PDA

View Full Version : DISTRICT 9 (Neill Blomkamp 2009)



Chris Knipp
08-15-2009, 12:23 AM
Neill Blomkamp: District 9 (2009)

Review by Chris Knipp

Cat food for the "prawns" and caviar to the general

How odd to set a sci-fi horror movie in and around Johannesburg, South Africa. That's where a big fuzzy looking space ship has been hovering in the air for twenty years, we're told during the mocumentary opening footage at the outset of Neill Blomkamp's District 9 explaining how a gang of terminator-torso creatures would up here by accident, starving, and were settled in a compound on the edge of the city called District 9 that's become a hideous slum. District 9 is now a place despised by all South Africans, black and white. The unfortunate outer space refugees confined there, whose insect-reptilian look and proclivity for feeding on rubbish, bad meat, and cat food has led to their being called "prawns" by the general, are to be relocated to a tent camp 200 miles out by a wealthy independent contractor called MNU (Multi-National United).

By the time all this has been laid out for us, of course, it's obvious Johannesburg isn't so "odd" as a setting for the story at all, just heavy-handed. The location chosen by South African director Blomkamp is a blatant way of making this a sort of allegory about man's inhumanity to those he considers his inferiors, like the blacks in the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa. The only trouble is, the film thus begins with a creakily obvious story device.

Another trouble with this unholy combination of bits from Black Hawk Down, RoboCop, Transformers, Aliens, The Fly -- one could go on and on; even the roundly condemned (but wonderfully intense) Cloverfield is a far better use of the vérité style with more character development -- is that it points to how aliens are being cruelly treated and then presents them as disgusting. Some pleasure comes out of how that disgust is milked, however, because the interiors of the "prawns'" shacks, a riot of technology and degraded junk, show the designers had a lot of fun with them, as they do with the exteriors of the shantytown, a kind of sci-fi Mogadishu (actually, in the Ridley Scott's film, recreated in the suburbs of Rabat, Morocco). Even when it descends into actioner schlock, District 9 does make ingenious use of its low budget and limited locations. And even if its characters are mostly clichés, the degenerating relationships in the protagonist's life are poignant enough.

District 9 is a conversion story, because Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley), the goofy bureaucrat put in charge of the relocation, who's the son-in-law of MNU's owner, starts out with contempt for the aliens but ends up being, sort of, their ally. More than that. When invading the house of one of them, he spills some black fluid from a vial onto his face and starts sprouting a "prawn" claw where his left hand used to be. Then, the whites want to use him to kill aliens, because his new DNA allows him to fire alien weapons that are the only thing that can finish them off. And a Nigerian gangster, who preys off the aliens, stockpiling their special weaponry and extorting enormous sums from them for tinned cat food, wants to consume Wikus' arm because he thinks it will make him superhuman. Anyway, Wikus is forced to befriend the "prawn" whose shack contained the fluid, because he (or it) may be able to help him. And so he who was to have been the aliens' concentration camp director now becomes their protector.

But if the "prawns" are vulnerable only to their own weapons which only they can fire, it seems easy enough to hurt them in other ways. This movie just isn't very well thought out. There's no further back story for the aliens either. Where do they get money? What do they do all day? These things we never learn. Nor, unlike the flawed but superior Children of Men, are local events put in the context of global ones.

Copley is (perhaps intentionally?) a wooden actor when he first appears being "filmed' at his desk as publicity for the eviction and relocation project. He livens up when he gets involved in the violent action in the "prawns'" ghetto. For a while, he seems a complex hero, morphing from doofus into bigot, then pariah, then cross-over, then selfless savior. But during this interesting progress the movie unfortunately descends just as rapidly from its allegorical sci-fi setup into more and more crude levels of B-picture action and horror.

And this crudity only reminds us of how clumsy the fake TV news, surveillance footage, documentary interviews with academics or technicians and other bits of hack "realism" have been, and highlights how crudely drawn the MNU operatives and Wikus' family members are. And how utterly derivative the aliens' body shapes are. And how inexplicable it is that the "prawns" speak in the usual sci-fi movie guttural backwards-tape alien language, which is subtitled for us, but the white men all understand it, and the aliens all understand English. By the time you get to the end of District 9, however intense its sometimes George Romero-worthy yuck scenes have been along the way, it has just become an utter, irredeemable mess. And that's too bad because there are some ingenious ideas buried here, and the first half lets you think instead of just watch people and critters bang into each other.

