I’ve never seen a movie before where the vanity producer (Peter Jackson) came before the studio who put up the money for said vanity producer.
Wait, this movie is supposed to be about apartheid? Director and co-writer Neill Blomkamp is from South Africa and adoring critics can’t stop making the comparison.
It starts in 1982. Mandela didn’t get out until 1990. Apartheid didn’t end until after he did. It’s a real lame simile, since it’s impossible to believe world events would have played out the same with the presence of extraterrestrials.
To be fair, I only saw a half hour of this crap before my wife let me stop it. When I told her it was two hours she she wanted to switch over to something more highbrow… you know, with fart jokes.
She did try to make some case for the film’s approach as a general statement about internment. It’s a dumb movie–no one learned to communicate with the alien language–and who really believes a Nazi-loving nation would really be trusted by world leaders to safeguard extraterrestrials. You can be all nice about it now with Academy Award-winner Charlize Theron and all, but remember, Lethal Weapon 2 attacked a sovereign nation, ridiculed it, to cheering audiences.
Audiences who have gotten stupider in the last twenty years–otherwise they would have hurled tomatoes at the screen, this derivative dreck’s idiotic narrative horrifying them.
District 9 is the stupidest theatrical release I’ve started watching in years.
CREDITS
Directed by Neill Blomkamp; written by Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell; director of photography, Trent Opaloch; edited by Julian Clarke; music by Clinton Shorter; production designer, Philip Ivey; produced by Peter Jackson and Carolynne Cunningham; released by Tri-Star Pictures.
Starring Sharlto Copley (Wikus), David James (Koobus), Jason Cope (Christopher Johnson), Vanessa Haywood (Tania) and Louis Minnaar (Piet Smit).
Related posts:
Norm Levin // Sep 26, 2009 at 1:47 am
Uh, you ADMIT to watching just 30 minutes of this film and then proceed to TRASH it. You have tossed your credibility into the gutter. That’s simply intellectually bankrupt behavior.
Andrew Wickliffe // Sep 28, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Credibility?
Intellectually bankrupt?
While I find it cute an adult feels he or she needs to watch or read an entire narrative work to judge to worthy of reading or watching, I also find it insipid and naive.
Paul Heilig // Sep 29, 2009 at 11:15 am
Say WHAT?! “While I find it cute an adult feels he or she needs to watch or read an entire narrative work to judge to worthy of reading or watching, I also find it insipid and naive.” That is probably the most foolish thing I’ve EVER heard. I am eighteen, and yes, you may only find me to be a “kid,” and probably look at my grammar in disgust, but how can you be a critic of a movie without allowing a movie to develop? Even this “kid” knows that’s not how you’re supposed to analyze a movie. The whole point of the first thirty minutes of the movie is to build a basis of the plot, to allow a glimpse of the rising angst between the two species through interviews, home videos, and security camera tapes. Later in the movie, the plot develops and the audience isn’t looking at the goof of a main character anymore– he has developed, like all dynamic characters do, into someone the audience can empathize with. You would know that and would be able to talk about the changes and the underlying themes if you hadn’t given up on a movie before the characters got their first point across to you. I agree with Norm Levin above: you have no credible right to speak of this movie without watching past the first scenes.
Andrew Wickliffe // Sep 29, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I actually will not look at your grammar in disgust. It seems fine.
Do you actually think someone needs to see something in its entirety to dismiss it? I’m sure plenty of people dismiss this blog based on my Dark Knight and District 9 responses. I certainly don’t believe I need to see a Harry Potter film to know it’s a piece of garbage.
Paul Heilig // Sep 29, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I didn’t say, “in its entirety.” I said that you need to at least allow the director to develop the plot. You watched probably up to the point where the MNU (the movie’s spin on the UN) walks through the shanties to evict the aliens, or maybe you didn’t even get that far before giving up on the movie. Up to that point, it is SUPPOSED to feel a bit dry, like a documentary. A few scenes later, the main character is stripped of his job and life, his DNA corrupted by the aliens. He now lives in a mid-life, a denied by the humans, not trusted by the aliens. Soon, the plot thickens, and action finally comes into the movie, speeding the movie along to a dramatic and astounding ending. I’m sorry if you think I came on here to blast you from your evaluation of the movie– I just think you should at least watch the movie, not just a segment of a movie– before you suggest a movie or disapprove of others watching a movie. That, of course, is just my honest opinion, just as you have every right to your own opinion.
Andrew Wickliffe // Sep 29, 2009 at 6:59 pm
@Paul Heilig — All right, simply put, I don’t Neill Blomkamp’s worth my time. I don’t John Grisham’s worth my time either or the lady who writes the Harry Potter or Simon West.
I don’t think he’s an auteur. I think he’s a participant in a particular zeitgeist, the Peter Jackson phenomenon, which I don’t understand. I loathe the commercial Peter Jackson. Man did more on twenty-five million dollars than he does on two hundred.
The only thing, looking over my response, I could have missed and had change my opinion was some explanation of the stupidity in the script, in the ground situation.
Mandela.
World reaction to aliens landing on the planet.
Et cetera, et cetera.
And you haven’t argued any of those points made it into the film.
An alien landing, putting it mildly, would be like Jesus Christ getting on top of the Empire State Building and scream, “God Bless Us Everyone!“
There’s none of that reaction in this film.
If it comes after the first act, it’s too late.
I got Blomkamp’s point. I just don’t think he’s a smart guy and I think he’s more suited for making films for Peter Jackson enthusiasts, which most moviegoers are, apparently, and I am decidedly not.
Paul Heilig // Sep 30, 2009 at 11:16 am
@Andrew Wickliffe — Okay, I see your point. I never really pay attention to “the big names” these days, due to half of them being either A)someone with an overinflated ego or B)someone who’s acting has multiple flaws. The movie tried to give a sense of if people DIDN’T psycho out over the aliens. In that sense, it was a good movie. Realistically, and I’ll give you this point, the movie did nothing to give a true feel of if aliens came to Earth, lacking the panic of normal citizens and the praise of the alien zealots. If you’re looking for a movie that’s realistic to the core, then no, this movie probably would suck, and there’s where your zero for a score would come into play. If you’re looking, however, for a movie that’s just a little different, where the humans just accept it, then yes, it’s a good movie. The plot does change and thicken later in the movie, but the intro is a bit dry. I personally would give the back half of the movie a 4/5, but the front half would only get a 1/5. I’m giving it the 1 point for at least giving a bit of irony for the change the main character goes through. Besides that, the intro needed some work.
(As a side note, I didn’t go to see this movie due to Peter Jackson or due to ratings or critics, no offense on the latter of the points. I went and watched this as a blank slate, not knowing anything of the movie. Perhaps that kept me from shutting it off– I had nothing to give me a preemptive dislike to the movie.)
I completely respect what you have to say in your reviews, but it was just a twinge of irritation to hear someone rate something without the full story. Sorry if it seemed like I blasted you though all of this.
Karl Spaeth // Feb 13, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Watch the entire movie before you start to hate it. Not watching the entire movie is just bad criticism. Roger Ebert didn’t get to where he is as a film critic by walking out of movies. If you watch the entire thing you can actually have something thoughtful to say about why it is a bad movie, instead of coming off like a pretentious piece of shit, but I guess you’re okay with coming off like a pretentious piece of shit. I also guess that I’m a hypocrite since I know by reading a couple of your reviews that I don’t like you, even though I’ve never met you. If you were a movie, I’d walk out.