A simple description of District 9′s plot is the one given in IMDB: “An extraterrestrial race forced to live in slum-like conditions on Earth suddenly find a kindred spirit in a government agent that is exposed to their biotechnology.” That’s as far as I’m going with the plot. Don’t want to spoil it for you. I went in having only seen the TV ads and was glad I hadn’t known more.

Produced by LOTR director, Peter Jackson, and directed and co-written by South African, Neill Blomkamp, on every level, this film is exceptional. Set and shot in Johannesburg, the lead actor, Sharlto Copley, gives an astonishing performance that ranges from bureaucratic nerd at the beginning to action hero at the end without a trace of that typical, Hollywood, stereotypical, hero crap. What makes his portrayal of his character, Wikus, so real is that he is a deeply flawed person who only wants to live (despite what’s happened to him) and return to a normal life, while finally awakening to the lies his government (which, technically, includes him) have been spreading to control the aliens, and worse.

The first 20 minutes or so is presented as a documentary about how the aliens came to Earth 20 years ago and what’s happened since. It is, in many ways, a commentary on how humans treat each other, although you never feel beaten over the head by it. What you do feel is revulsion at the sight of the aliens, yet end up feeling pity for them once you get to know them. Sort of.

Shot for a paltry, by Hollywood blockbuster standards, $30 million, the fully CG aliens are astoundingly ‘real’ looking, even in full sunlight which is harder to do. Lots of explosions and all the normal action stuff, but they actually serve the story as do the supporting characters. What makes even the bad guys more than two dimensional is you understand why they are doing what they’re doing given the circumstances, even if you disagree with them, which you may not.

This is ‘real’ science fiction. Period. No deus ex machina. No contrived twist ending, although you have no idea where the story is heading. Just an interesting, thoughtful story, lots of action, first-class animation on a non-CGI budget, and fine acting by it’s star. Uncle Dave says, see it!




  1. joaoPT says:

    @#14
    Carpenter always was and still is largely underrated. As one that never had a big (or even decent) budget, he did way above the rest. Also his love of B movies makes him instant cult figure. Favourites: The Thing, They Live, Christine (outstanding soundtrack…), and the obvious ones…in fact half of his films are well worth a look.
    Bobbo:
    Gotta love Terry Gilliam’s “1984 bigger than 1984″ film. The scope of the film is just Gigantic. And very “British”.

  2. ECA says:

    Im sorry..
    Im into a few genres..
    I would LOVe to see the continuation of nightbreed.

    2001 should be on the list as well as 2010, and the NEXT ones should be made into movies also..the books are to much to read. 2061 and 3001, and get ON with rendezvous with rama(and do it RIGHT)..

  3. Zybch says:

    #21 you do realize that most of his movies are remakes and ‘based upons’ right?

  4. Uncle Dave says:

    #20: That didn’t occur to me when I watched it, but he has got a point. But this is a far, far better film.

  5. joaoPT says:

    #23
    And what’s wrong with that? A lot of Hollywood hits were remakes of European films, dumbed down and de-artsy-fartsy-sized (I don’t like the Hollywood approach, but sometimes we here in Europe take the 7th art way too seriously…)

    some sprang to mind:

    City of Angels, Breathless, Vanilla Sky…
    Check out more here:
    moviefreak.com/features/remakes.htm

  6. jccalhoun says:

    Ignoring the gouging for the popcorn and soda, and the ten dollar ticket. (TEN DOLLARS???)
    $10? That’s insane. Why would anyone pay that? The local theater chain has a “five buck club” where films that are a couple weeks old are only $5. I rarely go to any other movies. I usually go to the matinee too. I saw The Hangover the other day and I was the only person in the theater. Pretty sweet for a Wednesday afternoon.

    Here’s the short film that District 9 is based on:

    It doesn’t give away any plot points. It basically can serve as a 6 minute trailer for the film. I might actually have to go see this one before it is $5.

  7. Alfred1 says:

    Thanks Uncle Dave, I’ll check it out.

  8. kimsteele says:

    District 9 sucked…I’ve never wanted to walk out of movie until this one started. Boring chatter for the first 25 minutes of movie. Maybe, 15 minutes of action in total movie. Even some of the computer graphics looked cheesy. I was able to get through the movie with beer, fried pickles and popcorn. Too many subtitles…really no plot…just a stupid movie!

  9. Mondain says:

    Incredible movie, very touching, etc. If it happens, I believe this is how it would go down.

  10. Thinker says:

    Uncle Dave…wow to see 2001 in the theatre, that would have been mind blowing.(how old were you then?) I’ve got it in several formats too, including a laser disc. The Blue Danube docking scene is one pure poetry!

    I always wondered how they made 2001 look so good that no SF movie looked better until Star Wars.

    Sorry, no way this is an Alien Nation ripoff, just a similar concept.

    But go to see it anyway. Peter Jackson is worth the $$! He’s putting out real quality these days.

  11. Uncle Dave says:

    #30: I was 15. On either the 10th or 15th anniversary, it was rereleased to theaters and played at a theater in town that had a massive screen and the special sound system that had been installed a few years earlier for the film, Earthquake, which produced extremely low bass that would simulate the feel of a quake by shaking you physically. Imagine what Also Sprach Zarathustra was like on that sound system.

