District 9

[Gold Trumpet]

I've tried and failed three times tonight to get my full thoughts jotted down here, but let me simply say this for now, District 9 probably will go down as the best film of 2009 for me. This is how an action film should be in the truest sense of the words. I loved this film through and through that I even can look some of the complaints posted above and easily feel like they are actually positives for the story. The film rarely misses a beat and is almost perfect for what it is.

[Pwaybloe]

I loved that part when that guy did that one thing that made that happen.  Remember when that thing came right out of there like that?  Holy moly!  And who can forget about that part where those people did that thing where it just happened.  Unbelievable. 

I have seen this movie lots of times. 

[Reinhold]

I've tried and failed three times tonight to get my full thoughts jotted down here, but let me simply say this for now, District 9 probably will go down as the best film of 2009 for me. This is how an action film should be in the truest sense of the words. I loved this film through and through that I even can look some of the complaints posted above and easily feel like they are actually positives for the story. The film rarely misses a beat and is almost perfect for what it is.

I just saw this and my God, I'm speechless. This is going in my top ten. Sorry I don't have much to say but it was one hell of a ride and my jaw is on the floor.

i've been debating blind buying the blu ray. i think you just convinced me.

[SiliasRuby]

Do it Reinhold! Do it! The video and sound are spectacular.

[socketlevel]

ya i was really impressed with the blu ray transfer, it actually looks better than the theatre.

def blind buy it, it's kinda a phenomenal film. glad you liked it GT, it's sad cuz this movie got such deserved accolades when it first came out then everyone seemed to turn their back on it. despite some very small plot leaps, it's a rock solid film.

[Alexandro]

last film i saw in 2009. fucking awesome. yes. yes. what everyone has said. the main actor is spectacular. the whole film is one great choice followed by another, you never know where it's going, it's fantastic.

[Reinhold]

same for me.

i can't believe how well composited the aliens are, too.

[Gold Trumpet]

Still failed at typical review, so going to reply to a few quotes instead and see if I can find adequate detail in the replies.

I'm not one of the bigger sci-fi fans in the world, but this was closer to Black Hawk Down than anything else.

Understand why this would be said because there are technical similarities to the filmmaking, but there are huge differences. Both films are vivid in filming intense scenes with a lot of coverage and angling to look more realistic, but Black Hawk Down chooses it's filmmaking scheme for simple modern realism. The purpose of the visuals in Black Hawk Down is to increase the experience of what it means to be in the middle of a war, but because the huge amount of the film is dedicated to the coverage of violence, the film loses its gage on the moral conflicts of fighting in a war. The moral and emotional battle of a war is the stronghold to its genre.

In science fiction, the stronghold of the genre is to relay as much information and questions about its theoretical reality. The editing and visuals in District 9 are intense, but the constant shifting of images allows the film to include more dimensions and realities to the world that the aliens live in. I love how the story developed because as the suspense built up, the film didn't lax at all in including more possibilities to societal reactions. Some of the editing was to just be exciting, yes, but the film kept its pace of constantly questioning how cause and effect would take place if this dilemma happened between different species, races and powers of control. The editing was important because little images were important side notes to bigger storylines that hubbed above the story. The editing allowed the film to have the texture that it does to make it feel above and beyond the normal moral parable.

HATED
when wikus tried to fly up to the mothership and crashed (obviously!). what the hell did he expect to do up there? he was lucky to even get the thing off the ground. that was so dumb.

The point of his failed attempts is that he's not able to act on everyone's best interest. He knows what he ultimately wants to accomplish, but he has no know how to do it. It's unrealistic when movies allow characters wth marginal eperiences to just break out and able to do things they have no purpose knowing just because the moment presents it. It's the Footloose effect of kids being able to dance professionally for no reason except they finally can. I found the mistakes more fascinating because it highlighted how much he wanted a certain thing over any reasonable understanding of how to get it. Second guessing him is not important.

i was really annoyed by the pointless documentary style crap at the beginning, and the way they just abruptly dropped it 40 minutes in made its worthlessness even more apparent.

