MovieChat Forums > Soldier (1998) Discussion > One of the worst ever

One of the worst ever

posted 21 years ago by doughdee222
70 replies | jump to latest

I find it hard to believe that so many people are praising this awful film. It fails on so many levels it is laughable.

Aside from the well known fact that Kurt Russell has about 150 words to say in the film (most of them of the "Yes sir" variety) nothing he says is interesting, he could have been completely mute and it wouldn't have made a difference. Heck none of the characters has much to say.

I've never been in the military but the colonel and other commanders are an embarrassment. I doubt they would have been promoted above seargent without intense boot licking. The colonel himself would have needed family connections and string-pulling to get where he did.

The idea that the military would take babies and raise them as depicted, even going so far as killing children that fall behind is dispicable. Granted this is supposed to be sci-fi but it takes place in roughly modern times. And what does all this intense training produce? Soldiers that walk into battle with guns blazing and know nothing about ducking or finding cover. A few first year rookies could have lobbed some grenades at these "Super Soldiers" and killed half of them. I am simply not impressed with the results (except they can run long and fast.) The half-dozen or so guys from "Predator" would have made mince-meat of the 20+ Soldiers shown here. The fact that Kurt Russell's Todd does indeed single handedly wipe out 20+ opponents without being shot or seriously wounded says something. (Particularly embarrassing is the scene where several Soldiers run toward what they think is the sniper only to find one of thier own dead with two guns set up with a string. Aren't troops trained not to run directly into machine gun fire like that?)

So after being choosen at birth, raised, trained and hardened to be a Soldier on the day of the big battle you are put behind a large gun on a super-ATV, or worse yet manning the search light, in plain view with little protection. You're just asking to be shot up, and hey! You are! Congrats! Can parents sue the military for gross negligence? Oh yeah, these guys have no parents, never mind.

The movie takes place sometime in the next 40-50 years. Not only has faster-than-light travel been discovered (and anti-gravity!) it is so fast and common that man has spread far out into the galaxy, to its edge and beyond. Yeah, sure. Metal too is so worthless that huge piles of it, city loads, can be dumped on a distant planet at the galaxy's edge. What!? Not in the next 50 years. Surely some better use for an old aircraft carrier can be found, housing for the homeless for example. (Nuclear bombs aren't valuable either since every jerk colonel with a squad can have one and use it at whim.)

Are these enough reasons to dislike this film? I won't even get into the sappy situation with the lost colonists and thier rejection of Todd (tell me you couldn't see that one coming) or the change of heart after the kid kills a snake (that too.) I've said enough already.

-Doughdee222 "I'm a realist, not a pessimist. The real world is pessimistic by nature."

[–] redwingjs 21 years ago

Canning a sci-fi movie for not being realistic? That's brilliant. Not all movies have to be based in reality

[–] black_wolf_1970 20 years ago

For your info, a black shelf project in the works right now by the US and other countries is exactly what the plot of this movies has in mind. As for the coment that the colonel was a family conected boot licker to have been promoted, your right, I have seen that way to many times in my time in the military, yes I am a veteran my self and this movie to me after what I saw in Somalia, Iraq, Hatai, and even here in the "good" ole USA make me think you had a bag over your head while you were in. I can say that having our goverment or anothers start a real "Adam Porject" is to real to be ignored unless you are the truly and completely ignorant.......

[–] Michael_D 21 years ago

I find it hard to believe that so many people are praising this awful film. It fails on so many levels it is laughable.

Then again, the movie could be seen as a dystopian type commentary on how the state dehumanizes people and devalues human life.

I've never been in the military but the colonel and other commanders are an embarrassment. I doubt they would have been promoted above seargent without intense boot licking.

Do you really think suck-ups and a**kissers don't get promoted in the military? What imaginary planet do you live on?

[–] angelabest 21 years ago

It's a silly little action movie. Not every movie has to be deep and meaningful and ground break. If you watch it for what it is, it's very entertaining.

