Posted on 10/31/2010 8:36:22 AM PDT by HorowitzianConservative
A lot of “conservative movie” lists really push the meaning of “conservative” beyond its strict dictionary limits, veering into the realms of libertarianism, Objectivism and anarchy.
(Starship Troopers [1997]?! Not sure what Burke or Kirk would think of those co-ed showers...)
Frankly, the following list is no exception. I don’t mean to suggest by using the word "conservative" that any of these films provide viewers with either a transcendent and deeply meaningful artistic experience or with models for living a moral life. Being horror films, they are neither wholesome nor particularly edifying.
It’s impossible for me to imagine William F. Buckley, Jr. watching, let alone approving of, any of these movies.
These are not necessarily “conservative horror movies.” But each in its own way is a “horror movie for conservatives.” I hope you’ll see what I mean by the end.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
“Starship Troopers” wasn’t a horror movie except for the atrocity committed against Robert Heinlein’s original story.
Agreed. Love Heinlein, but the idea of serving in the military to gain citizenship is contradictoary to "we are endowed by our creator..".
Except for the last one, I own all of these.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is not only a great film, it’s misunderstood by those who haven’t seen it. It’s more about atmosphere than gore, and is genuinely creepy. The most effective horror moment isn’t even all that explicit; a character is whacked suddenly with a hammer while the camera sits at a distance—BAM, it’s over, and it’s the simple fact of how quickly it’s done that makes it so damned creepy.
I watched the first INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS again recently and was surprised at how genuinely scary it is. I am rarely scared by movies, but this one is so methodical and believable that it really works.
If you review the movie “Starship Troopers” without looking through the prism of the novel the movie is barely okay. I’d give it a C.
If you review the movie THROUGH the prism of Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers it’s an atrocity.
300 is not a horror movie, but for some reason, people seem to think of that homoerotica-fest as a conservative movie. It just made me laugh how blatantly homo, and bad, it was
"What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it." - Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers, p.119
“I should have used Preparation H!”
Hm...I think you're being generous. Original novel aside, the movie is a typical modern adventure movie; a special effects extravaganza with lousy acting, script, plot, etc. I'd give it a D at best.
How can Bob Hope in The Ghost Breakers not be listed? It deserves to be in there just for this one classic 25s scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4
You-said-it-FRiend! BUMP!
>>> Agreed. Love Heinlein, but the idea of serving in the military to gain citizenship is contradictoary to “we are endowed by our creator..”
Actually in Heinlein’s future society the story is set in, the USA as we know it is gone. “We are endowed by our creator..” is replaced with a global society that agrees with the old Obama line “people need to put some skin in the game”.
Heinlein wrote this story on several levels. Most of the things that could make you think were stripped out of the movie script to make room for more explosions.
“Authority and responsibility must be equal — else a balancing takes place as surely as current `flows between points of unequal potential. To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy.
The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority . . . other than through the tragic logic of history. The unique poll tax’ that we must pay was unheard of. No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority.
If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead — and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundationless temple.
Superficially, our system is only slightly different; we have democracy unlimited by race, color, creed, birth, wealth, sex, or conviction, and anyone may win sovereign power by a usually short and not too arduous term of service — nothing more than a light workout to our cave-man ancestors. But that slight difference is one between a system that works, since it is constructed to match the facts, and one that is inherently unstable.
Since sovereign franchise is the ultimate in human authority, we insure that all who wield it accept the ultimate in social responsibility — we require each person who wishes to exert control over the state to wager his own life — and lose it, if need be — to save the life of the state. The maximum responsibility a human can accept is thus equated to the ultimate authority a human can exert. Yin and yang, perfect and equal.”
Though it definitely wasn’t conservative, I think the top horror movie I ever saw was “Primary Colors.” It’s the one where at the end, Bill Clinton becomes president. I still have recurring nightmares.
Heh...sorta like David Horowitz!
Starship Troopers...read the book instead. (Though there were some humorous moments even as it twisted the conservatism into a mockery...and I'm not going to complain about changing Diz into a female, along with Dina Meyer playing the role in the shower scene! ;-)
But more to the point, if we set aside her hangup with the definition of conservative including personal liberty on more than the financial side, and occasion bizarre comments (see her last comment on The Thing from Another World), Kathy Shaidle presents another in her history of well written and thoughtful columns. It's good to know that there are people out there taking note and debunking some of these far-too-common "conventional wisdom" interpretations that have no basis in reality.
Also, on a side note, I encourage people to look into what has is being done to Mrs. Shaidle's husband.
I disagree that Starship Troopers mangled Heinlein. He is one of the few authors to have been attacked by both the right, for Stranger In A Strange Land, and by the left, for Starship Troopers.
Ironically, while writing Stranger, he stopped so he could write Troopers, so as to clarify his stance on military matters.
“According to Heinlein, his desire to write Starship Troopers was sparked by the publication of a newspaper advertisement placed by the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy on April 5, 1958 calling for a unilateral suspension of nuclear weapon testing by the United States.
“In response, Robert and Virginia Heinlein created the small “Patrick Henry League” in an attempt to create support for the U.S. nuclear testing program. During the unsuccessful campaign, Heinlein found himself under attack both from within and outside the science fiction community for his views. Starship Troopers may therefore be viewed as Heinlein both clarifying and defending his military and political views of the time.”
And, I will add that in Troopers, Heinlein explained how suffrage, “based on federal service”, came about after the fall of the western democracies, and a military defeat of the western forces by China.
And this should be contemplated right now, as the US military is about 90% Republican oriented, and this can be nearly extrapolated to most veterans. Somewhat less for other federal servants, but the bottom line is that in Heinlein’s world, many Democrats do not have the right to vote or hold office.
You have to wonder if this would be a bad thing.
In any event, the movie downplayed much of the classroom instruction and philosophy given to the Troopers, and significantly enlarged on the battles, which were truly entertaining. Otherwise it did capture many of the major elements of the book.
And you have to appreciate that they never tried to “humanize” the bugs, or rationalize their violent actions.
#7 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
#6 Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
#5 The Omega Man (1971)
#4 The Thing From Another World (1951)
#3 Frankenstein (1931)
#2 The Exorcist (1973)
#1 The Tripper (2007)
-
# 4 scared the crap out of me as a kid.
Never heard of #1.
Wow. I never say anything, but I’ve got to say this....THAT is brilliantly done. I hope you don’t mind if I use it as my a new Halloween desktop pic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.