I think that, like Mars Attacks and Starship Troopers, it's a movie that one benefitted a lot from expecting a B- or C, and being pleasantly surprised by a B (or B+)-ish experience.
As someone who read the novel after seeing the movie, I can see why people who loved the book were disappointed by the movie. The movie, to me, was a hilarious parody of a propaganda-heavy war machine (which might also be why I find Warhammer 40k's Ciaphas Cain novels so funny).
That might be one of the first times that I learned to enjoy both a movie and a book separately, even if the movie is (objectively) a poor portrayal of what was in the book. Now, I actively enjoy things like that, which are faithful in only a few of the dimensions of the original.
> the movie is (objectively) a poor portrayal of what was in the book.
The movie was pretty much completely conceived before anyone pointed out a superficial resemblance between certain elements of it and the book, which led to a (sadly, successful) effort to secure rights to the book, Verhoeven reading a small part of the beginning of the book and tossing it in disgust, some light plot and character changes to justify the connection, and then slapping the title of the book onto the movie.
> Starship Troopers was an A+ movie masquerading as a B movie.
Starship Troopers was a C- bit of social commentary masquerading as a an adaptation of a work to which the creator of the film was hostile without reading.
If you read the novel, you get the impression Heinlein actually supports strong barriers to citizenship and other governmental ideals seen in the movie. It praises meritocracy but doesn't really touch on how to avoid corruption, besides being in an existential war against bugs (and skinnies, not seen in the movie).
> If you read the novel, you get the impression Heinlein actually supports strong barriers to citizenship and other governmental ideals seen in the movie.
No, I read the novel, and didn't get that impression at all. (Nor did the novel contain strong barriers to citizenship; it simply portrayed a society which retained the [near universal, in the time and society in which it was written] idea that citizenship required a commitment to service, while reversing the [similarly generally accepted] idea that citizenship was mandatory and automatic with birth.)
And especially I don't think the descriptions equate to simple endorsement after reading lots of Heinlein, where to maintain that shallow attitude toward his work I'd have to think that Heinlein rapidly cycled through deep devotion to a wide range of radically contradictory ideologies. He certainly has certain themes and ideas that he liked to remix that had some relation to his actual political views, but, at least in his fiction, he doesn't seem to be given to simple presentation of what he sees as an ideal.
One thing that comes up a lot in these discussions: a lot of people (not saying this is you) got the impression that the society in the novel requires military service to gain citizenship. It's worth mentioning that the novel is pretty specific that the condition of citizenship is service, period: you have to be willing to sacrifice a few years of your life in service to your nation, and they will find something for anyone willing to serve, no matter what disabilities they may have. The protagonist only chooses the military because he doesn't have any aptitudes to speak of beyond "reasonably physically fit."