[–] Michael_D 21 years ago

The screenplay was written by the same guy who wrote Bladerunner and Unforgiven. He makes message movies and I think the reason this movie did not do well at the box office was because people saw it as simply a shoot'em up. Many movies like this are simple little action movies. What struck me about this one was how Sgt. Todd was dehumanized as part of his training from birth and how he haltingly discovered his humanity when he lived with ordinary people. Watch it again at the end where he picks up the boy and his comrades look at him with complete confusion. Remember the scenes were the children were forced to watch the boar and dogs go at eachother? Remember where he as a young boy, pummels another one and goes back to his desk? Remember the soldiers just sitting motionless on their cots when they were not training or fighting?

And do you remember the scene where Connie Nielsen's character asks him what he feels? He answers "fear and discipline", "even now". She went to hug him and he began to shake with fear he was so unfamiliar with the feeling. Dehumanization was the theme of this movie.

[–] EventHorizon333 20 years ago

Those were the reasons I really enjoyed the movie! Yeah there were things that weren't realistic- It isn't about shooting them up. It's about Todd, and his character development.

"The prince is never going to come, everybody knows that; and maybe Sleeping Beauty's dead." Lestat

[–] f-society 20 years ago

couldn't agree more!

One of the most memorable sences in this movie is when the coach shoot the little guy who couldn't keep up the running...

This movie is very good. Above average! Anyone who thinks this movie sucked needs a reality check!

--
The Purpose of Life is to End

[–] black_wolf_1970 20 years ago

This movie has its faults but it is a movie to make you wonder, how soon before a real "Adam Project" begins, as for the dumping of metal on a trash palnet, we are doing it now and we sink old ships all the time so as houses for the homeless, well start yelling at the goverment now, the items are there so don't put down a movie for doing what we are doing in the worls already. Sorry if I am snotty but excuse, me but if they have covered the expanse of space maybe duh they found new materials that make steel look like tissue paper, and there are many trash planets, so may be they fill one and then when they need the raw metal they go and recover it, ie the reason for the secutirty sweep, may be to prevent theft, piracy or god knows what, and if you wonder how the military could get away with what it does in the movie, maybe they run things now with the civilian goverment just figure heads.

[–] juslen 16 years ago

i love how people want to turn this into a political movie.

Its an action movie.. that does have some moral elements.

If we wanted to watch sci fi movies with happy messages we would all watch Star Trek.. where man evolves into a greater more passionate and intelligent form. And where disease is whiped out.. world peace.. blah blah blah

A good sci fi film shows a bleak future. And it has elements of Humanity. Blade Runner is a perfect example.

Its the dark future.. its the future we could all see happening, but not because thats where we are heading right now, but because its human nature to imagine a world unlike our own.

If there are political messages in this movie. They can come from all directions.

Notice how this peaceful settlement out in the middle of nowhere is left vulnerable.. costing the lives of dozens of people. All because they were not prepared for the worst. While they were teaching their children through books.. Todd taught them that even with all his flaws.. even though all the horrible things he had witnessed and done. He is able to save lives because of his training.

When he throws the snake back down on the ground.. and points for the boy to kill it.. he is trying to teach him a lesson. To overcome your fears, you need to face them.

And at the end of the movie.. he kills his enemy. He could have let him live.. he could have left him there to die. Instead he breaks his neck. Because its what he needed to do, no mercy.. no compassion. Not for this scum.

Should i got into my political support for this type of message? No.. because i realize that its a movie meant to spark your imagination, not inflame your political outrage our fuel your need to moral bearings.

[–] GokuOedo808 16 years ago

CLULT CLASSIC YOUR WRONG, GO HIT YOURSELF!!!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Yw376 21 years ago

Its kinda funny how people pick on this movie becouse ts unrealistic but dont have any problems with Bladerunner ( same timeline) or the Alien Movies.

The Movie is based around action and Todd is played well.
And about the Dialoges when i watch movies like Conn air (not sure how it was written) or all those new "scary" moviels like Scream, i know what you did last summer and so on which all really really have a bad storyline and then see them get ranked high well it makes me wonder.