The final insult is to find that this movie is being heralded as "original" and "smart," while the only reason it's being so widely shown (in over 3,000 US theaters!) is that the South African-born director is a protégé of LOR mega-director Peter Jackson. No wonder the story line has references to nepotism in it. But I am in the minority here. District 9 has received raves and only a few mavericks like Armond White and Michael Sragow are unimpressed. (To liven things up, Ebert even supported White's right to pan this -- then withdrew his support.) Sragow points to the film's "derivative" quality, its stylistic inconsistency, and the way its scenes seem composed in "shuffle mode." Having a black point of view himself, White points out that District 9 trivializes and makes a hash of the South African liberation struggle, and is understandably offended also at how Nigerians are used in the story. And indeed, since whatever sympathy is shallowly evoked for the "prawns," this is a film that, as mentioned, acts out the kind of prejudice it ostensibly skewers. As White says, "preposterousness rules in District 9;" but viewers and critics see the movie they want to see, and since this one pushes the right liberal buttons and gives the superficial appearance of being an "original" sci-fi movie, it's making a big noise and doing good box office.

oscar jubis
08-15-2009, 08:53 AM
*District 9 is being widely shown as you say, but not at "4000 theaters". It's playing at 3049 theaters.

*If you watched it on opening night and yesterday's b.o. has not been released as of right now, your comment that it's "doing good box office" feels a bit premature. I understand though that the film is almost guarantee to do good box office.

*But, is Jackson's involvement "the only reason" the film is being widely shown? You really believe that? I thought the trailer looked pretty cool and the genre is popular with the young and early reviews were exceedingly positive. And the other films opening these weekend cater to different audiences. Film is playing at 3000 theaters for many reasons other than Jackson's involvement

Johann
08-15-2009, 09:31 AM
Seeing it today. (with G.I. Joe).
I'll post later tonight.

Chris Knipp
08-15-2009, 10:25 AM
Well, Oscar, I must correct the number of theaters (still very large), but you have been warned: this movie is being overrated, presumably due to good promotion, what looks like an "original" story, and the easy target of apartheid transposed to extra-terrestrials. I am inclined to leave my remark about Jackson's support being essential to the wide release, and about its having good box office (so long as it's not tanking, pretty unlikely in the circumstances). But the important points are that it's a crude movie with many holes in the screenplay. 28 DAYS LATER is much better, but was less well reviewed. It happens that way sometimes. I liked CLOVERFIELD, which tanked, considerably better. It's crude too, but it has a compulsive immediacy, and it uses the "found footage" style more adeptly and consistently. I do not like CHILDREN OF MEN, which similarly received universal approbation for its successful button-pushing, but CHILDREN OF MEN,with its name cast, is far better than DISTRICT 9. The acting in this....well. What can I say?

Johann will be enthusiastic. It has the kind of dark, gonzo wildness he enjoys. Bear in mind that I detested, and detest, THE DARK KNIGHT. Also bear in mind that the terrific LIMITS OF CONTROL has a Metacritic rating of 40.

oscar jubis
08-15-2009, 08:50 PM
Goes without saying that every person has his/her own idea of a great movie. For instance, the only two films released in 2006 I like more than CHILDREN OF MEN are THREE TIMES and HALF NELSON. And I think THE DARK KNIGHT, and UP for that matter, are simply superb. I can never predict beforehand whether I am going to agree with your reviews or not. Or whether I will agree with the critical consensus (my opinion of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and THE HURT LOCKER bear that out). And that makes perfect sense to me.

Chris Knipp
08-15-2009, 09:33 PM
Those are ones that to varying a degrees we disagreed on. I wouldn't assume anybody's part of the "critical consensus." Isn't that really an oxymoron anyway? But speaking loosely of course sometimes we are.

Johann
08-16-2009, 09:39 AM
I can condemn this film and praise it in the same breath.
I loved the War of the Worlds vibe, but it's just so....what's the word?

Corny? Unbelievable? Silly? Preposterous?

The music is ominous and so was that ship.
For a minute I almost went with the story.
Then, I saw the aliens and how the humans reacted to them.
Ridiculous movie.

Johann
08-16-2009, 09:49 AM
But I did like the weapons (which were designed by Weta).
The movie has a good idea but I don't think they thought it through on how to make a really effective film with it...the potential for a killer movie was there, they just kinda missed the mark.