When fictional films try to look like documentaries, they always only go half way to achieve the effect. In District 9, the documentary aspect is an umbrella aesthetic for the story. The filmmakers want to keep story interested in all the details that a documentary would be interested in. Children of Men tried to achieve a similar effect with an apocalyptic world, but because the story was singular with being about one man and his situation with one woman, the film could only do so much to really tap into all the social dilemmas of its theoretical reality. District 9's adhesion to a documentary story allows it to make minor social details feel relevant to the overall story. If this film was just about the main guy in a fictional sense then all of the exterior details would feel nonessential. In this manner, all those details not only feel relevant, but essential.

And yes, the documentary aspects were heavy at the beginning and loosened later on for the majority of the story and then brought back again at the end to wrap everything up. By the end, the film wants you to feel that the film felt was as investigatory as a documentary would be, but it ultimately wants you to see the film for just what it is. The film's interest in being like a documentary is that it wants to use that format to see the story in a special way. The film has little interest to make you think it's an actual documentary. The documentary aspect is just a set up to the overall story.

Astounding! What I don't think anyone has commented on is that the film had a heart, too. And that's mainly due to the lead actor. There's a heartbreaking scene mid-way through when he talks to his wife that is like The Fly via Love Story. And then the ending scene shows that, along with all the action and sci-fi, it's simply a story about a man who will risk it all to be with his wife again. At times harrowing, other times funny, it was great rollercoaster ride through different genres. I'm glad it didn't stick with the Cloverfield-style POV all the way through. I think it would have completely lost the story and emotion that you ended up getting caught up in by being more objective to the lead character's plight.

Definitely. What I loved about the main character's situation is that he started out in the story as marginal in personality, but was highly important to the society. For me, he was a reflection of its worst norms, but the story gradually breaks down all of his hang ups. I had no sense he would become the moral center of the story so the film was fascinating in how it was able to develop him personally and allow him to break out of the trappings of what he represented. Also what is great is that the more his walls are broken down and he becomes conscious of the aliens, he does not become the immediate moral person we want him to be. He still acts on his desperate inclinations and aims to save himself before everyone else. He only becomes conscience of the aliens at the very end when he reaches a breaking point. That final breaking point feels justified because a million personal boundaries had been broken and he finally had been left with nothing but the slimmest identity of his physical life. The story took no short cuts to find an authentic breaking point for him. The deft progression made his story all the more heartbreaking.

[MacGuffin]

'District 9' director Neill Blomkamp says no to Hollywood: 'I don't want to do high-budget films'
Source: Geoff Boucher; Los Angeles Times

NEILL BLOMKAMP INTERVIEW: PART 1

The surprise film of 2009 was "District 9," the $30 million sci-fi tale that was directed by newcomer Neill Blomkamp, the Johannesburg native who celebrated his 30th birthday the month after the movie opened wide. "District 9"  met with strong success both critically and commercially and it's still being discovered after arriving this month on DVD and Blu-ray. I sat down with Blomkamp at Pete's Cafe in downtown Los Angeles during the filmmaker's recent visit to Southern California and we talked about the movie and his surprising plans for the future, which, he says, won't include any big-budget sci-fi epics. This is Part 1 of the interview:

GB: "District 9" arrived at theaters as a rarity among science-fiction and horror films these days for the simple fact that it wasn't a sequel, a remake of an already-popular film or an adaption of a comic book,  novel or television series. That gave it the air of the unexpected.

NB: That's true, that does make it a bit left of the norm. I think about this a lot – a hell of a lot actually – and how it plays out within the genre of sci-fi and horror. This concept of "Where does that fiction [in its source material form] come from?" If you look at the most meaningful science fiction, it didn't come from watching other films. We seem to be in a place now where filmmakers make films based on other films because that's where the stimuli and influence comes from. But go back and look at something like [Joe Haldeman's 1974 novel] "The Forever War" – that is very much rooted in his experience in Vietnam, that's where the stimulation comes from. And that's my goal, really, is not to draw from other films in terms of the overall inspiration and stimuli. You can in terms of design and tone and stuff, certainly, but not in terms of the idea and the genesis of that idea.

