District 9

There are two ways to look at why District 9 is a bad movie. The first and slightly unfair way is in relation to the previous work of director Neill Blomkamp. His first major short Alive in Joburg (2005) on which the film is based, was a deep exploration of race/class relations and filming techniques. Outside of Blomkamp’s stellar CG workings (making everything look more realistic and seamless than most high budget films I’ve seen), the film operated on a deeper level which is apparent in some of his other work. Like Tempbot (2006), Blomkamp non-reality based characters (robots and aliens) serve as proxies for discussing elements of the human condition and modern dilemmas. In Alive in Joburg it was the treatment of refugees and the horrible conditions of South African apartheid. In Tempbot it was a very quaint discussion of workplace futility and awkward love. In District 9 it’s nothing. All hopes of a substantial discussion outside of aliens and guns is lost as soon as the film moves away from its documentary style and instead follows a single unlikable character for the rest of the film. The native South African population from the outset is not shown as victims of their environment or oppressive government; instead they are lowly, dirty drug lords, apparently the reasoning for the corruption of their newly acquainted alien counterparts. Yes the aliens are supposed to be symbolic of the maltreated population of South Africa, but the film quickly explains that they are the way they are because they lack higher brain activity, any sense of leadership and are violent scavengers. Like real people South Africans right? No. Like all the other characters in this film, everything is very shallow and poorly executed. Hyperbolic but without relevance.

This brings me to the second reason why this is a bad movie. Looking at it as a summer action film (because a spaceship doesn’t make it sci-fi), outside of the expectations of his previous work, the film is just weak. The plot is very rushed and poorly focused. The initially silly and quirky but very quickly dull and unlikable protagonist Wikus Van De Merwe, leads us on a very elementary progression through tragic fall and pointless salvation. He’s still a dick at the end, but he saved one alien so now we should like him. All the other characters aren’t much better, from the evil evil white corporate leaders of MNU (multinational untied, which alone is chuckle worthy), to the evil evil muscle man henchman who just won’t die, until he gets his just deserts. And don’t even get me started on the wife. All the characters are simple and obvious. No higher workings here.

Science Fiction has never been about cool gadgets or creatures. That’s a nice side dish that comes with the great meal. The real meat of what makes sci-fi great is the use of fantastical fiction to discuss relevant topics. From TNG to Blade Runner (1982), the elements that make these sci-fi classics great are the characters and their stories. Yes the space age tech and cyberpunk is what draws you in, but the compelling ideas and character at work are what keep you there. In District 9 the sci-fi elements are all stripped away in favor of cool guns and rehashed action. The one possible positive point here is that Blomkamp’ s style shines through the mess with his clever weapon and vehicle design. But his image of future corporate technology is swept aside by a character whose main dialogue is “fuck”, and aliens with no characteristics what so ever. If the film focused on the aliens, their lives on earth, their lives before, some method and reason behind their displacement, the mother ship, their struggle and fall, we could have had an interesting movie. Instead it’s all about one very unlikable character paired up with a single alien who for some reason is nothing like every other character we’ve met. Why? Just because that’s what the story needed, stock intelligent scientist alien trying to save his race.

That said the film does start out on a good leg. The opening ten minutes are very well put together and executed, feeling very similar to the original short. Had the whole film been like the first and last 10 minutes (fully keeping with the documentary style instead of just switching to camera filters randomly), we would have had an excellent movie which did more than your basic summer hit. Instead we get a film which promises more but does less. The point ultimately falls flat on its ass in favor of explosions and 10 seconds or less shots to keep the action going.

District 9 could have shown us something special about the power of film, to illuminate and discuss difficult topics. Instead it shows us how a budget can ruin a director’s vision. Thank you very much Peter Jackson for bringing light to this talented director. Here’s hoping we get more from Neill Blomkamp, with a little more style and a little less trivialness.

District 9 is currently playing in theaters across Toronto. If you like explosions and cool looking guns then check it out. If not I recommend the following as good sci-fi.

Moon (2009)

Hopefully still in theaters, moon is a refreshingly simple but brilliant low budget film showcasing actor Sam Rockwell and first time director Duncan Jones. The film explores themes of identity and purpose all wrapped up with interesting ideas of isolation and human/robot relations. Definitely a see for sci-fi fans.

