Hey everyone,
I just got back from the theatre, and as the title suggests, I saw District 9, the new sci-fi flick from Peter Jackson and Neil Blomkhamp.
If you don't know what this movie is about, here's an outline of the plot:
30 years ago, an alien ship appeared over Johannesburg, South Africa. The aliens did not go on the attack, nor did they extend their hands/claws in friendship. In fact, they were refugees, fleeing their homeworld for reasons unknown. The South African government placed the aliens in a temporary refugee camp called District 9, but the sheer numbers of them (1.8 million, to be exact), coupled with the inability to harness thier amazing technology, caused the government to lose patience with the aliens (derrisively called "Prawns" by the humans) and turn over responsibility for them to a giant corperation known as Multi-National United, or MNU.
I'm a huge sci-fi fan, so I was excited to see this on general principles, and the reversal on the aliens VS. humans story was icing on the cake. However, I was worried that the aliens would be portrayed as completely innocent and persecuted, while the humans would be painted as evil and cruel.
Fortunately, this was not the case. Although the aliens are the "good guys", and I use that term VERY loosely, neither species is portrayed as either irredeemable or angelic.
What I especially loved was how it toyed with a very old concept: that of "the monster".
The aliens themselves are hideous, insectoid abonminations that look like they crawled out of Hell. Thier huge claws, hanging tendrils, unintelligible clicking language, and quick, anamalistic movments disavow them of any significant human qualities, and thier mryiad illegal activites and hostile attitude towards humans make them hard to root for, even though they are they victims of oppression.
The humans who police District 9 aren't any better, and may be even worse. They constantly call the aliens "Prawns", after a bottom-feeding parasite, ignore the plight of the aliens, and some seem to enjoy inflicting punisment on them, even when that punishment is of the completely innocent (more on that later).
But what most twisted the aforementioned idea was the (literal) transformation of the protaganist, Wikus van der Wewe. In the movie's opening minutes, Wikus demonstrates his contempt for the aliens, constantly using the slur Prawns, easily losing his temper, and frequently lacing his speech toward the aliens with profanity and sarcasm. In fact, when Wikus finds an illegal incubator housing unhatched eggs i.e., unborn alien babies, he calmly detatches the feeding tubes and orders the place torched. As the building burns, the eggs burst with a cacauphony of pops, which Wikus similingly comments "sounds just like popcorn".
Later, however, Wikus is exposed to a virus that slowly changes his generics to that of the aliens.
And there is where the concept of "the monster", which has seemingly been hotwired into our brains since the start of civilization, is completely turned on its head. Wikus' actions are deplorable, and some do warrent the title of "monster". And yet, the only way he achieves redemption is by helping the very creatures he has helped persecute, whose mere appearance can be called monsterous, this brought on by his slow transformation into one of them.
In other words, Wikus' attempts to right the actions that made him a monster are a result of his slow transformation into what he always percieved as a monster.
======================================================================================
As nice as it is for movies to have subtle philosophy, that's no good if the movie isn't entertaining to watch, and District 9 definitely fits that description. Though there aren't any real fight scenes until somewhat late in the movie, but the trek through the titular camp has a good number of suspenseful moments, and does ans excellent job of introducing the principle characters.
The titular camp is perhaps the most visually-striking thing in the movie. It is filthy, crowded, and reeking of desparations, ths effect made all the stronger by the contrast between the camp and the bustling, lively streets of Johanessburg.
The action scenes, though they occur late in the movie are worth the wait. They are visceral and exciting without being overblown.
Now for some warnings:
There are a great number of distubing scenes in the movie, such as the aforementioned burning of the incubator, and a terrifying scene in which a Wikus is tortured with electricity to make him test alien weaponry.
This movie is rated 'R' for a reason. Limbs are ripped from bodies, characters explode in a red mist when hit by alien weaponry, and profanity is abundant. This movie is NOT for the faint of heart.
*Phew!* That was a long post. What did you guys think of District 9?
I sense a kindred spirit! (and I don't mean Bruce Willis')
This is spoilers, so don't read it if you don't want to hear what I thought about the movie, and a little bit about what happens. It's also mostly a copy-paste of something I posted in another forum. I just felt like sharing here too. 8)
The deplorable acts, and brutality of the movie can be directly related to current and past treatment of humans versus humans. I thought it was a novel idea to use that as a human vs alien concept. The movie was not was I was expecting, but that's not why I didn't like it. Taking the movie for what is was, not what I thought it was, I came up with this.