Chris Knipp
08-16-2009, 09:56 AM
Agreed. I'm glad I was wrong predicting you'd be "enthusiastic." "Ridiculous" works. My words when I walked out were "a mess." It doesn't live up to even its poor promise (because the opening idea has potential, but even so it's really crudely done with those 'interviews,' etc.). Despite the good press (which somewhat mystifies me), I see there are plenty of reviewers who weren't impressed. SLATE says
As an allegory of racial conflict and mass immigration, District 9 never really goes anywhere: The appealing premise fades into the background before 20 minutes have elapsed. THE CHICAGO READER says
Unfortunately, as in many such big-screen comic books, the backstory beats the hell out of the present-tense plot, a routine affair in which a well-meaning doofus working for the Man is infected with a virus, starts turning into an alien himself, and falls in with the oppressed creatures.THE WALL STREEET JOURNAL says
There's a wonderfully sly, farcical verve to these early moments, but it dissipates when the script, with its strains of "E.T." and "The Fly," moves into high sci-fi gear. All true. Ebert comments that it "remains space opera," never goes into the realm of superior sci-fi. The look of the "prawns" marks it as hopelessly unoriginal in its basic details.

Chris Knipp
08-16-2009, 10:26 AM
This is being treated (and in many ways looks like) a "low budget" movie. But it cost $30 million. That is low budget? For a South African director working in South Africa?! It really looks like George Romero at his cheapist, But i do like the physical detaials, the interiors of the shacks, and the weapons are pretty good, and also the way the alien weapons fire. But you can't call it a great movie on those bases. The acting. . . .no.

Johann
08-16-2009, 01:52 PM
Yes, really bad acting.
I wished they would've gone for Dr. Strangelove seriousness.
Make it a real black comedy. But they didn't. They made it completely ridiculous, which takes away from the fantastic nature of the "appealing premise" (thanks Slate). It could've been so good...
I agree that the shack interiors and weapons were wonderfully rendered. Great props and sets. And like I say, I really loved the shots of the ship- we usually only get glimpses as helicopters fly away and around it. The handheld camerawork gave it a nice immediacy, but overall it just descends into meaninglessness.
The fighting with the aliens is monotonous at times, special effects for the sake of special effects. And that "dialogue" that the aliens had- it was driving me up the wall after a while!
Sounded like Greedo's voice put through a blender...

I just didn't like it. The action scenes went on and on and then finally there was some tension near the end when the ship begins to finally leave South Africa. I give credit to the filmmakers for the "interviews" or "soundbites" from various people commenting on the phenomenon. They seemed real at times.
But it's all just so silly.
Have a six pack before watching this one.
You might enjoy it more.
Sold out crowd when I went to see it last night and people seemed to love it. Myself, I don't ever want to see it again.

Chris Knipp
08-16-2009, 05:33 PM
I don't drink any more and if I did have a six-pack, I'd have to be running out to pee too much. One other thing: I don't think the mockumentary interviews are convincing as you do, but then those are usually creaky in such movies. Agreed on most other counts.

oscar jubis
08-16-2009, 05:52 PM
CK's comment that the film is "doing good box office" (and my response that the comment was premature but that indeed the film was guaranteed to do just that) turned out to be quite accurate. A $37 million weekend! That's just over $12 thousand per screen! I am in no hurry to watch it but I will. If I end up really liking the picture, the exchanges here would be most interesting since both Chris and Johann disliked it.
I am wondering if the film will have the kind of nosedive from #1 experienced by FUNNY PEOPLE, which is out of the Top 10 two weeks after its release.

Johann
08-16-2009, 05:59 PM
There's actually enough to admire in District 9.
It's just that it desends into meaninglessness.
Especially when the main character becomes an alien.
I mean COME ON...

The spaceship has a powerful presence. Omnipotent-like.
Spielberg would probably like it.
It has enough to certainly entertain you, but as a movie it's got a lot of flaws.

Johann
08-16-2009, 06:02 PM
But what was really exciting to me last night were the trailers beforehand. They were really something.

My interest in Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island is quite substantial. Cinematography looks fantastic, as always with that man.

And a movie that's got my jack up is Scott Stewart's LEGION. What a kick-ass trailer!
Gods, the Apocalypse. Epic, Biblical, Angels and eternal themes.
It looked tremendous on the big screen. Really intense.
I got more out of that trailer than I did of District 9 itself.
No disrespect to Peter Jackson. I can see quite clearly why he'd be attracted to this. "Bad Taste" or "Braindead", anyone?

oscar jubis
08-16-2009, 06:11 PM
The film I await with most excitement would be Peter Jackson's THE LOVELY BONES. And Clint Eastwood's INVICTUS. Both December releases. Jackson and Eastwood are perhaps my favorite mainstream filmmakers.