About the military thing dont you think youre just a bit to high in the the military is great and people there are 100 efficient professionals thing ?
Look at tanks and vehicles used today in the military (turn on cnn) i dont see any of the US soldiers there using super drones or anything like that.
Soldiers are still humans ( well not the trained ones in the movie) but the officers are.And about the gear military was never about having nice beeping equipment its about being efficient and the scene where a single man takes out 20 is realistic its a modern war and not lord of the rings. Why do you think soldiers all around the world run and hide when they hear the simle sentence"Sniper in the area".A good one can take out a whole company with traps without being detected.

And sorry if you rally think everyone in a possition to command behaves different than anyone else well wake up :)

Now about the movie i've seem better movies and i've seen worse. Just watch it and have fun doing it and if you want more meaning and sense and stuff to think about dont watch action movies or better just read a good book ..

by the way a movie doesnt just tell a story by whats seen in the movie but also by what the writer wants to tell us with it. And the message of this movie is clear.. just think about it ignoring the movie scenes ....

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 2 years ago

"Its kinda funny how people pick on this movie becouse ts unrealistic but dont have any problems with Bladerunner ( same timeline) or the Alien Movies."

Everyone is different. And since when is the OP which is also, and can also stand for, ONE PERSON (lol) - "people" in general?

Or have there been OTHER examples of audiences who say picked on "Soldier" for its "lack of realism" but those same ones "strangely" didn't have "problems" with Blade Runner, Alien films and the lot?

[–] insane_larry 20 years ago

>Aside from the well known fact that Kurt Russell has about 150 words to say in
>the film (most of them of the "Yes sir" variety) nothing he says is
>interesting, he could have been completely mute and it wouldn't have made a
>difference.

i think that's part of the point. they are raised for the express purpose of being ready to kill. wouldn't it make sense for them to not be trained to discuss anything if they were only supposed to follow orders without question?

>The colonel himself would have needed family connections and string-pulling to
>get where he did.

and that's never happened?

>So after being choosen at birth, raised, trained and hardened to be a Soldier
>on the day of the big battle you are put behind a large gun on a super-ATV, or
>worse yet manning the search light, in plain view with little protection.
>You're just asking to be shot up, and hey! You are! Congrats! Can parents sue
>the military for gross negligence? Oh yeah, these guys have no parents, never
>mind.

ok, let's make it more realistic by hiring migrant farm workers to handle the big guns and searchlights in a war zone... brilliant! or maybe we... oh, i don't know, get soldiers to do it since they're the ones sent into war zones anyway!

did you ever wonder why the army and air force also have trained soldiers on the support staff? you know, guys who've been trained to handle guns and kill, but then cook the food, fix the trucks, and take dictation? as i recall, ewan mcgregor's character pushed pencils in black hawk down, but i recall him handling a gun later... and i recall that that was a true story.

>The movie takes place sometime in the next 40-50 years. Not only has faster-
>than-light travel been discovered (and anti-gravity!) it is so fast and common
>that man has spread far out into the galaxy, to its edge and beyond. Yeah,
>sure.

yeah, i agree! stupid! i mean... we went from the wright brother to dogfights in about 10 years... and then another 30 years until jet propulsion... and then another 20 years to lunar travel... by now, we should be whipping around pluto and have vacations on the moon! never mind that einstein and various other physicists have pretty much theorized that even basic light speed will never be achieved by anything with mass. i guess we better just say all of the star trek and star wars movies suck, too... i mean, star wars happened "a long time ago..." and they were faster than we are now!

>Are these enough reasons to dislike this film?

no. if you don't like it, fine. but by trying to justify your dislike with those reasons makes every action, fantasy, and sci-fi movie a complete let down automatically. look up the definition of "fiction" and then try this out... SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF. it's by using this that i can almost stomach reading what you have to say... try it!

[–] Olympus2001 20 years ago

You have to be open-minded, smart, inteligent, responsive and active to enjoy the movie. Judging by your comment, you're probably none of the above.

