District 9

[fountainhead777]

Or it was a way to violently attack mercenaries who were at one time prevalent in South Africa and other parts of Africa. Also he did not at any point in the fight seem to be raged. He seemed to be scared and towards the end somewhat principled as he tried to make up for his abuses against the aliens by helping Christopher escape.

[Rockefeller]

I liked the originality and creativity of the plot, but I didn't its style.

One big thing that caused me headache was the "camera shake" in the entire movie - you know the handheld camera style filming. I call this kind "impressionist movies". Granted the handheld camera is consistent with documentary-mode

and that Wikus was supposedly being filmed during some parts, and I understand that tripods are a bad choice in unfriendly alien territory

. But the shaking didn't stop even after the movie switched to drama-mode!

I also have a personal issue with abundant gory, dirty and yucky scenes in the movie - I can take gross stuff in a few scenes. But I wasn't ready for it in almost the entire movie.

Regarding the plot, there were some elements of romanticism. Many of protagonist's actions were goal-directed. He achieved some success by thoughtful action, although some element of luck was introduced in many sequences. For example,

together with Christopher, Wikus was able to plan and retrieve the fuel from MNU facility, although his first escape from Nigerians was quite lucky (he somehow got his hands near an alien weapon).

Overall, as most people have already pointed out, the creativity and intensity are too rare to miss. It's a lot more than most movies offer. If you like intensive sci-fi action, you will surely enjoy this one but make sure you can take the camera-shake and gory stuff.

[Jake_Ellison]

It was definitely a good action movie. Not necessarily innovative film-making (it borrowed from horror and sci-fi movies, but the theme and plot were better than in most of those movies) but outside the mold of what we keep seeing nonetheless.

At times the character development and the dialog was very heavy handed, that's my main criticism. The bad guys just had no reason whatsoever to be evil, they just were. And why does every psychopath in every script written by lazy writers have to say "I can't believe I'm getting payed for this" and "I enjoy killing you MF'ers"? That took me out of the movie instantly, all I could do from that point on is look at it with a critical eye: yes, that's not bad, oh I know why he did that etc., instead of enjoying the experience. Even though the main character was very good, I can't suspend disbelief when he is fighting a cardboard faced cliché.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I saw "District 9" with my parents while they were visiting. My dad and I thought it was interesting, but my mom didn't like it at all. It held my interest throughout, but I wouldn't call it a great movie because too many issues were left unresolved -- it almost needs a sequel to make sense regarding the aliens, and a work of art ought to be able to stand alone. I certainly didn't like the style of it, not only the camera handling but the whole filthy aspects of the movie throughout. And the fact that the aliens, for the most part, where just scavengers, with no thoughts of their own. My dad brought up some good issues, such as if they could build a ship like that and weapons like that, why didn't they stand up more for themselves? I tried to point out to him that they were the worker bees, in a sense, and they didn't know how to do that without direct orders from their superiors -- but then what happened to their superiors? Only one alien seemed to know what he was doing and the rest were unthinking dolts. Also, if it was a take on apartheid, then they were so poor because they didn't think; that doesn't make them another species, but it does make them less than human on Objectivist terms -- by their own choice. So, while it was interesting and the plot progressed logically, most of the action was accidental in the sense that no particular individual thought about what he was going to do and acted on that premise throughout the movie; that is, no one individual had a purpose throughout the movie. In that sense, it didn't really have a hero. It was too much "one day in the life of a social worker" to be fully romantic in the artistic sense.

[Lemuel]

My dad brought up some good issues, such as if they could build a ship like that and weapons like that, why didn't they stand up more for themselves? I tried to point out to him that they were the worker bees, in a sense, and they didn't know how to do that without direct orders from their superiors -- but then what happened to their superiors? Only one alien seemed to know what he was doing and the rest were unthinking dolts.

A couple of lines of script could have taken care of that ...

"The ship's pilots were a more intelligent breed, but when they died, the ship found itself on Earth, and the 'worker bees' without guidance or leadership. But, 'life finds a way,' and that superior breed of prawn was needed by the 'hive' ..." which could have explained Christopher Johnson and his lab partner, clearly more individualistic than the rest of their race.

Hey, I'm not saying it's a good excuse, and it's certainly not that scientific, but it's as good as you're going to get in a science fiction film. Especially one that takes anti-grav suspension so lightly.

- - -

My review of it is short -- the best sci-fi movie this summer, but that's not really saying much; enjoyable for it NOT spoon-feeding everything to the viewer, seemingly intentionally leaving plot holes open for sci-fi fans to fill (which we love doing); technically marvelous; interesting story; emotionally engaging beyond the "wow, the CGI stunts are GREAT!". I give it a strong A-, not perfect, but one I'll enjoy revisiting on BluRay.

On a side note, it has restored a lot of what Knowing killed in terms of my sci-fi fandom ...

[FeatherFall]

together with Christopher, Wikus was able to plan and retrieve the fuel from MNU facility, although his first escape from Nigerians was quite lucky (he somehow got his hands near an alien weapon).