I think the movie had some good and unique ideas, and it was very well done, but I'm not sure I liked it. Beyond each event being entirely predictable, a few parts made me roll my eyes, stop caring, and disengage from the story. When Wikus hit Chris in the head and then tried to take control of the plan for himself (I'm trying to be vague for those who haven't seen it) I could have happily fallen through the giant gaping plot hole into my living room and far, far away from that terrible movie (if that was the ending). Luckily the movie didn't end there and slightly redeemed itself, but all in all there were more than a few scenes and glaring logical mistakes that just seemed beyond ridiculous. Those flaws pushed it from an analogous and almost-could've-been-wonderful movie about human nature; with a different story than your average storyline, to a decent movie I wouldn't recommend. It wasn't a bad movie exactly, and it was very well made, it's just the plot holes kept punching me in the face.
In more detail, and with extra spoilers...
sorry for the double post, it wouldn't let me paste this half in the first post for some reason.
When Wikus betrays Chris it can be taken as an embodiement of human nature, granted, but is also beyond any concept of idiocy. It wasn't in his best interest at all. It was, in fact, the exact opposite of his best interest in every way, shape and form.The fact that he could pilot an alien device that he could have no idea how to operate (there is no evidence that the top minds of the world have any clue whatsoever as to how any of the alien tech operates, how could he possibly have any at all), to fly up to the mothership, and then figure out how to heal himself faster than someone who already knows what's going on and how to fix is, is absurd. If I was watching TV, I would've changed the channel. The other large logic holes can be forgiven because of plausible scenarios or things that had been introduced. For this, you have to pull huge assumptions out of thin air with absolutely no backing. Anything like that = bad movie design for me. I understand the panic flight principle of the situation, but would you knock out a helicopter or jet pilot, then try to take off yourself, then land it on a target (presuming you know where to land), then connect your helicopter to the landing area's power supply, then perform a blood transfusion on yourself? Would anyone at all? You'd get as far as sitting in the pilot's seat and thinking "I'm an idiot." I can't see how anyone could've read that script and said "yeah, this makes sense."Wikus could have still panicked, tried to attacked Chris, but been calmed down/thrown down into the craft/any number of things that didn't involve him suddenly knowing how to fly alien tech. It would have followed a less asinine set of events if Chris had taken off as planned, and then they were both captured after the crash but the kid wasn't discovered. Then the rest of the events that followed could have still happened almost exactly as is without any change at all. Things that appallingly bad take me out of the movie experience and practically ruin the entire movie for me. Especially when it's at such an important part of the story, it sucks to be ripped out of it when I want to like the movie so much.
I thought it was a good movie, but I expected more.
I had trouble believing a few things with the movie, namely:
Of course, the terrible characters did not help. I only liked two characters in the film, and neither of them were human. The film certainly suffers from Shinji (Evangelion) syndrome.
Just a quick note: I felt that the film was an examination of Apartheid and Nazism (human experimentation and internment). As a critique of Apartheid alone, it is beyond hyperbole. For social commentary on Nazi war crimes, I much prefer the brilliant Schindler's List.
I really enjoyed the movie but have to admit that I got a little bit sick to my stomach from the shaky camera. I think this was the best movie I've seen this summer but have to admit that I skipped Transformers 2 and G Force.
I'm aware that this was the intent of the film, but I was not persuaded.
I saw it about an hour ago. Loved it loved it loved it!!!
Time for another list:
Overall, a great, fairly deep "ethical" movie that didn't get detectably preachy. The SFX were top-notch (does anybody know if the aliens were completely CG, or if there were actually people in suites involved at some point?), and the characters (even the gang leader and the head thug) were very...... sentient (I don't particularly want to say "human" in this case ). Now for the nits:
^ I tend to care less about issues of biology/science (this film doesn't attempt to validate itself, scientifically, so it isn't too productive to question these things), and more about plot holes, contradictions, and generally unbelievable things in regards to human nature. This film irks me on many of these issues, so I cannot assign it the praise that others are so willing to grant it.
I still don't see what you found to be so bad about the characters. Just because they are flawed or not likeable as people, doesn't mean that they are protrayed badly...... there were no real plot holes either, besides the minor nits....... and one more thing: if a movie is inspired by a real-world event, that doews not mean it has to significantly resemble that event.
If you want a cheap movie that has influenced a hell of a lot of movies since....check out Mad Max ['Road Warrior' in the US - they got all sensitive about 'mad']. Budget was 300,000 [and that's AUD]...
It's great that we're living in an age when CGI allows so many SF movies to be realised.
I enjoyed District 9 ... and that battle armour has me hanging out for a Mechwarrior movie some-when....
Re the film ratings in Oz, District 9 wouldn't have qualified for an 'R'. It's actually comparatively tame. Incidentally, the FIRST movie shown in Australia with an 'R' rating was A Clockwork Orange ..... and that was at a time when it was 'edited' [censored] for US distribution [as was the book] and Kubrick pulled the plug on its showing/release in the UK because they wanted to censor it there too...and he had total rights/control over its showing/release in the UK. [Incidentally I first saw it in the UK...in '73 in one of the pre-release showings].
