Is Neill Blomkamp the only director to attempt films in the vein..

...of the ones Paul Verhoeven used to make?

I started this thread because I was wondering why Neill Blomkamp's work is so divisive (unlike a film like Jupiter Ascending, Chappie actually got some very positive reviews - although they're clearly in the minority - and D9 may have been hailed by critics, but I know many people who downright hated it). Thinking about that, I felt the way critcs and audiences react to Blomkamps films is somewhat similar to the way they reacted to Verhoeven's films.

I love Sci-Fi (actual Sci-Fi - not the Superhero kind which I like but don't love), and Blomkamp is one of the very few fresh new voices contributing to that genre. So far, his films (in my opinion) are maybe a bit too "concept heavy". I really liked D9, and upon rewatch also found a lot to like in Elysium (great world-building in both films); D9 felt near perfect to me, while I felt Elysium was let down by a third act where the pacing was way off and the ending felt rushed and underdeveloped. What I really like about Blomkamp though, is that - much like with Verhoeven - there's a subversive element of social satire to his films that big studio films usually lack.

Verhoeven was a master at making films which worked both as perfect mainstream popcorn cinema and as very intelligent social commentary on the direction - he felt - society was headed. The over-the-top satirical elements and highly political undercurrents were only praised by a few critics, but the films became hits at the box office because they offered great action, amazing special effects and overall great entertainment. I guess Verhoeven felt encouraged by the fact that his films - despite their satirical elements - became hits and so with Starship Troopers, he didn't just sneak some subversive parts in: he went full-blown satire (which didn't go down well with audiences AND critics; the apparent good guys look like Nazis - what the heck?). He even got accused of being a fascist.

I don't think the studio execs realised what he was up to with that film; it seems he just took their 100 million dollars and ran with it. The result is a unique oddity that I personally feel is on par with a film like Dr. Strangelove. It's a masterpiece. Much like Fincher's Fight Club, films like that rarely get made (and not with such budgets) because more often than not, they end up as flops. Blomkamp might not have found the right balance between concept and storytelling yet, but I feel right now, he's pretty much the only "new" filmmaker with the balls to even try to make such crazy films. They might not be perfect (yet) but I still find them infinitely more interesting than most Superhero mass products.

Honestly, when you look at critic reviews over at Rottentomatoes, and a film like Thor 2 holds a 66% fresh rating while Chappie gets 29% - I don't get it. Even the good Superhero products might be very entertaining, but there's nothing interesting about them: they're just corporate products made by (mostly) talented people. Yet critics shower them with praise (mind, I do like - and watch - most of those films - it's the same with good fastfood; nothing wrong with a good pizza or hamburger, but you rarely find a serious restaurant critic writing about how good his most recent Big Mac was). What seems a bit unfair is that filmmakers like Blomkamp get scrutinized as if the next step in cinematic evolution depended on them.

http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html