GB: It's an admirable goal but other filmmakers have found that, if they want to make well-budgeted special-effects movies, they have to bend to studio pressure to make films that are remakes, adaptations, sequels, etc. Studios feel far more comfortable with "known quantity" properties when the budgets go north of $100 million.

NB: That's exactly right and that's precisely the reason I don't want to do high-budget films. I've said no already to doing the Hollywood movie thing with big budgets. And that is the exact reason.

GB: "District 9" had an interesting journey both before and after it reached the screen in wide release in August. Tell me about some of the memorable points along that journey.

NB: I'd say Comic-Con [International in San Diego 2009] was the big turning point. The whole time I was making the film, the only guiding thing I had was how I felt about it. "Is this a movie I would like to go and see? Is this a movie that resonates with me?" Directors make movies they want to watch, really. So I made it and it felt correct to me. But what was undecided was how people would receive it and whether they would like it. I mean, I knew I loved it. Comic-Con was awesome because there was a whole bunch of guys that love those kinds of movies that I like and they responded to it strongly.

GB: What was your first reaction to that affirmation?

NB: "Thank God." But that was still only the hard-core, genre group, so we still didn't know how a wider audience would approach the movie. But it was made for a relatively little money. If a movie was a $170-million film it would still have been stressful after Comic-Con but if it's a low-enough amount of money you walk out feeling that you're probably going to be OK just counting on the hard-core group.

GB: What happened after Comic-Con?

NB: Well it's such a blur now. What happened now, really, is I toured around and showed the film in a bunch of cities all over America, Mexico, Canada and eventually Europe and each time we screened it the reaction seemed very positive and I started feeling like we were definitely going to make the cash back. That was really the only goal. As long as whoever put up the money for it got their money back and a little bit of profit that was good enough. It wasn't like some completely capitalistic machine – it was "Get a return on your investment and let me be creative." That was the goal. I never want to be ruled by the size of the profit, that's not how I approach it.

GB: So for you it's more like playing on "Jeopardy." If you win, you get to play again. In your case, if you break even or better, you get to make another movie.

NB: Yes, that's it exactly! That's precisely how I approached it. If I don't win, it's going to be difficult to get another one.

GB: The film drew on your experiences, observations and insights from growing up in South Africa. After watching the way the film was received and reviewed, do you feel your messages were understood in the way you hoped?

NB: Yeah, I think so. For the most part, "District 9" is absolute popcorn. It's absolute fluff compared to how serious those real-life topics are. The topics in the film are on my mind all the time and they're very interesting to me. The bottom line is "District 9" touches on 1% of those topics in terms of how severe they could be portrayed, and I knew that when I made it. But people got the messages. Xenophobia, racism allegories – they got all of it. I don't think the film was misunderstood. Not everybody loved it. Nigerians weren't happy. They were pissed. And I suppose that's fair enough because I directly named them and they don't come off well in the film. But that was part of the whole satirical nature of the film. And that conflict, well, that's a South African thing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

'District 9' director Neill Blomkamp's future? Think 'Black Hawk Down' and ... Monty Python?
Source: Geoff Boucher; Los Angeles Times

NEILL BLOMKAMP INTERVIEW: PART 2

Neill Blomkamp established himself as a filmmaker to watch in 2009 with "District 9," a film that wrapped satire, social commentary and gripping action within a sci-fi tale that looked far more expensive than its $30-million budget. I sat down with Blomkamp in downtown Los Angeles recently to talk about his future, both short-term and long-term. It was clear that science fiction is his focus, but he also spoke like a restless director who is also intrigued by films of combat and even comedy.

GB: What's next for you?

NB: I know what I'm doing now. QED paid for "District 9" and Bill Block the producer put it together. And now MRC is another finance group and they're putting together the cash for my next film based on a treatment I wrote. I had the idea in my head for about a year. I wrote it within a month of finishing "District 9," so July or something I suppose, or May. It was May. So I wrote it in May and I sent it to them and they agreed to do it. So now I'm writing.

GB: What can you tell me about it, if anything?