[–] urabutln 20 years ago

This movie was never meant to be realistic, neither was Conan the Barbarian, Van Helsing or even Troy and The Last Samurai.

The action part of this film is terrible, boring and nothing new, and I would recommend any kind of Hong Kong action film instead.

However... the part of the film that shows the future, the soldiers, the dehumanized state is an extremely clever piece of work.
Just like in Starship Troopers it shows a neo-facist world where human lives are worth nothing and the state runs everything.

SPOILER AHEAD Warning!!!
I love the part where Kurt Russell and the other soldiers are just sat staring in between wars. Also the part where he tries to teach the little boy how to kill the snakes, he reacts in the only way he knows, trying to teach the boy how to survive. When the parents disagree, he doesn't have the ability to defend himself, he can't handle conversation, it's never been anything he was taught. The real meaning of his act is only clear to the parents as the boy kills a snake and saves their lives.

When he is doing his training, and letting out a lot of emotions, someone sneaks up on him and he reacts with all the paranoia of a war veteran almost killing the poor guy. There are stories of vietnam war veterans killing family members as they've snuck up on them with no hostile intentions.

Kurt Russell plays the part of Todd excellently, the only problem is that halfway through the film they decided to turn it into an action flick (and a quite poor one as well).

So, my grade will be a big 10 on the atmosphere of this film, the scenery looks good as well, both the space ships and Arcadia. Also a fun reference to "The Tannhauser Gate" in the beginning of the film as Todds service file is shown. The problem is the depth of the atmosphere doesn't blend well with the action part of the film.

The film turns into a very predictable action flick, and they are never good, not even with Kurt Russell in the lead...
So the action parts of this film will only get say a 3.
Overall total I will have to give it a 7, almost a bit too high, but well the first part of the film is brilliant.

[–] majinmojo 20 years ago

I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, the only reason I wanted to make a post about this movie was to address the issues that you dealt with. Now I see that isn't necessary.

The first part of the film was brilliant. Atmosphere was amazing. I am really very dissappointed that at the end it had to buy into the "Hollywood fireworks" and just become a textbook shoot-em-up. And what really got me is that I can pinpoint exactly when it happened.

What I think really ruined this movie was how serious the tone was in the beginning versus the attempt at speeding up the pace with a bunch of shoddily thought out action scenes. I would not have minded sitting through a 3 hour movie with an awesome ending as opposed to having the first half ruined by a very less interesting second half.

[–] kelani 18 years ago

There are stories of vietnam war veterans killing family members as they've snuck up on them with no hostile intentions.

I'm sure you meant no offense in that comment, but just so you know, when pointing out a tragic result of war that is common to all wars, using one particular group as the example WILL probably seriously piss off many people in that group. Especially if said group has dealt with being called insane monsters, baby-killers (and worse) for the last 40 years.

There have been stories of veterans becoming violent during surprises/flashbacks from *every* war; present-day back to the first on record (Sumer vs. Elam c.2700 B.C.) This behavior *is* more widespread in veterans of guerilla wars, as war "proper" has less incidence of the enemy jumping out of a bush and trying to kill you.

Back on topic, it's funny how in any military movie, the technical director will (usually) do a great job at making things accurate (or at least believable!) but will completely sacrifice that at least once, purely to make the plot happen. This film was doing well, until the end fight when Todd distracts Cain by looking at the sickle. Someone who's seen combat, let me know if I'm wrong, but I don't think ANY decently-trained soldier would fall for that, let alone genetically engineered soldiers with a single-minded focus on the 'mission'. Still, pretty cool movie, overall. :)

