Keetje Tippel does a great job with the cinematography. Finally showing some of the talent that would allow him to shoot the classic Die Hard before going on to direct the equally classic Speed. Shame that his directing jobs after Speed help prove that was more of a fluke than genuine directing talent. With The 4^th Man, he does a great job of lighting both the dream sequences with an almost surreal tint, and the real sequences in a more natural light. For a film about dreams and visions, there is some startling imagery in this film, the most memorable involves an eye hole in a door.

I really enjoyed this film on second viewing, and suspect I will enjoy it even more if I watch it again as certain moments of symbolism will make more sense to me. For some reason, I keep likening it to Hitchcock's Vertigo, but am not sure why as it is a very different kind of film. I think it's because the more often you watch it, the more you notice about it, highlighting some of the complexities bubbling under the surface.

IMDB gives this film 7.3, which is again quite accurate. As it is Verhoeven, it is not a film that will be enjoyed by everyone, and on first viewing, you may find yourself frustrated by it, but it is technically well done, and rewards multiple viewings.

Paul Verhoeven Film Restrospective - Spetters

Spetters is Paul Verhoeven's fifth film, which follows 3 young men against a backdrop of Dirt Bike Racing. This film again teams Verhoeven with both Rutger Hauer and Jeroen Krabbé, although their roles are more like extended cameos, with Hauer having less than 10 minutes screen time. Although the 3 male leads are all unknown actors, the female lead is played by Renée Soutendijk, who went on to star in the low budget Terminator rip-off, Eve Of Destruction,

The word Spetters is a now unused slang word with a similar meaning to “Hunks”, “Hot Young Guys” or even “Hot Shots”, but also has a second meaning in that it can refer to the hot splashes of oil that come from deep fat fryers. This is quite an appropriate name considering that Soutendijk's character runs a chip van alongside her brother. Hating the way her job makes her smell of grease and oil, she sees the 3 guys as a way out of that lifestyle. After initially helping one of the men get sponsorship for his Dirt Biking, which should then lead to a successful career in the sport, things take a turn for the tragic, so she moves onto one of his friends instead.

After the critical cinematic success of Soldier Of Orange, this film feels like a step back for Verhoeven as it sees him return to the gritty realistic drama for the first time since Turkish Delight. In fact, that film is referenced during a fake sex scene, as a character suggests moaning a lot like they do in “Turks Fruit”. This scene offers the film a rare comedic moment in what is otherwise quite a bleak movie, featuring a rather graphic scene of a gay gang rape of one of the characters, and the suicide of another. Despite this, the film does end on an optimistic note.

I read that when Showgirls was critically mauled, Verhoeven was unfazed as he had already gone through all of that with this film as when it was released, it received a lot of criticism as being anti-gay, anti-disabled, anti-women and anti-Christian. Although, despite a religious character being shown as a despicably violent person, others are shown in a better light.

As for the anti-gay criticisms, this is understandable as one of the characters goes about violently mugging members of the gay community as he comes to terms with his own homosexuality. However, the notion that it takes being gang-raped by a group of men for him to realise that he enjoys gay sex is quite offensive, reminding me of the infamous rape scene in Straw Dogs.

In a film set against the backdrop of Dirt Bike Racing, the film does have some quite impressive stunts performed by the actual cast, such as riding the bike over a Volkswagen Beetle without helmet. There are also some interesting moments of cinematic brilliance such as a remarkably well shot moment where a character is trying to get healed during a religious ceremony, with the light in the background forming a halo round his head. This is an image that Verhoeven more famously revisits during his first American movie, Flesh And Blood.

IMDB currently gives the film 6.6, which is again pretty accurate. Not as bad as some of the criticisms suggest, but still nowhere near as great as some of Verhoeven's best work.

Paul Verhoeven Film Restrospective - Soldier Of Orange

Paul Verhoeven's forth film reunites him once again with Rutger Hauer for what may very well be his best. Telling the story of 6 Dutch University graduates during the war, it mainly focuses on Erik Lanshof (Hauer) as he and Guus LeJeune (Jeroen Krabbé) escape to England from the German occupied Holland.

The film is in two halves, with an intermission at the midway point. The first half telling the story of life in Holland as the Germans take control, showing how the lives of the 6 friends go in different directions during the war. The second half tells how Hauer and Krabbé help the British trick the German's into thinking D-Day will occur in Holland instead of France.

Hauer is once again excellent in a role far removed from that of his previous two Verhoeven films, showing his underrated versatility as an actor that was lost once he moved to Hollywood and got stuck playing the bad guys. Here, he plays a student who gets caught up in the war and becomes a hero. Jeroen Krabbé is also excellent in a role far removed from his typical Hollywood villain, as the equally heroic Guus. After this film, Krabbé would team up with Verhoeven again on his next 2 films.

This is Verhoeven's first film without usual cinematographer, Jan De Bont, which probably explains why it looks so much better than his previous films. Where the lack of a huge Hollywood budget made Keetje Tippel look underwhelming in places, here, the film looks professional and expensive. Indeed, it was the most expensive Dutch film ever made at that time, but even then, it's budget was tiny compared to American productions. The look of this film is amazing, especially during it's climatic scenes, with a tuxedo clad Hauer, running across the beach as bombs go off around him. It's a remarkable image, and one that prompted Spielberg into persuading Verhoeven to move to Hollywood a few years later.