They had little reason to place an alien weapon out of reach, nobody had been able to use them up until that point.

[JMeganSnow]

On a side note, it has restored a lot of what Knowing killed in terms of my sci-fi fandom ...

Silly rabbit, no good serious movie has ever had Nicholas Cage in it.

[Jake_Ellison]

Silly rabbit, no good serious movie has ever had Nicholas Cage in it.

I agree, Cage sucks, but I think he pulled a Keanu (in Matrix), with "Lord of War". Sometimes an actor who's acting is obviously superficial can be a good fit for a specific character. The gun smuggler who has no concern for morality and as a result becomes emotionally disoriented kinda worked for him.

[JASKN]

I agree, Cage sucks, but I think he pulled a Keanu (in Matrix), with "Lord of War". Sometimes an actor who's acting is obviously superficial can be a good fit for a specific character. The gun smuggler who has no concern for morality and as a result becomes emotionally disoriented kinda worked for him.

I also thought he was great in "Lord of War." That movie was definitely worth watching.

[kainscalia]

Yes, he is much more suited for the likes of G-Force, which displays his true strengths.

Silly rabbit, no good serious movie has ever had Nicholas Cage in it.

[Axiomatic]

Is everyone just going to ignore Daniel Caspers review? i could not even watch this movie to the end, that is how little value it had. But Daniels review was 100% correct. The movie was a blatant attempt at capturing a non-thinking audience into swallowing the directors conclusions about humanity and especially the nature of cooperation's.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Axiomatic

[Jake_Ellison]

Fine, let's check it out, review that review . I guess he might be right about the ending being a silly political statement. But I didn't really pay attention to what happened in that narration after the aliens left, to me the movie ended the second that ship moved. So that final part was probably a mistake, even just from a technical perspective. I wish I could remember exactly what happened, I guess I just tuned out completely at that point.

But I must say: so what? I don't get my politics from action movies, so it really doesn't matter to me.

Who cares about some silly extra plot at the end, that no one remembers? It certainly doesn't take away anything from the actual movie, which was quite well done. (for an action movie, not for something that aims a little higher) It was certainly better than any other action movies I've seen this year, like Terminator Salvation, or Watchmen. (not as good as The Hurt Locker, but that's more than just an action movie)

But, the reason why I particularly dislike that review are these two statements:

1.

Qua work of art, this movie is like a walking abortion. You will be treated to “Saw” level grotesqueness: chopped off limbs, gunshot wounds, exploding corpses, meat lockers.

I'm sorry, but you can't reference aborted fetuses in one sentence, and then be outraged by grotesque images in the next one.

The violence was fine, it was nothing like Saw. I turned off Saw about ten minutes in, because the violence, and as far as I could see the plot as well, were pointless, and the style dreadful. Not the case at all here. As I said in another post, could've used better dialog and acting (except for the main guy, his whole character was great, I'd love to see that guy in more movies).

2.

There is nothing redeeming in any of the characters, with the exception of the thinking alien. They are simply average men placed in unaverage situations.

Starts out with a cliché that's quickly becoming the number one most often misused in movie reviews. There were in fact plenty of redeeming qualities in both the main guy and even his wife (though there wasn't anything remarkable about the wife character, it was lazily written and poorly cast). He ended up helping the aliens, remember, and his wife ended up on his side. Those are both redeeming.

As for the average men comment, sure. So what? He was a good man, but he wasn't heroic. There is nothing wrong with idealized heroes in movies in general, but in action movies there's more unexplored ground in the territory of less than heroic characters tossed into sticky situations. I loved Daniel Craig in his first incarnation as James Bond, but that's one good action movie against a hundred bad copies. At least this guy tried something new.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[hunterrose]

I'm late to the game, but I finally saw District 9 last night. Wow. I thought it was really good!

I'd heard a lot of people detracting from the movie because of its anti-whatever messages, but I didn't see any theme that I found detrimental to my appreciation of the movie.

I don't think it portrayed aliens as the moral ones, or humans/corporations as inevitably evil. If anything, District 9 simply says that there are good individuals and bad individuals in groups, and judging the whole by a subset usually leads to erroneous conclusions.

I'm hoping for a sequel.

[Robert J. Kolker]

I got a big kick out of -District 9-. I loved hearing all those icksints.

Bob Kolker

[Axiomatic]

I got a big kick out of -District 9-. I loved hearing all those icksints.

Bob Kolker

That was one of the only things I enjoyed about the movie. The S.African accent is gorgeous.

[Maximus]

I got it on DVD when it was released. I thought it was rather good.

[Rawls was Right]

And why does every psychopath in every script written by lazy writers have to say "I can't believe I'm getting payed for this" and "I enjoy killing you MF'ers"? That took me out of the movie instantly, all I could do from that point on is look at it with a critical eye:

Agreed. There are plenty of ways to paint PMC groups as evil without turning them into comic book villian stereotypes.