NB: Not much. I'm trying to keep it to myself at this point. But it is science fiction and it has many sociopolitical ideas that interest me. Those ideas are wrapped up inside something that is like a Hollywood action film,

GB: It's interesting – most directors in your position would have sought a bigger budget at this point, especially if they wanted their next film to be an action or special-effects film. You have a different plan. Could you talk more about that?

NB: I've been offered films – a lot of films, in fact – with seriously high budgets, and I've turned them all down. The reason is exactly what you said earlier: Once the budgets get bigger, you can't do what you want as a director, unless you're Peter Jackson or James Cameron. And even then, the pressure is still on the filmmaker. Even if the studio isn't clamping down on you, all the pressure is on the director. And if you screw that up, the jeopardy situation is even worse. The way you don't get yourself in that jeopardy situation is by making films that aren't as risky financially. I just want to make films that have enough of a budget to pull off high-level imagery but also have a budget that is low enough that I can do what I want.

GB: So you want the risks to be creative ones, not commercial ones. There are many filmmakers who take a course like that for an entire career – John Sayles springs to mind – but I suppose the interesting thing is that visual effects are reaching a price point where you can make smaller sci-fi movies that look big.

NB: This next movie will cost more than "District 9" but it will cost much, much less than the big summer films. You can do a lot for less now. It's all about process, too. If go into it knowing what you want to accomplish, you can save money. If you go into it trying to figure out what you want, it's going to cost a lot of money. The other aspect is trimming it down. It's like a diet. Instead of 2,000 effects shots, you can probably do with 1,000. Those kinds of sacrifices are worth it if you get to make something that is not in any way generic.

GB: There can be an interesting freedom in the restrictions, too, even though that sounds contradictory. If you look at "Jaws" and "Alien," the limitations on the visual effects led to ingenuity and better films. And there are many films today that go wild with visual effects and it leads to entirely forgettable films.

NB: It's so true. From a pure audience perspective, it may yield a more interesting result. Think of "Alien," if they made it now you would probably get "Alien vs. Predator."

GB: Do you expect to pursue mostly sci-fi projects as you go forward from here?

NB: Science fiction interests me massively. There are two reasons for that. There are loads of sociopolitical, racial, class and future-planet situations that really interest me, but I'm not really interested in making a film about them in a film that feels like reality because people view that in a different way. I like using science fiction to talk about subjects through the veneer of science fiction. The other reason is I'm like a total visual kid. I grew up as an artist. Science fiction allows for design and creatures and guns and all the stuff that I like as well. So I think most of the films I make, I'm sure, will be in that category. But I can also see myself making a film like "Black Hawk Down" and I could also totally do horror. Science fiction and horror, that right there is my optimum. I can see myself doing out-there comedy like Monty Python, absolutely, I would love that. Seriously.

GB: What films have you liked recently?

NB: My favorite film of the year was "The Hurt Locker." I really loved it. I really liked "Inglourious Basterds" a lot. One of my favorites recently was "Let the Right One In." The way it's put together. I love that film. The fact that they're making an American version, that's part of everything I've been saying about Hollywood. Why not just watch the real one? Do we need a remake of that film now? They're remaking "Oldboy" too. I don't understand it.

GB: Peter Jackson was a key part of your success story to date. How would you describe your relationship with him at this point?

NB: The relationship is a good one but he's very, very busy. I've been in very limited contact with him really. When I was making the film I talked to him all the time, of course, but now it's hard. The guy has more films on the go than anyone I know. It's amazing. We do sparse e-mail – it's a combination of his attention and my attention is going away from "District 9." Things are good but it's not easy to keep in touch.

GB: When you reflect on your time working with him, can you point to some things you learned from him, either specific things or perhaps more philosophical things?