    The theater also did what I later found out was what Kubrick had wanted. As the 10-15 minute overture plays before the film starts, the house lights are slowly dimmed until they go out just as the bass note hits, the gargantuan curtain opens (remember when movie theaters had curtains?) and the movie begins.

    I can describe it, but you can’t imagine what it was like.

    As for the look, there were two, basic answers. First, it was shot on 70mm film. Vastly more detail than standard 35mm. Also, it was one of the last Cinerama films ever made. Second, for, say, the ship exterior when a pod exited the ship, they used very long exposures for each frame which gave it extreme detail and depth. Many other pioneering techniques were also used.

    If you can get a copy, check out Jerome Agel’s book, The Making of Kubrick’s 2001.

  12. Hugh Ripper says:

    #25 The original Spanish film ‘Open Your Eyes’ (remade as Vanilla Sky) is simply awesome. More psycho drama than Sci-Fi I guess but pretty damn good.

  13. Alfred1 says:

    We all know Uncle Dave like it the moment he saw the opening credits…”A Wingnut Films Production”;

    And its anti corporation, evil profiteers mantra plot…

    Even so, it was well worth the 7.50, and 10.50 for popcorn and water.

    It did what movies should do, made me forget about time and pay attention…the CG was excellent.

    No doubt Episode II is coming.

  14. fairuse says:

    Cool review. Uncle.

    #11 That be said like StirFry

    To all — pardon my op/ed moment:
    Hard science fiction is hard to do. Space Opera is hard to do right. That fantasy stuff that folks call scifi has corrupted the upcoming generation. Go to the scifi section at a national chain book store and look at the racks of junk scifi books. error! “replace with imply video, example: DVD”.

    I decided at 1st trailer viewing that this movie was 10/10 or 0/10 kind of film. Wednesday 14:00 is a good time to watch.

  15. Rick says:

    I thought the movie was fantastic. Great acting, great art, and a story that made me think about what would actually happen if aliens landed.

    #4 You must live in Atlanta, worse theaters in the nation.

    #26 Didn’t notice that Sharlto Copley is in the short, sitting in the helicopter playing a different character.

  16. Uncle Dave says:

    Alf,

    Yes, I was glad to see Wingnut because that meant Peter Jackson and WETA were involved.

    So, your second paragraph implies you are in favor of corporations doing evil things such as overcharging you, selling inferior and dangerous products, profiting off people’s suffering, etc — as long as there is no government involvement that will steal your money to enforce laws to protect you from them, of course.

    I paid $6.50 for a matinee, senior discount ticket. No refreshments.

    The director has talked about a sequel.

  17. Buzz says:

    ,,,and, it was shot on Camera RED! All electronic. No filum.

  18. Alfred1 says:

    #36 Doesn’t imply that at all…I reject your premise…corporations are, in my estimation, much more moral than than the statist construct grants…

    For example, Nazism was a lefist movement, so is Marxism, etc…

    More harm is done to humanity in the name of leftist philosophy than was ever done in the name of religion, or profit.

    So, a better take on reality should have put MNU as a Government operation, not business.

    However, I thank you for alerting me to the movie… I can’t wait for his return in three years…I wonder how they will treat us?

  19. Hugh Ripper says:

    #38 Alfred1

    “Nazism was a lefist movement”

    So now the Nazi’s were left wingers? National Socialism had little to do with the traditional left. Clearly you have historical and political insight beyond mere mortals.

    “corporations are, in my estimation, much more moral than than the statist construct grants…”

    Corporations are moral are they? All of them? Without exception? Must be profit motive that provides such a wonderful moral compass. Time you read Brave New World.

    “More harm is done to humanity in the name of leftist philosophy than was ever done in the name of religion, or profit.”

    Uhuh. Its those Nazi communists, isn’t it.

  20. KC says:

    Im sorry if your going to make a movie about refuges than do that dont make a movie about and advance race of aliens that make a refuge look like a genius.
    First and foremost why in the world would getting splashed in the face with there fuel source cause him to mutate into one of them. Even if i mutated him y would the mutation take their form. yes yes i know its alien but it is unfair to just try an explain everything a away with that simple fact. its like answering every question with by saying god did it. lets just chalk it up to bad writing. It Really did not make any since that the alien was looking for cans of their fuel on earth that means they had to have brought it with them when they left the ship and just discarded it y would they do this!!! Cause i think it would have been a lot easier to just look for it while they were on the ship. Second off there were many things in the movie that was not explained why could the understand each other so well but neither side could speak a single word of the others language. Third Why is there a super high tech ship with aliens that are dumber as dumb as a pack of wild dog and acted as such. even if they were just workers and they had a superior race then why would they give them a ship and deadly guns. Forth how did they become stranded when the only thing keeping the ship from leaving was the fact on one was on it. i mean why would he detach that control room from the bigger ship stranding them there. I just think this story line was just haphazardly thrown together for a quick buck after they canceled HALO and based on this movie im am elated Peter Jackson and the other guy did not make HALO they would have messed it up beyond belief Because when it does come out it will be about the prequel book by Eric Nylund like it alway should have been



Bad Behavior has blocked 25748 access attempts in the last 7 days.