Solaris (2002)

One of the few remakes I really enjoyed. While not fully embracing Tarkovsky’s visions, Soderbergh’s re-imagining applies his style beautifully to the initial dilemma of death, nostalgia and love in space. Though some tote this as a chick-flick, I think its more than bearable and very eye catching.

Sunshine (2007)

Another space sci-fi film, but a great one at that. It’s another one of the reasons that I think Danny Boyle is still a great filmmakers (in spite of Slumdog Millionaire). Effective style, edge of your seat confrontations and Cillian Murphy (*drools a little*). Good movie all around.

Click here for the original short Alive in Joburg (2005) and here for another short Tempbot (2006)

(5.5/10)

You may also dig:

  1. GREATEST FUCKING MOVIE OF ALL TIME – The Room (2003)
  2. Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea
  3. Kick-Ass
  4. FILM REVIEW: Drive

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AlecMcKay AlecMcKay

    While I enjoyed a lot of the aesthetical elements of the film (especially Blomkamp's sense of rhythm and editing) the arugably video game inspired punctual action was attractive and weighted, steeped with imagination, BUT, 100% of your argument was what was rattling around in the back of my mind the whole film. I found that the agitated universal meaning was bewilering, even by the end. What was this movie trying to say? Either consistently contradictory or hypocritical, or perhaps that was the point (which seems more confusing than other alternatives) The narrative shifed it's focus to justify why there were action scenes, or cowboys in white and black hats, and when the going got tough, you could always rely on "Humans are capable of atrocity" cliche parables and the daft apartheid connections everybody else seems to make.

    I think you said it best "Hyperbolic but without relevance." I would like to go again to find if I can make more connections or make sense of the puzzle of opinions this movie was throwing in different places, but I feel the hyperbole may have been there to add colour to an otherwise custom "cannot we all get along" story. Regardless, I think the bravado and audaciousness of scope and imagination would warrant another star and half from me, but this is a great review.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AlecMcKay AlecMcKay

    While I enjoyed a lot of the aesthetical elements of the film (especially Blomkamp's sense of rhythm and editing) the arugably video game inspired punctual action was attractive and weighted, steeped with imagination, BUT, 100% of your argument was what was rattling around in the back of my mind the whole film. I found that the agitated universal meaning was bewilering, even by the end. What was this movie trying to say? Either consistently contradictory or hypocritical, or perhaps that was the point (which seems more confusing than other alternatives) The narrative shifed it's focus to justify why there were action scenes, or cowboys in white and black hats, and when the going got tough, you could always rely on "Humans are capable of atrocity" cliche parables and the daft apartheid connections everybody else seems to make.

    I think you said it best "Hyperbolic but without relevance." I would like to go again to find if I can make more connections or make sense of the puzzle of opinions this movie was throwing in different places, but I feel the hyperbole may have been there to add colour to an otherwise custom "cannot we all get along" story. Regardless, I think the bravado and audaciousness of scope and imagination would warrant another star and half from me, but this is a great review.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AlecMcKay AlecMcKay

    While I enjoyed a lot of the aesthetical elements of the film (especially Blomkamp's sense of rhythm and editing) the arugably video game inspired punctual action was attractive and weighted, steeped with imagination, BUT, 100% of your argument was what was rattling around in the back of my mind the whole film. I found that the agitated universal meaning was bewilering, even by the end. What was this movie trying to say? Either consistently contradictory or hypocritical, or perhaps that was the point (which seems more confusing than other alternatives) The narrative shifed it's focus to justify why there were action scenes, or cowboys in white and black hats, and when the going got tough, you could always rely on "Humans are capable of atrocity" cliche parables and the daft apartheid connections everybody else seems to make.

    I think you said it best "Hyperbolic but without relevance." I would like to go again to find if I can make more connections or make sense of the puzzle of opinions this movie was throwing in different places, but I feel the hyperbole may have been there to add colour to an otherwise custom "cannot we all get along" story. Regardless, I think the bravado and audaciousness of scope and imagination would warrant another star and half from me, but this is a great review.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AlecMcKay AlecMcKay

    While I enjoyed a lot of the aesthetical elements of the film (especially Blomkamp's sense of rhythm and editing) the arugably video game inspired punctual action was attractive and weighted, steeped with imagination, BUT, 100% of your argument was what was rattling around in the back of my mind the whole film. I found that the agitated universal meaning was bewilering, even by the end. What was this movie trying to say? Either consistently contradictory or hypocritical, or perhaps that was the point (which seems more confusing than other alternatives) The narrative shifed it's focus to justify why there were action scenes, or cowboys in white and black hats, and when the going got tough, you could always rely on "Humans are capable of atrocity" cliche parables and the daft apartheid connections everybody else seems to make.