NB: He's a nice person. He's a generous and very likable guy. I enjoyed working with him. I think I can talk about some of the general, overall things I took away from it. My process, typically, is to work within parameters. I kind of like that. I like knowing what the game is and figuring out moves based on that. What I mean is I like knowing the number of shooting days, I like knowing the script is locked, the budget is set – I like knowing all of those factors aren't going to change. Peter's process is the other way around. His process seems like very pure creativity so budgets change and duration of shoots are very fluid and there are rewrites. His mind doesn't fall into a state of "I've been creative and now I'm executing this way." His mind is in the creative state throughout. It's constant. His approach is 180 degrees away from mine. What it yields is an environment of hyper-creativity. No matter how much stress it's going to produce on the production or the crew, if it's the right idea for the movie he's going to do it. It can be all of a sudden saying, "I don't want to film in L.A. Now I want to film in New York." So if I had to sum up what he taught me it would be that spirit. He taught me not to be so buttoned-down about how to go about making a movie

GB: It sounds like the difference between a marching band and a jazz band.

NB: Totally. It's very interesting to think about. He's got a very fluid focus. I actually can't get away with that right now. You have to be a very successful world-class filmmaker to get away with it, so I can't get away with that. But it's a good lesson. I also like that he doesn't get flustered. I don't either, really, but he is very, very calm. He doesn't get worked up about situations. You look for solutions.

------------------------------------------------------

'District 9' director Neill Blomkamp says a prequel 'might be interesting'
Source: Geoff Boucher; Los Angeles Times

NEILL BLOMKAMP INTERVIEW: PART 3

"District 9" got a best-picture nomination from the Producers Guild Assn., it was announced Tuesday, and the sci-fi film remains a wild card in the awards season. That's music to the ears of Neill Blomkamp, the director who put himself on the map with the intriguing sci-fi tale based in his native South Africa. Here's Part 3 of my interview with Blomkamp, whom I sat down with during his recent visit to Los Angeles. We began this segment by talking about casting and Blomkamp's enthusiasm for using lesser-known actors such as Sharlto Copley, the "District 9" star.

GB: What did the "District 9" experience teach you about casting?

NB: I'm not particularly interested in working with movie stars. It depends on where you come from, I suppose. Why are you making films? The reason I want make films is because they convey ideas. I think some directors make films because they want to hang out with movie stars and be part of Hollywood. They want to be a star themselves. I'm not interested in that at all. I think the reason you use an actor is if they are right for the role. Most of the high-profile stars tend to be good actors. That's probably what led to their fame. So if they are right for the movie, you can certainly use them. But I don't want to, not at all. Stardom and Hollywood overpower the ideas and the film. That being said, it's hard finding very good performers who aren't well-known.

GB: So how do you compensate for that? Will you seek out actors from the stage?

NB: I have thought of that. I have one idea for the lead guy [for the next film] that I actually haven't told to anybody yet because it's been brewing in the back of my head. Everybody knows him but not really as a star. I think that would fine. It's a situation where people are benefiting from an unusual pairing with the material. But I'm not interested in putting big-name movie stars into my movies.

GB: So it's not the familiarity of the face that bothers you, it's the physics of stardom and Hollywood.

NB: Yeah exactly. That's it. I don't want egos and personalities on the set that make it more difficult to make the film. I don't want people who take the focus away from the movie and the ideas behind the movie.

GB: Considering that stance and what you've said about the Hollywood machine, is it uncomfortable for you to promote your movie with an eye toward it as an awards season contender?

NB: A little bit. Sony has kind of pushed for awards and, really, if I feel like people are watching the film because they are interested in the film, then it's fine. I'm fine with that. But if I feel even remotely like I'm being asked to be a salesman, I have a problem.

GB: It's an interesting era right now with Facebook, Twitter and blogs and, more than that, this whole cross-platform approach to public life. There's an expectation of unfettered promotion and the marketing of self.

NB: I don't like it. I don't like it at all. I like where we're going with technology and global integration but the fact that corporations and dollars rule everything in our lives, I don't like it. This isn't the Hollywood I wanted to be part of. This isn't the version of it that I saw when I was a kid..."District 9" and every other movie is treated like fast food. It's promoted relentlessly and then it's gone. Everything is a flamethrower-intensity and milked for everything it can give and then it's just chucked away. Everything is judged instantly, too. You look back at something like "Blade Runner" and wonder how a film like that, which doesn't do well at first, would be treated today.

GB: There's been interest in taking "District 9" on past the film either as a sequel, a television show or a video game. At this point, what's your view on those pursuits? You would have a say, yes?

