MovieChat Forums > Toy Soldiers (1991) Discussion > Just watched this for the first time in ...

Just watched this for the first time in decades! My thoughts

posted 3 years ago by Connie93 (826)
25 replies | jump to latest

I remember watching this as a kid and enjoying it. Not many action movies where the stars are teenagers.

Sometimes you like a movie as a kid and don't as an adult, but this one aged very well; much better than what I thought.

Good acting, fast paced, and satisfying result.

As for the question raised in the other thread---yes, there were a LOT of scenes of them standing around in their underwear--definitely homo-erotic. But sex sells, right?

reply

[–] janX9 (446) 2 years ago

Yes, I was just saying to my wife after watching this that it aged very well. It could have been released yesterday and it still works.

As for the other post mentioning "gay undertones". No. Just no. There are no gay overtones. Sure there are boys in their ginch but it takes more than that to have gay overtones. For example, ACTUAL overtones.

reply

[–] vilafire (655) 2 years ago

Gay undertones, then. If you don’t see it, you don’t see it; doesn’t mean it ain’t there.

reply

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

It holds up very well, and is far more credible and entertaining than most of the guff made today. It’s clearly a Die Hard clone but sets up the school and the characters very well so it feels cohesive, not like a rip-off, and has some memorable moments - especially Billy’s nail-biting race to get back before the executions start, and the death of Joey.

Today they’d make a film like this PG-13, but this is pleasingly R, with gory blood squibs, F-bombs, and a nasty headshot at the end with pouring blood.

It’s solidly in the B-tier of Die Hard clones, and seems to have been almost completely forgotten despite Astin and Wheaton still being household names, and there’s still fondness out there for Denholm Elliot, Louis Gossett Jr and R. Lee Ermey. More people need to see this gem.

reply

[–] blindfolded (1618) 2 years ago

Huh. I'm actually a bit surprised that you didn't rant that Hollywood made Billy's small group of friends to include an Italian, A Mexican, and an African American.

reply

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

Why?

reply

[–] blindfolded (1618) 2 years ago

Because you have a history with taking diversity in film and making it about a "woke agenda" 🤣

"You mean to tell me our group of heroes is made up of...how unrealistic."

reply

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

Clearly you weren’t paying attention when you went digging through my post history. Some non-whites in a private boarding school is perfectly plausible and not remotely woke.

reply

[–] blindfolded (1618) 2 years ago

I agree, and I enjoyed the entire cast.

But I didn't need to look through your history. I remember the silly stuff you posted.

But you're not consistent. In this case (if you were consistent) you would've argued "so there's seemingly only two non-whites in the school... out of 98 kids...and they happen to be members of our rag-tag heroes?"

But I'm cool with you not realizing it. You're making progress, congrats!!

reply

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

You clearly didn’t ‘remember’ anything I wrote regarding wokism if you’re ignorant and obnoxious enough to call it ‘silly’. Go back and read it again, set aside your woke indoctrination, and pay attention this time.

There’s zero inconsistency in what I’ve written, and that retarded sentence you think I ‘would’ve argued’ has nothing to do with my position.

Instead of imagining dumbass strawman arguments and attributing them to me try making a point and then actually listening to the response. Take the woke dick out of your mouth for a second and listen to what is actually being said.

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

Im confuse. whats so specials about italian that they go next to mexicen and afros american?

reply

[–] blindfolded (1618) 2 years ago

Oh nothing at all. Just certain people get bent out of shape when diversity is involved in movies.

reply

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

Speak for yourself.

reply

[–] blindfolded (1618) 2 years ago

🤣🤣🤣

reply

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

I guess that would be funny to this fucking bigot:

https://moviechat.org/tt0103112/Toy-Soldiers/60c0d7a1e5be05147c147247/Just-watched-this-for-the-first-time-in-decades-My-thoughts?reply=63477d48726dba78e9c58015

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

You think Italia peoples is diversity? hahahahah! why do you american think this? they whites hahahahhaha.

reply

[–] blindfolded (1618) 2 years ago

Diversity can mean a person from any different background or culture, not necessarily color of skin.

An South African white man is different than a German man, for example.

reply

[–] BOandBarbecue (2264) 2 years ago

no. diversitys only if different race.

japans, koreas, indo, malay, burmise, laoshons, thais, chinise, cambodes - all different peoples but sames race. no diversitys.

syrias, lebaneses, irans, iraq, saudis, qatars, kuwaits, afghans, palentines - all different peoples but sames race. no diversitys.

italias, sweed, frogs, kraut, poleack, russki, spainiard, dutchs, iseland, faro - all different peoples but sames race. no diversitys.

reply

[–] blindfolded (1618) 2 years ago

No. And English is clearly not your first language. Please leave the English meanings alone. 👍

reply

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

The irony of you wading in here as some champion of ‘diversity’ while ridiculing the English language skills of someone for whom English isn’t their first language… isn’t lost on your readers.

Obnoxious woke prick.

reply

[–] blindfolded (1618) 2 years ago

You're the one who posted long ass rant championing Top Gun Maverick for being "Not woke" and then posted under somebody else's post about the diversity of the team and how "woke" that was.

You're so fucking retarded, You literally had to be told to get upset about it.
🤣🤣🤣

reply

[–] vilafire (655) 2 years ago

I know, right, there isn’t anything more pathetic than digging through someone’s history. Except being such a loser that you can remember it off the top of your head. Like, get a life already! Buy some sexy lingerie and beg your hubby for some lovin’!

reply

[–] jason88cubs (2444) 2 years ago

I watched it first time this year and I enjoyed it

reply

[–] devidedstates (31) 2 years ago

Agreed. They don't make um like this anymore.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15583) 2 years ago

Why is it if a movie shows a guy "scantily clad" its all "oooh homoerotic vibes!" ?
But not if its a woman , nobody makes up new words like lesboerotic

Is "homoerotic" even a word?
Has it ever been used for anything except to describe that scene in Top Gun ? (and now this)

reply

[–] vilafire (655) 2 years ago

Ditto. I thought it held up better than expected.

I liked the underage drinking, the sweating, and the violence. They don’t make movies like this for teens anymore. (I know this is rated R but Goodbadflicks on YouTube has a good video about the death of PG13.)

Also, I was on board with the homoeroticism. Not as much in the “no, I’ll wear you out” scene between the kid and the Dean. You can’t have real depictions of male friendship without homoeroticism. If it’s not your thing, just ignore it. Straight guys don’t notice it in real life until they see it onscreen or it’s pointed out to them (by some jealous queen oftentimes!)

reply