    I think you said it best "Hyperbolic but without relevance." I would like to go again to find if I can make more connections or make sense of the puzzle of opinions this movie was throwing in different places, but I feel the hyperbole may have been there to add colour to an otherwise custom "cannot we all get along" story. Regardless, I think the bravado and audaciousness of scope and imagination would warrant another star and half from me, but this is a great review.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/hearwax Logan Broger

    I thought this movie was wicked. Along the lines of an 8 for me.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/hearwax Logan Broger

    I thought this movie was wicked. Along the lines of an 8 for me.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/hearwax Logan Broger

    I thought this movie was wicked. Along the lines of an 8 for me.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Vend Vendicious

    i'll admit the 5.5 is biased by my disappointment (which is a fault more so of my expectations and not the movie itself)
    so i'll say instead 5.5 – 6.5.
    But my upset really comes down to this just being such a mediocre film.
    His other work really excelled and connecting fantastical elements with reality. Making it seem like people and events rather than characters and stories.
    This film was just a forgettable action film. Nothing new.
    On a brighter note if you haven't already, check out his 2 original shorts above. really shows the directors potential.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Vend Vendicious

    i'll admit the 5.5 is biased by my disappointment (which is a fault more so of my expectations and not the movie itself)
    so i'll say instead 5.5 – 6.5.
    But my upset really comes down to this just being such a mediocre film.
    His other work really excelled and connecting fantastical elements with reality. Making it seem like people and events rather than characters and stories.
    This film was just a forgettable action film. Nothing new.
    On a brighter note if you haven't already, check out his 2 original shorts above. really shows the directors potential.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Vend Vendicious

    i'll admit the 5.5 is biased by my disappointment (which is a fault more so of my expectations and not the movie itself)
    so i'll say instead 5.5 – 6.5.
    But my upset really comes down to this just being such a mediocre film.
    His other work really excelled and connecting fantastical elements with reality. Making it seem like people and events rather than characters and stories.
    This film was just a forgettable action film. Nothing new.
    On a brighter note if you haven't already, check out his 2 original shorts above. really shows the directors potential.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Vend Vendicious

    i'll admit the 5.5 is biased by my disappointment (which is a fault more so of my expectations and not the movie itself)
    so i'll say instead 5.5 – 6.5.
    But my upset really comes down to this just being such a mediocre film.
    His other work really excelled and connecting fantastical elements with reality. Making it seem like people and events rather than characters and stories.
    This film was just a forgettable action film. Nothing new.
    On a brighter note if you haven't already, check out his 2 original shorts above. really shows the directors potential.

  • Jovana

    As far as dude-films go, I really enjoyed it. It was kinda slow for me at times… but I'd still give it an 8.

  • Jovana

    As far as dude-films go, I really enjoyed it. It was kinda slow for me at times… but I'd still give it an 8.

  • Jovana

    As far as dude-films go, I really enjoyed it. It was kinda slow for me at times… but I'd still give it an 8.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gergs Gergs

    I still haven't seen this yet. Though, my expectations are huge because of Alive and Tempbot…

    Here's to wishful thinking.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gergs Gergs

    I still haven't seen this yet. Though, my expectations are huge because of Alive and Tempbot…

    Here's to wishful thinking.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gergs Gergs

    I still haven't seen this yet. Though, my expectations are huge because of Alive and Tempbot…

    Here's to wishful thinking.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gabriel_Nylund Gabriel_Nylund

    I just watched this film earlier, and came home more disappointed than I expected to be. the film just didn't know what it wanted to be. The more I noticed the film shyed away from the "documentary film" lens, the more this became evident. Like a kid in a shopping cart, it was reaching out for a lot of products to make it's trip seem fun, but in the end is left with a shopping cart full of an inconsistent collection of products.

    Was it a documentary? Was it a showcase of archived gov't footage (btw, what was with the camera's in the mensroom? And how did "officials" know to look through it for our protagonist? Dodgy if you ask me)? Or was it straight up hollywood trying to patronize what they viewed as a simple-minded movie-going demographic?