-K

Me - IMDB - http://imdb.com/name/nm1485711/
----------[fear the resume]---------

[–] black_wolf_1970 16 years ago

You got one thing right, every war veteran has flash back to some extent if they same any kind of cambat situation, mine was the Gulf War of the 90's and seving in Somalia. No one group can be or should be singled out as being worse then any other.
What you got wrong was the final fight Todd was a veteran of many many battles so would not be tricked by such an easy diverson but Cain was not a combat vetran and was looking for the easy win as in having a weapon against a unarmed opponent. This is a very common mistake of green soldiers, police and other fighters such as competion fighters. They forget the unarmed combatant can be more dangerous then the armed one and having a weapon does not mean winning a fight.
"NOTHING IS FORGOTTEN, NOTHING IS EVER FORGOTTEN" ROBIN (ROBIN HOOD) OF LOXLEY
The wolf

[–] Moester_ 20 years ago

OK, when you said "The half-dozen or so guys from "Predator" would have made mince-meat of the 20+ Soldiers shown here." I almost laughed myself silly. The "special forces" in Predator are about as well trained as a pack of school boys. They move on trails, they yell at each other in the middle of enemy territory, never send out scouts, have an innefective weapons mix and bunch up so much that one mortar round would take them all out. Not to mention the fact that their loud and showy unsupported tactics would get them all killed. Hell they don't even have a sniper on their team. I've rarely seen movies that get it completely right, and when they do they go through a painstaking process and they end up showing the horror and brutality of war.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wjtcol 20 years ago

Needless to say, spoilers below.

Kurt Russell says almost nothing - the reason is stated in the first few moments of the film "A soldier does not speak unless spoken to first by a superior officer". I applaud Russell for agreeing to play a part with so few words. His portayal of the character was utterly beleivable, and he did well to bring across Todd without needing words.

"The idea that the military would take babies and raise them as depicted, even going so far as killing children that fall behind is dispicable." Err, yeah, quite - that's the point. The film is set in a dystopian world, where awful things happen for no good reason.

As for the soldiers not taking cover - that is a bit shaky I agree, but I'll try and justify it with a reference to Unforgiven - Eastwood's character, the gunfighter William Munney, talks about how he won every gun fight, because he was not afraid - he stood still and calmly took out the oppostion, while they panicked and missed. Todd et al had no fear of being injured, and calmly wiped out the opposition.

I also though it was a bit questionable that Todd took out 20 soldiers alone, but he didn't take them all at the same time - he nailed three at first in the compound, then took out half of the remainder at night through cunning, better knowledge of the environment, and surprise. The other half got iced when he used Crawler #1 to run over the troops on the ground, and then ramming Crawler #2 killing the occupants. All in all, totally acceptable.

Aa for the super trained soldiers being relegated to driving and manning guns, I ask you this - would you prefer to have a unit of 20 men comprised of 14 men that are super trained killing machines, and 6 men that are only good at driving or manning the guns, or a unit of 20 men that are super trained killing machines that can operate all military related equipment? Present day example: the British SAS use armed vehicles for many operations - they don't rely on guys from the cavalry regiments to drive their jeeps and man the machine guns; they do it themselves.

As for using scrapped aircraft carriers to house the homeless = yeah, that's what happens now, isn't it. Not. Today, obsolete ships get used for target practice, or are scuttled.

Nuclear weapons aren't valuable? That isn't the point made there. The point is that the use of nuclear weapons is regarded so casually in this dark future, that even a small ship is equipped enough weaponry to wipe out a solar system.

I was unimpressed when I first saw this movie a few years back, but after seeing it on DVD now, I was impressed by it's dark concepts of a future where soldiers no longer question immoral orders, and are no more human that the machines they kill with...

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] black_wolf_1970 16 years ago

I am glad some else see's this movie for its worth. This is not a now movie but what a possible tommorrow could be movie.
"NOTHING IS FORGOTTEN, NOTHING IS EVER FORGOTTEN" ROBIN (ROBIN HOOD) OF LOXLEY
The wolf

[–] step2ice 20 years ago

I liked the first half of the movie.
It had this cold feeling about raising mindless military killing machines.
But the second half was very disappointing and not to say boring.
Another movie in the category "could've been a lot more".

[–] theanomaly017 20 years ago

This movie really wasn't that good