NB: I definitely have input into it. Ultimately the person with the most control is Peter [Jackson, producer of "District 9"], but I for sure would have some influence over whether that happens or not. I play a lot of video games. The idea of "District 9" as a video game stresses me out a little bit because games based on movies rarely work. And movies based on games don't work -- I don't know what's up with that.

GB: Well, wait, if you were going to direct "Halo," why were you going to make a video-game film if they don't work? You thought you were the guy that could make it work?

NB: Yeah, totally, that's exactly why. But anyway, "District 9" as a game would be fascinating. And I don't want to see it happen for any sort of corporate reason or profit thing. I used to be involved in computer graphics and I love virtual environments. That's why I like video games, really. And I think a virtual environment of the slums of Soweto is an appealing idea to me. The weapons are cool, too. I photographed the film in a way that isn't that different than video-game perspective in some parts. So a game would be interesting to me. There's nothing happening with it though.

GB: What about a spin-off TV series or a film sequel?

NB: A television show I wouldn't really want to do. That would be...well, I just don't want to do that. But a sequel might be interesting. I know what I'm doing next so it wouldn't be right away. But the concept of aliens in Johannesburg is such an appealing idea to me and the issues of race and how they meet. All of the things that I had going on with it. I wouldn't mind messing around with it again. I'm open to it if the story works and there's a reason to do it. And [Copley's character] Wikus is so funny to me, I'm very interested in a sort of passive racist like that. If you go forward [with his story beyond "District 9"] it's more of a traditional film but if you go backward I'd be intrigued in that. I'm not so interested in aliens coming back and blowing things up but [a prequel] might be interesting.

GB: "District 9" was very much of a place. The story and texture of the film were defined by South Africa. For your next film, would go to other locales or would you root the film in your home country again?

NB: The setting for the next film takes place 150 years from now. There are two cities that I'm choosing between. They would play as themselves. They are not in South Africa. The success of "District 9" has made things a lot easier. I can get other things made. The thing I won't forget though is that you're really only as good as your last film. The whole flavor-the-week thing -- that's how Hollywood works. If I screw up the next one it will be like I never made "District 9." I'm totally aware of that. It can all disappear in 30 seconds.

[modage]

[Pas]

[Gold Trumpet]

So I've now seen this film a total of four times and I hate to say it, but I have to scale back my praise. This isn't a full retreat, but developed conclusion has to be that this film isn't a runaway classic. I was hypocritical in alluding to it as a "best this" when I made an argument soon after that no very recent film deserved consideration for a best ever list. While I haven't been able to vote District 9 for any noteworthy status, I did unofficially place it on a mantle that it had no reason to be considered for. Elements of hypocrisy still existed in my praises.

The sober truth now? It's a very good film and deserves best of consideration for the year, but I'd still consider Bruno to be better and expect other films to surmount both Bruno and District 9. The reason why I am going back is because the story is cornered in an action story that is elaborate and well woven for its kind of story, but it is an action story that is still too specific about what it is alluding to. The allusions do not grow with every experience. As soon as you have figured out all the corners of human emotion and societal observations in the story, you're hitting a dead end. That sudden halt is troubling because this films wants to be a deft examination and is deep when compared to Children of Men, but District 9 keeps everything on the surface too much. Even though you have to go the corners of the story for some allusions, no more than two viewings perfectly lay them out. There are purposeful contradictions and abstracted human commentary in some of the arguments, but the film doesn't do enough to make these contradictions or open ended observations the striking tone for the entire film. The overriding tone is an action story that has a genre basis which demands to be open and shut all the way through.

Compare District 9 with W. and there are interesting contrasts. When I first saw Stone's film, I was underwhelmed because nothing in the film jumped out at me, but the more I watch the film the more I notice it has things to say with every viewing. It's a chamber work that will never compare to Stone's best films, but it is very fruitful in carrying over new anecdotes that relates to numerous new articles and pieces someone can still read about the Bush administration today. Stone was rightly criticized for not making his criticism of Bush harsh enough, but he did a wonderful job of juggling a story that knows so many little undertones of the man himself. He also did it in a story that had no major story arc that pinned the rise and fall of Bush on certain events. The structure and tone of the story is of an ongoing character dissection where humor and drama seem embedded into one being. It's a perfect molding to allow small moments within the film to shine in different ways with every viewing.