    And no where does it explain WHY the aliens flew to earth…why they couldn't leave… why a simple tube of fluid is supposed to be able to magically enable a town-sized mothership to fly home…or how, if it was so debilitated, the ship was able float non-stop for so many consecutive years. OH, and why that miniship needed the fluid to fly to the mothership if could have just been picked up by that tractor beam it had. Maybe the fluid was necessary for the flight back to the homeworld, but the film doesn't even bother to spend thirty seconds explaining that, when it instead seemed to favor a large amount of sequences of the protagonist running like a stray dog.

    Josh, you were right, the all-too-convenient plot devices (ala magic spaceman scientist) seemed to stand out all too well.

    Despite all this, I found there are certain props the movie deserves. It made for pretty eye candy. Such as with the very cyberpunk mechsuit our protagonist was magically capable of understanding how to pilot. And I feel compelled to applaud Blomkamp's efforts to produce a film in the relatively knew genre of faux-documentary films (like Cloverfield). Films like this seem to exhibit that this genre is still learning to stand up on it's own, so I suppose missteps it's guilty of are understandable…to a degree.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Vend Vendicious

      Much agreed.
      To clarify, I respect both Blomkamp's method and approach greatly, and don't blame him for the major failures of the film. In fact I hope this film is greatly successful so that we may see where he takes his style next. It's just as a film, it was horribly unfulfilled.
      But yes this style of "faux" documentary is really compelling and I hope to see more.
      Let's see what happens with Halo!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Vend Vendicious

      Much agreed.
      To clarify, I respect both Blomkamp's method and approach greatly, and don't blame him for the major failures of the film. In fact I hope this film is greatly successful so that we may see where he takes his style next. It's just as a film, it was horribly unfulfilled.
      But yes this style of "faux" documentary is really compelling and I hope to see more.
      Let's see what happens with Halo!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Vend Vendicious

      Much agreed.
      To clarify, I respect both Blomkamp's method and approach greatly, and don't blame him for the major failures of the film. In fact I hope this film is greatly successful so that we may see where he takes his style next. It's just as a film, it was horribly unfulfilled.
      But yes this style of "faux" documentary is really compelling and I hope to see more.
      Let's see what happens with Halo!

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/hearwax Logan Broger

        Isn't this movie what happened instead of Halo? I'm pretty sure that got canceled, no?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Vend Vendicious

          Yes Blomkamp's Halo was cancelled,
          but i've been hearing from several places online that Jackson is taking over the project officially this time.
          Or not.
          We'll see what happens, but it would be interested if it still adopted some of Blomkamp's style.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/hearwax Logan Broger

        Isn't this movie what happened instead of Halo? I'm pretty sure that got canceled, no?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/hearwax Logan Broger

        Isn't this movie what happened instead of Halo? I'm pretty sure that got canceled, no?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gabriel_Nylund Gabriel_Nylund

    I just watched this film earlier, and came home more disappointed than I expected to be. the film just didn't know what it wanted to be. The more I noticed the film shyed away from the "documentary film" lens, the more this became evident. Like a kid in a shopping cart, it was reaching out for a lot of products to make it's trip seem fun, but in the end is left with a shopping cart full of an inconsistent collection of products.

    Was it a documentary? Was it a showcase of archived gov't footage (btw, what was with the camera's in the mensroom? And how did "officials" know to look through it for our protagonist? Dodgy if you ask me)? Or was it straight up hollywood trying to patronize what they viewed as a simple-minded movie-going demographic?

    And no where does it explain WHY the aliens flew to earth…why they couldn't leave… why a simple tube of fluid is supposed to be able to magically enable a town-sized mothership to fly home…or how, if it was so debilitated, the ship was able float non-stop for so many consecutive years. OH, and why that miniship needed the fluid to fly to the mothership if could have just been picked up by that tractor beam it had. Maybe the fluid was necessary for the flight back to the homeworld, but the film doesn't even bother to spend thirty seconds explaining that, when it instead seemed to favor a large amount of sequences of the protagonist running like a stray dog.

    Josh, you were right, the all-too-convenient plot devices (ala magic spaceman scientist) seemed to stand out all too well.

    Despite all this, I found there are certain props the movie deserves. It made for pretty eye candy. Such as with the very cyberpunk mechsuit our protagonist was magically capable of understanding how to pilot. And I feel compelled to applaud Blomkamp's efforts to produce a film in the relatively knew genre of faux-documentary films (like Cloverfield). Films like this seem to exhibit that this genre is still learning to stand up on it's own, so I suppose missteps it's guilty of are understandable…to a degree.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gabriel_Nylund Gabriel_Nylund

    I just watched this film earlier, and came home more disappointed than I expected to be. the film just didn't know what it wanted to be. The more I noticed the film shyed away from the "documentary film" lens, the more this became evident. Like a kid in a shopping cart, it was reaching out for a lot of products to make it's trip seem fun, but in the end is left with a shopping cart full of an inconsistent collection of products.