Johann
08-16-2009, 06:14 PM
Yes, I saw that trailer too. Looks and sounds great.

Chris Knipp
08-16-2009, 06:24 PM
I beg to differ: there is NOT enough to admire in DISTRICT 9. SHUTTER ISLAND looks like a B-horror takeoff. We'll have to see. Of course with DiCaprio and Scorsese we will want to see. I saw a bit of GI JOE. Couldn't watch it. LEGION I have not seen trailers for. Bettany has lost some of his cred with me since his excesses in THE DA VINCI CODE. Actually I am not a fan of BEAUTIFUL MIND but he is a good actor, potentially. I'm more stoked for ARMORED. Looks like good action fun. I like the cast: Fred Ward, Laurence Fisbourne, Matt Dillon, Skeet Ulrich, Jean Reno. And the director of KONTROLL. It looks like M. Night Shyamalan, who has been steadily going down hill for years really bites the big one with his THE LAST AIRBENDER, whose release is deferred to July 2010. "The story follows the adventures of Aang, a young successor to a long line of Avatars, who must put his childhood ways aside and stop the Fire Nation from enslaving the Water, Earth and Air nations." Saw a trailer for it, looked like really bad lighting and a lot of second rate CGI.

Johann
08-16-2009, 06:34 PM
Hey, you gotta admit that the shots of the ship are worth checking out in District 9. Especially on a big screen. But everything else in it? Bleh.

The trailer for Airbender was fantastic to my eye.

Chris Knipp
08-16-2009, 09:21 PM
You must like CGI rather much. The whirling figure in the first show in AIRBENDER was so badly lit, and the second sequence looked so fake. I've already said I like the gritty sets of DISTRICT 9, and bits of the Mothershiop, but the big gray outline in the wide shots, if that's what you mean, didn't do that much for me. I'm not quite sure what he means (his English isn't always clear) but I'll quote the opening of Armond White's by now famous pan of DISTRICT 9 below. It's caused such a stir that you can't find the review on Google, you just get forums discussing it. "Will Armond White pan DISTRICT 9?" one goes. Funny because you'd think people consider him nuts, and he just writes for a free weekly NY tabloid (THE NEW YORK PRESS), so why do people care? Besides which, he is NOT the only person who panned DISTRICT 9. I have already mentioned Michael Sragow of THE BALTIMORE SUN, which is a big city daily (and once was a great paper). And there are other reviewers who were unimpressed. Anyway, here's White:
HOVERING OVER JOHANNESBURG like a CGI outtake from Close Encounters or Independence Day, the Mothership of District 9 looks like a far-off hallucination, something unreal shrouded in atmospheric mist. It is both ominous and ridiculous, yet the movie gets no more creative than that secondhand "gotcha" spectacle So is that grudging admiration? To me, it looks too CGI.

Johann
08-17-2009, 06:25 AM
He used the same two words I did- "ominous" and "ridiculous".
And that is exactly what that movie is. That excerpt is accurate.
The film doesn't get any more creative than with the scenes of the ship. It doesn't go anywhere interesting or engaging.


As for "Airbender" I like it's CGI. It is fake-looking but I like how it's designed- it appeals to my eye. Shayamanallnnna still seems to be finding his way. I'm just saying I liked the trailer I saw very much.

Chris Knipp
08-17-2009, 09:20 AM
Okay..

oscar jubis
08-19-2009, 04:00 PM
I watched DISTRICT 9 today and I have to say that there's a lot to like. This film gets a lot of personality out of its Johannesburg setting. The allegorical aspect is strong and well thought out. The fact that the hero is a dweeb with a most recognizable Afrikaans name makes him quite endearing. Ebert is right that the third act devolves into standard action (or something to that effect). Yet even during this final chapter DISTRICT 9 includes very moving scenes like the one in which Christopher Johnson enters M.N.U.'s research lab and witnesses a prawn corpse sprawled on a metal table and the hero's last phone call to his wife. And the action scenes themselves are not bad at all.

Johann
08-19-2009, 04:03 PM
Did you like the ship?

Like I said, I think there's enough to admire in it, it's just that they could've made it even more REAL than they did.
I mean, it just gets so ridiculous...so preposterous.
You didn't feel that any of it was preposterous or downright silly?

oscar jubis
08-19-2009, 05:18 PM
I agree that the ship looks hazy, or discolored maybe. Does it look any less real than the titular planet in Tarkovsky's Solaris? I don't have a huge problem being reminded that I am watching a movie. Perhaps it's all those futuristic or fantastic movies I have watched, made between the silent era and the 60s, which don't let you forget for a minute that their creatures and alien environments are for pretend use only?
Is this narrative any more preposterous than say Lang's Mabuse series or his Metropolis? And I find some of the silly stuff endearing in the same vein as 50s sci-fi or Edgar Ulmer's noirs such as Detour.