Now I'm not saying W. is better than District 9, but I will wonder about W. a lot longer.

[SiliasRuby]

I KNEW you'd start to hate this... hehe.

[Bethie]

I haven't seen this movie but I have seen the tv spot several times. that noise those things/machines/aliens/whatever make is the same noise heard in the Britney Spears song "Stronger." I haven't looked this up to see if others caught this, but I did listen to Stronger several times to make sure I was correct. I am.


alright, maybe its not them making the noise but its there. i didn't pay too much attention.

[Gold Trumpet]

I've been looking for negative reviews of this. Well, I found a negative blurb from Playtime Magazine, an arts and culture rag in Chicago. One of their writers listed District 9 as the second worst film of 2009, a notch below 2012 and above New Moon. Here is the explanation:

"There is no way around it. This movie has split personality disorder. It starts off as a faux documentary about aliens who landed in South Africa 20 years ago, who were put into a slum and treated like second class citizens. It ends as a shoot-em-up action movie.

In the film, "District 9" is where the aliens are being kept. It's basically a slum and there is a fence around it to keep the aliens inside and under control. Meanwhile the big bad corporation is doing experiments on the aliens and their weaponry to understand it, and of course, use the weapons from themselves.  During a cleanup of District 9 one of the officers gets sprayed with some alien slop and starts to show signs of becoming an alien. The aliens are referred to as "Prawns" because they look like big walking shrimp. The lead character is so damn unlikable that it really doesn't matter that he's becoming a prawn.

The corporation wants to get their hands on the mutating officer so they can get a vile of alien goo that resides in the alien cannon which is now his hand.  The goo is also fuel for the spaceship the aliens crashed all those years ago. While on the run the officer becomes friends with a Prawn who tells him he can return him to human form if he helps him steal back the fluid that the corporation is in possession of. They break in. Get the fluid. The prawn tells the officer "tough break" and says he can't return him to normal because of how humans have treated aliens.

It's this point at which the message of the film hits you like a sledgehammer to the nuts. "See, you treat people badly and they won't help you when you start to turn into a shrimp."  I know all sci-fi films have messages, most of them are political. My problem wasn't with the message, it was the way it was presented. The makers try telling the story as a documentary, and that might have worked had they stuck with it. Instead they launch off into a alien action flick that boils down to the hero saving the day out of guilt.  Oh, and once again the humans, and mainly corporations, are painted as demons whose only thoughts are of money or power.

I put District 9 at the number two spot because I found it to be extremely hard to even sit through. I was bored throughout and the way the movie was made, it was impossible for me to connect to it in any emotional way.  I think if they would have played it a little lighter it might not have been so bad. In the end it's a boring, uninvolving, humorless waste."

http://www.playtime-magazine.com/2010/03/turn-off-your-brain-worst-films-of-2009/



It's not a very good critique because his argument hinges on film having 1.) unlikable characters and 2.) a void between a documentary set up and an action pay off.

First, hating a film that has no interest in whether you like the characters or not is pretty bad. It's one of the oldest and worst criticisms about a movie when you don't connect and can't go into depth why. Second, considering new dimensions with the slumlord leader are revealed in the end and the protagonist comes to new conclusions about himself, I don't think the film is a watering down much at all in the end. I do criticize the film for its action-oriented certitudes and the characters not being able to grow with repeated viewings, but the faux documentary set up is faux. Many shots at the beginning have no basis with documentaries at all either. The ties in are loose and meant to be because the film is more interested in the fictional elements. If the film was a full documentary recreation, the film would have been criticized for not being able to get beyond the documentary summations and really make full characterization of the characters. District 9 carrying over loose associations with docs and get more full on character/story is more interesting. Yes, the story is action oriented, but the film has a lot more detail than a film like Children of Men which falters into a tonal exercise and over preachiness.