BTW.... Mad Max was censored in the US, as was even one of the 'Die Hard' movies [no showing of what was written on his sandwich board he was 'wearing']...
The movie i just begging for a sequel... "...3 years had past and BOOOM they came, the once master of the refugees were now refugees themselves" sequel will be reversed roles and nr3 we all get to be friends and hold hands its a no brainer.
Im not sure what the aliens would do when they return. other them demand that all there weapons from the old ship returned. Theyd probably declare war against either humanity or just MNU. Either way it would be a short sequil.
Short? ever seen war of the worlds? independence day? they made those into full length movies.... doom of humanity you can milk that forever.. just watch the terminator movies.
Spoiler Warning
Ahh, delicious plot holes. We could go on and on forever about how Starwars doesn't work, or we could admit the fact that, hey, it's a fictional story! As in, doesn't exist. We all get that you couldn't really have a planet with an empty core, or that has nothing but water in the core with land on the surface, etc. The point of a movie, Science Fiction, Fantasy, or simply Fiction, is to tell a story about the lives of characters, often with an overall meaning, theme, or moral. If we really wanted to get into all this, we could go on forever about the gravity manipulation device that seems to use no matter, or the perpetual floating ship. But then we wouldn't have much fiction to watch. Just a bunch of people fixing loopholes in the 2 or 3 existing movies.
In terms of the holes with characters doing things that don't benefit them in the long run (stealing an alien ship), we sometimes forget that in the heat of the moment, everyone has a chance to lose their wits. How would you feel if you were told you would be turned into a sub-human for 3 years, and most-likely die before rescue? For but a few seconds, he felt that he had a better shot stealing a craft and helping himself.
I don't see the point of a sequel. To come back and make some kind of War of the Worlds or Independence Day movie out of it would be like making a Independence Day 2, a romantic comedy about Captain Steven Hiller's experiences with dating and fame when he from destroying the alien mothership.
Did we learn nothing from the Matrix?
Ahh but you see, you are missing the point..... cash is big enough point for most involved and those who watched independence day and war of the worlds would probably watch another invasion flick....
And there is no we.. its the studios and then theres the suckers who pay them... us
The Wachowski brothers probably didn't even tarnish the Matrix because they wanted more cash, I got the impression they did it because the movie was a bit of a fluke and they didn't really understand what made it cool in the first place.
This demands to be repeated. Well said.
As for this, if viewers are unable to suspend disbelief during a film, plot holes become apparent. A movie that attempts to feel realistic is afforded fewer liberties in its fabrications of behavior and setting.
For those unfamiliar with my point, look into a theory known as the willful suspension of disbelief.
The problem here is that the sheer number of plot holes in any Sci-Fi that has aliens visiting earth can be so immense that it would take more than an entire movie to fill out the universe with an explanation, i.e., Star Wars syndrome. Instead, one is more likely to "get away" with plot holes by registering a believable atmosphere, which I felt the movie accomplished quite nicely.
One can prove the effects of atmosphere by looking at the success of movies such as Harry Potter and Equillibrium, which are quite successful films despite an overabundance of plot holes.
I suppose it depends on your definition of "plot hole", but I actualy found comparitively few of them in the movie..... maybe that's because I only consider a potential hole to be "valid" if you can't easily think of an explanation after the fact. Blomkamp simply implied a lot of details, as opposed to coming directly out and saying "X happened becuase of Y". As for the characters' actons, just remember that human behavior usually doesn't make sense, even in the real world.
Well, in response to the posts above, I tend to be very forgiving when it comes to sci-fi films and questions of technology and setting. However, because District 9 attempts such a realistic presentation (the cinematography is more documentary than classic film), I feel compelled to criticize it as something more. Perhaps the hype associated with the movie has also intensified by criticism.
It was a good movie, but I am still curious about a plot hole or two. I would love to know how the aliens on board that crazy high tech ship got reduced to what they were when the humans in the haz-mat suits found them. Also how that one or two of them kept their wits about them enough to be intelligent enough to throw together computers and make fuel for their ship out of raw materials laying around District nine.
I guess the guys who made the film just wanted to leave that up to speculation.
MNU=X-Com... take this as you will.
Blomkamp had a lucky shot at a rare Jackson production while hundreds of spec-scripts with similar "Sci-Fi" issues are gathering dust in a network of Hollywood studios "referencing" agents; Tomb Taider or Resident Evil (sounds familiar?) -- that was still a direct interpretation of the Mythos game X-Com.
Refer to this woca thread if you don't believe the usual yearly cinema competition isn't furious & opportunistic.
As for the second, Johnson and his short-lived yellow friend were probably responsible for maintianing the ship's systems in the first place.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