    Was it a documentary? Was it a showcase of archived gov't footage (btw, what was with the camera's in the mensroom? And how did "officials" know to look through it for our protagonist? Dodgy if you ask me)? Or was it straight up hollywood trying to patronize what they viewed as a simple-minded movie-going demographic?

    And no where does it explain WHY the aliens flew to earth…why they couldn't leave… why a simple tube of fluid is supposed to be able to magically enable a town-sized mothership to fly home…or how, if it was so debilitated, the ship was able float non-stop for so many consecutive years. OH, and why that miniship needed the fluid to fly to the mothership if could have just been picked up by that tractor beam it had. Maybe the fluid was necessary for the flight back to the homeworld, but the film doesn't even bother to spend thirty seconds explaining that, when it instead seemed to favor a large amount of sequences of the protagonist running like a stray dog.

    Josh, you were right, the all-too-convenient plot devices (ala magic spaceman scientist) seemed to stand out all too well.

    Despite all this, I found there are certain props the movie deserves. It made for pretty eye candy. Such as with the very cyberpunk mechsuit our protagonist was magically capable of understanding how to pilot. And I feel compelled to applaud Blomkamp's efforts to produce a film in the relatively knew genre of faux-documentary films (like Cloverfield). Films like this seem to exhibit that this genre is still learning to stand up on it's own, so I suppose missteps it's guilty of are understandable…to a degree.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gabriel_Nylund Gabriel_Nylund

    I just watched this film earlier, and came home more disappointed than I expected to be. the film just didn't know what it wanted to be. The more I noticed the film shyed away from the "documentary film" lens, the more this became evident. Like a kid in a shopping cart, it was reaching out for a lot of products to make it's trip seem fun, but in the end is left with a shopping cart full of an inconsistent collection of products.

    Was it a documentary? Was it a showcase of archived gov't footage (btw, what was with the camera's in the mensroom? And how did "officials" know to look through it for our protagonist? Dodgy if you ask me)? Or was it straight up hollywood trying to patronize what they viewed as a simple-minded movie-going demographic?

    And no where does it explain WHY the aliens flew to earth…why they couldn't leave… why a simple tube of fluid is supposed to be able to magically enable a town-sized mothership to fly home…or how, if it was so debilitated, the ship was able float non-stop for so many consecutive years. OH, and why that miniship needed the fluid to fly to the mothership if could have just been picked up by that tractor beam it had. Maybe the fluid was necessary for the flight back to the homeworld, but the film doesn't even bother to spend thirty seconds explaining that, when it instead seemed to favor a large amount of sequences of the protagonist running like a stray dog.

    Josh, you were right, the all-too-convenient plot devices (ala magic spaceman scientist) seemed to stand out all too well.

    Despite all this, I found there are certain props the movie deserves. It made for pretty eye candy. Such as with the very cyberpunk mechsuit our protagonist was magically capable of understanding how to pilot. And I feel compelled to applaud Blomkamp's efforts to produce a film in the relatively knew genre of faux-documentary films (like Cloverfield). Films like this seem to exhibit that this genre is still learning to stand up on it's own, so I suppose missteps it's guilty of are understandable…to a degree.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Vend Vendicious

      Much agreed.
      To clarify, I respect both Blomkamp's method and approach greatly, and don't blame him for the major failures of the film. In fact I hope this film is greatly successful so that we may see where he takes his style next. It's just as a film, it was horribly unfulfilled.
      But yes this style of "faux" documentary is really compelling and I hope to see more.
      Let's see what happens with Halo!

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/hearwax Logan Broger

        Isn't this movie what happened instead of Halo? I'm pretty sure that got canceled, no?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Vend Vendicious

          Yes Blomkamp's Halo was cancelled,
          but i've been hearing from several places online that Jackson is taking over the project officially this time.
          Or not.
          We'll see what happens, but it would be interested if it still adopted some of Blomkamp's style.

  • Jovana

    As far as dude-films go, I really enjoyed it. It was kinda slow for me at times… but I'd still give it an 8.