One thing that did surprise me was the subtlety from Paul Verhoeven. This being a Verhoeven film, he didn't shy away from showing a bucket of shit that Hauer hides a film in, or having another character on the toilet as he is blown up by a grenade, but even then, he's not as gratuitous as usual. There's less nudity than you'd expect from a Verhoeven film, although it's not gone entirely. The lovely Susan Penhaligon doesn't bother covering herself when she lies in bed with Krabbe as he and Hauer decide on who should go on a dangerous mission. That being said, Verhoeven's unsubtle instincts do allow him to show soldiers with missing limbs just after a bomb drops, decades before Spielberg started doing the same thing in Saving Private Ryan.

There is a lot to recommend this film, including a superb sequence where Hauer has been given a British Navy Uniform to wear as it is almost identical to a German one. He then walks amongst a large group of German soldiers, confidently saluting without drawing suspicion. It is a scene that is both funny and tense as you fear for him getting caught.

IMDB currently gives Soldier Of Orange an impressive 7.9 although I think it deserves slightly higher.

Paul Verhoeven Film Restrospective - Keetje Tippel (Katie Tippel)

Keetje Tippel is the third film from Paul Verhoeven and reunites him with the two leads from his previous movie, Turkish Delight. Monique Van De Ven, in a role that is the polar opposite of that in Turkish Delight, stars in the true story of Keetje Tippel, who's extremely poor family emigrate to Holland in 1881.

Based on the Nobel Prize winning book by Neel Doff, the film shows how she escapes extreme poverty via good luck more than anything. In the first half of the film,she starts off doing poorly paid menial work before taking up prostitution. Fortunately for her, her second client doesn't want to have sex with her, but instead wants her to model for his paintings, so she spends the second half of the film hanging around with this painter's rich friends and begins dating Rutger Hauer, in a role that is also the polar opposite of that in Turkish Delight.

Ironically, for a film based on a prize winning true story, its with the story that this film disappoints as all of the good fortune that befalls her does seem to be entirely down to luck. She manages to find quite a few jobs easily enough at the start of the film, but for various reasons, fails to keep them for long. She didn't endure a long and sordid life in prostitution before finally escaping, but instead she just manages to get extremely lucky in her second attempt. After breaking up from Rutger Hauer, she's lucky enough to bump into one of his friends who turns out to be extremely rich.

This film is Paul Verhoeven's attempt at a period drama, and it's reasonably successful. The lack of a huge budget only really lets the film down near the end when what should be a shocking riot scene feels a bit underwhelming. Jan De Bont's average cinematography can also be partially blamed as he fails to light the scene with any real fear. Other than that, it's quite impressive. The period setting feels strange for a Verhoeven film, but moments of gratuitous full frontal male and female nudity quickly reminds you that this isn't a Merchant Ivory production.

IMDB currently gives this movie 6.8, which I'd agree with. Not a bad film, but certain elements leave you feeling slightly underwhelmed instead of moved.

Paul Verhoeven Film Restrospective - Turkish Delight

Turkish Delight was Paul Verhoeven's second film as director and his first to star Rutger Hauer in the actor's feature film debut, although they had previously teamed up for the comedy TV series Floris in 1969, and would collaborate on 4 more films before reaching world wide fame in Blade Runner.

Turkish Delight is a film I know very little about but have wanted to see for quite a while. I think it is a sex comedy/drama, but that is all I know...

Well, it certainly wasn't a comedy, but the Sex/Drama was pretty accurate. The film begins with a continuously naked Rutger Hauer masturbating over a photo of an ex girlfriend, and then having sex with loads of women while being a complete arsehole. The film then jumps back 2 years to when they met, and their lives together during that period. For the first hour of the film, they are constantly getting their kit off and having sex but then the film slowly gets more serious.

Without giving too much away, this film reminds me considerably of Betty Blue in that they are emotional dramas with lots of sex and nudity, but are also great films. I'm actually surprised at how good this film is. It seems like a low budget exploitation film when it begins, but by the end, it somehow sticks with you. This is a lot more like what I expected from Paul Verhoeven. Nothing subtle, just lots of sex and nudity, with Rutger being a right bastard.

With all of the sex in this film, it fully deserves it's 18 certificate but surprisingly, in Holland, the film only has a 12 certificate. It's amazing how different countries are offended by different things. Lots of sex in Europe is fine for family viewing, but in America, it's usually banned or given an NC-17 rating. In America, gore and violence is perfectly suitable for kids, but bare a breast on live TV and there's a national outcry.

Rarely seen in this country, in Holland Turkish Delight was the most successful movie at the time of it's release in 1977. Part of the film's success is probably down to the book it was based on, which is apparently read a lot in Dutch schools.

IMDB currently gives Turkish Delight 7.2, which I agree with. Unknown in this country, this great film will appeal to lovers of great drama that are not easily offended, and anyone who liked Betty Blue.