Friday, August 14, 2009

District 9


The first sign that District 9 would be a unique piece of work took place in the first five minutes when the setting of the film is revealed. It does not take place in the overcrowded city of Los Angeles, or the politically relevant area of Virginia. The mothership of the creatures instead landed in Johannesburg, South Africa. It is just dissapointing that a film with so much potential and so much originality could succumb to some of the traps of the convential Hollywood Summer Blockbuster.


This isn't to say that it is all bad, and in fact, more than half of the film was incredible in every way. Visually, technically, emotionally, and metaphorically speaking the better half of the film was a real treat, and helped me root my emotional tendons into the heart of it. When it came time however for the film to limp into its final act, it had lost much of its original steam, and veered off into corners that seemed irrelevant to the overall message of the movie. I wont spoil any of it for you, but you will notice a very specific turn of events that will make you question what the film-makers were intending. It seems as though they couldn't decide on whether to finish strong with a poignant film about racism, and media and government control, or take the Summer Blockbuster route and make buildings (and humans) explode. They went with the inbeetweeny route which briefly visits both, and then ends. Although I personally thought that the philosophical, and politically relevant story would have been the more intriguing, I can't deny that I still enjoyed the second half as it struggled across the finish line.


District 9 follows the MNU executive Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley) as he attempts to explain to the alien residents of District 9 that they will be moved to the smaller, and less accomidating District 10. Predictably, the aliens do not respond positively, and Wikus finds very manipulative ways to get them to sign away their homes. He soon accidentally sprays a dose of alien substance into his eyes, resulting in a monstrous transformation. Although this is Copley's first (and alledgedly last) film, he does wonderfully as the manipulative, and delightfully nerdy MNU executive, who threatens to bring an alien child into protective custody if the adult does not sign away his home. He then jumps to the painfully tortured and terrifyingly human beast that falls under the scrutiny and probe of everyone in his world. A particular scene where the MNU tests him to see if he can operate the alien weapons left me absolutely breathless.


I have never been a fan of formulaic saves of grace in films, and that is perhaps my biggest complaint in the film. No matter what trouble Wikus gets into, there is a scapel lying on a table, or a mechanical exo-skeleton that practically begs him to get inside and use. I understand that these things are necessary to keep the story going, but it is possible to be more creative than to let us believe that a chemically subdued man could fight off ten doctors with a scalpel, and then dodge gunfire for the next thirty minutes.


Now, for the question you have all been waiting for. How do the aliens look? They look phenomenal. With the exception of a few sloppily rendered bits, the "Prawns" (as they are crudely referred to) look absolutely stunning, and you find yourself removed from the "special effect" and dive headfirst into the characters beneath the pixels. I wont go further with that, as it may spoil some bits for you, so I will simply say that you will find yourself sympathizing with the Prawns more than any alien you have encountered since E.T.


Although the film dragged a little near the end, and some plotpoints certainly were unecessary while the more interesting ones were left unexplained, the film ran smoothly, and although its abrubt change of style may have displeased some, I found myself enjoying it almost the entire time.


B


If you enjoyed City of God, Cloverfield or the original The Day The Earth Stood Still you will enjoy this movie.

7 comments:

  1. Jimmy,

    nice piece, do you think you should do a rating thing like stars or 1 to 10 to give your readers another perspective that they might be used to..

    all in all, nice good job

    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  2. ur review is lousy. next time u try and write a revuew get some writing skills.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think reading some critiques from the LA or NY Times will help you on how to review films; you can also take a look at Roger Ebert's critiques so that you may grow as a film critic/writer. I strongly disagree with your comment about "if you liked City of God, then you'll like this movie." City of God is a whole different ballgame, it's not a sci-fi, and City of God leans towards realism/naturalism type of movie because those sort of things actually happen in Brazil. It does exactly what a great film of its genre (action/crime/drama/realistic) does: Life is imitated by art. I hope you grow as a writer because the public needs to know what makes a good or great film.

    -A Friend

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous 1: A badly spelled example of someone who really needs to revisit the third grade. Go and examine your wasted and useless life before you begin to tread on mine.

    Anonymous 2: Thank you very much! I have tried to stray away from reading other reviewers, but I will absolutely give the LA and NY Times a shot (What's that guys name again...Rogert Ebert? :) ) You know, the whole "If you liked "XXX" then you will enjoy "XXX" " thing seemed like a good idea, but I am often comparing them on many levels. I agree that City of God differs in MANY ways from District 9, and I would be hard pressed to compare the two (City of God was infinitely better). I was thinking in terms of style and the bare grittiness of both. Perhaps if I change the words "you will enjoy this film" to "you MAY enjoy this film". Interesting thing to think about, thank you! I do plan on growing as a writer, and seeing as this is only my 7th proper review, I feel like i have some growing to do.

    And again, anonymous 1, if you would like to give real advice, and perhaps give a real name, I would be glad to respond in a civil manner. Until then, kindly burn in hell.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If I person does not have the balls to post a name, then his or her comment should have at best the usefulness of a$$ wiping paper.

    so in closing, blow me

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, it is sometimes good to stay away from reading other reviews because their opinion might mean diddly squat or he/she may have something against the director. I'm sure you'll know a good critique when you read one, but will not let it influence your opinion about the film. Also, I'm just saying any old critique, it doesn't have to be the one that you watched. It's like critiquing a play...which I'm sure you will learn at CSUF.
    I think the words are okay. Thank you for replying.

    -A Friend (Joe Pesci)

    ReplyDelete
  7. In my opinion, the aliens looked sub-par. The mark of great CGI is that it seems to blend in with real-world environments. In District 9, however, the aliens were so incongruous that they popped out against the scenery and the human actors. What I mean to say is that, to me, they looked pretty damn fake. Even worse is that they had no personality. Their dialogue was so primitive and not one of them was distinguishable from the others that it was hard to care for them at all. They seemed like derivatives of better-crafted aliens from superior movies. A shame too, since the premise for the film was so powerful. The mix of docu with drama also showed promise, but remained unconvincing throughout. It almost felt as if the actors were nudging us the whole way ("wink, wink. aren't we clever?). I would have rather been awed by the potential brutality of the situation. On the whole though, a brilliant premise. The execution, on the other hand, not so much. A worthy failure, but a failure nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete