To be fair, Heinlein was if anything first and foremost a libertarian, and definitely no big fan of fascism at all.
However, he was also very much right-wing after his youth, and part of that political leaning is often a glorification of the military, with soldiers portrayed as self-reliant, dependable, responsible, heroic; often viewing somewhat dog-eat-dog ideas and overvalorising strength through arms. Although intensely militaristic, the society in the book is not really fascist, because anyone is free to sign up and become enfranchised; it is not an illiberal society, nor (outside political power) do the disenfranchised have any disadvantage, many evidently being wildly successful.
Verhoeven cuts through and sees that such a military society would be... kind of fascist. He's probably right. And so he turns it, at least in part, into a satire. One might note Heinlein himself also seems to have recognised maybe an issue, as after the book's publication he semi-backtracked on the militarism by claiming civil service was also sufficient for enfranchisement with military veterans only a small minority: but this seems inconsistent with the book's contents.
Libertarian pretty much = right wing = fascism.
And I know that's a contentious claim and libertarianism is a thing people like to argue about it and let's not get into that here and if you wann just call me wrong that's fine but, whatever, it's all the same crap really.
You know one reason maybe why Verhoeven has a better understanding of militarism/fascism etc? 'Cause unlike egotist Americans Heinlein and Miller (wah-wah 9/11 "broke" him, I spent the day counting how many literal family and friends might be freaking killed that day and I don't talk about torturing Muslims for funsies go figure), Verhoeven actually spent some of his childhood in Nazi occupied territory (that is why he made Black Book).
Yeesh, talk about "snowflakes" (by which I mean Heinlein and Miller not you guys, lol)
Anyway to change topics another favorite bad movie of mine is
Rocky 3. I really think the first one is genuinely good and all the ones after 3 are bad but not good-bad just bad. 3 is when the franchise became a formulaic franchise and all the stereotype Rocky stuff with Eye of the Tiger and whatever.
For those that remember Rocky movies like they're Friends episodes, i.e., "the one with...", this is the one with Mr. T. Rocky is the champion and he's lazy and comfortable and rich and Mr. T is Clubber Lang (yes that is the character's name), he is young and hungry and calling Rocky out.
The racial politics of this movie alone is insane- Mr. T is following Rocky around and taunting him into giving him a shot at the title, reminiscent of what Jack Johnson did in 1908 to become the first black heavyweight champion. But Mr. T is very much presented as a "bad guy," even though he's not really wrong. And to help Rocky defeat this dark menace, he recruits the now "good" black guy Apollo Creed, and the implied respectability politics kicks in. This hits its maximal hilarity when Creed takes Rocky to his old gym in LA so it's all black people and hip-hop and Rocky learns rhythm, like some dance movie. But during the training montage where they're presumably listening to hip-hop or funk the soundtrack is like 80s rock cheese, probably Frank Stallone or whatever, it's so bad.
And the homoeroticism, my goodness, if you like oily muscle hugs this is for you. Stallone cut an insane amount of body fat for this and also got plastic surgery (this is lampshaded in the movie by a comment from Paulie).
The worst part honestly is how Adrian really becomes a nothing. She is actually so important in the first two movies, their love story is the story of the movies not the boxing. In 3 she's like "no Rocky please don't punch, ok nah j/k go punch lulz" and then Rocky can run on the beach and sexy slo-mo hug Creed. So dumb lol.