Johann
08-19-2009, 05:25 PM
I guess I just wanted to believe it more.
The trailer and posters lead you to believe it's gonna be a serious sci-fi film.

I don't mind being reminded I'm watching a movie either, but not to the point where I roll my eyes and go "What?!? Come on!! That's so lame..."
I mean, how to take this movie?
I wanted to. I really wanted to.

oscar jubis
08-19-2009, 05:39 PM
I understand where you and Chris are "coming from", so to speak. I don't mean to say this is a great film or one of the best or anything like that. I did found a lot to like, including its worldview. Its critique of humanity's tendency to close ranks, to create an us vs. them divide, etc. I like what the film thinks about this corporate outfits doing our security and even fighting our wars (to some extent). I found myself very appreciative of the film's attributes and rather forgiving of the faults and limitations you guys have so thoughtfully pointed out.

Johann
08-19-2009, 05:52 PM
I liked and understood it's worldview- a great commenatry on the human race. But with such a potent backstory they just seemed to meander around it for most of the movie.

The audience at the screening I went to seemed to love it.
People were reacting to it in ways that other audiences I've been in haven't. I just was left wanting way more than what Blomkamp gave me.

The potential for being one of the best films of 2009 was there, they just didn't go that route...

Chris Knipp
08-19-2009, 10:41 PM
As several have said, the backstory is more potent than the foreground story. and that is partly true.

Johann
08-20-2009, 09:30 AM
I would've much rather seen the arrival of the ship and the freakout that would've caused, not the aftermath. Not the stupid fights and quarrantines and other nonsense.

Isn't the appearance of such a monolithic ship (over South Africa) way more interesting than the "profiling" of the aliens?
Who, by the way just seemed gross.
They can do much better than that for creating aliens.
They seemed to have childlike minds- maybe I'm wrong.
They are so advanced to build weapons and a ship like that yet all they wanna do is hang around? Bizarro..

Chris Knipp
08-20-2009, 11:53 AM
They seemed to have childlike minds- maybe I'm wrong. Who knows? The aliens are sloppily done and poorly conceived. Their yucky but anthropomorphic appearance is right out of Terminator and a bunch of other schlock movies. And how did they wind up in a space ship starving? It's not worked out. Blomkamp & company are just so eager to get into their apartheid metaphor, they just slap something together to get going, skipping the interesting events. There are so many questions left unanswered.

I didn't provide links to the Arnold White and Michael Sragow reviews in my review so I will here:

Arnold White, "From Mothership to Bullship." (http://www.nypress.com/article-20206-from-mothership-to-bullship.html)

Michael Sragow, "Sci-Fi Flick 'District 9' Lacks Originality." (http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/bal-district-9-review-0813,0,4237087.story)

And Sragow's Baltimore Sun review is supplemented by a TV review, (http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/bal-district-9-review-0813,0,4237087.story) which adds some other observations about the film's summer raves and its strong points and weak points. "I'm sorry, Neill Blomkamp. You can't start out a movie as David Cronenberg and end it as Stephen Spielberg."

Johann
08-20-2009, 11:59 AM
That's a great line! "start out as Cronenberg and end it as Spielberg"
haha that's great. Sums it up pretty good.
Thanks for the links. They always help.

I just keep thinking about how great it could have been.
There were elements that I liked, it just seemed...I don't know what to say. They missed the mark.
I got the message, I'm just wondering where the movie went!

tabuno
01-08-2010, 11:29 PM
I finally had a chance to see this movie finally through NetFlix and while I might have some small additional observations to make, the depth and power of Chris' original posting is so good that there really isn't much I can really write that would signficantly contribute to describing this movie. As a small consequence, I get at least avoid having to use my mental energy to write about one of the worst movies of the year, not that it was terrible, but it was disappointing and, for me personally, hard to watch all the way through.

Chris Knipp
01-08-2010, 11:43 PM
You over-praise me, but thanks. The movie having faded in people's minds now (I don't think it's coming up in a great many annual best lists), so I'm not so exercised about it as I was when it came out. Then, there was such a rush of praise I reacted negatively, but I didn't actually have so hard a time sitting through it so much as I just thought it was wildly overrated and its brilliance exaggerated.