Had “District 9” snuck into theaters nationwide this weekend, its otherworldly creatures and bold choice of setting – South Africa – would ensure sleeper status.
Instead, an onslaught of hype preceded it, from gushing reviews to a virtual love letter from Entertainment Weekly magazine.
And that’s a shame, for “District 9″ is that rare science fiction film, a movie which blazes an original trail subsequent directors will surely follow.
But the movie can’t stand up to the likes of “Alien” or “Blade Runner,” and its first-time director clearly has a lot to learn.
District 9 is the name of a reservation where a group of abandoned space aliens live in squalor. Twenty years ago, a spaceship descended toward earth and parked a few miles above the city of Johannesburg. The ship’s inhabitants came down to live among us and, rather than integrate into society, they were forced to live on a dilapidated parcel of land.
Suffice to say the locals didn’t take kindly to the new aliens on the block.
Enter MNU, your standard eee-vil corporation which oversees the alien reservation. They want to move the aliens to another parcel, to further distance them from civilized society.
MNU worker drone Wikus (Sharlto Copley) heads up the effort, but his attempt to inform the aliens about the move goes badly. He’s infected by some mysterious goop and his left arm slowly starts changing into an alien’s limb.
“District 9″ begins in a documentary-style format, pieced together from found footage and surveillance cams. But soon we also watch the action from a more traditional camera viewpoints.
Confusing? You bet, but the film’s brisk pace and visual trickery more than make amends for those inconsistencies.
The film’s ham-fisted preachiness isn’t as easily dismissed.
Director/co-writer Neill Blomkamp ladles on the political allegories with all the subtlety of a Lou Dobbs’ rant. The apartheid comparisons are obvious – and frankly unnecessary. Do we really need a lecture on the evils of that system gussied up with space aliens?
It’s also more than a bit exhausting – and immature – to suggest that nearly every sentient being here is twisted, wicked or just plain evil. MNU wants to get a hold of the alien weaponry but can’t figure out a way to turn the guns on. Wikus’ father in law is a cold-hearted, one-dimensional thug.
Blomkamp exaggerates the “anti” in Wikus’ antihero role, but here the moral vagueness serves the story well. He’s a wholly unique protagonist, a deeply flawed man who finds a flicker of a soul the more his body rejects his human DNA.
The film teeters between gross out gore and “Transformers”-style action in the final reel. The final moments feature a too-obvious conclusion that begs for a sequel while insulting the audience.
“District 9″ features the most clever monsters since 1979’s “Alien” and enough jaw-dropping moments to make Blomkamp a director of consequence. The exquisite blend of live footage and CGI is enough to recommend the movie.
But let’s ratchet down the hype and enjoy what should have been nothing more than a late-summer surprise.
(Photo: Earthlings interrogate an alien in the imaginative new sci-fi thriller “District 9″/Sony Pictures)
Related posts:
on 
on 
on 
on 
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
Excellent review. It might just be me, but I read the allegory much more widely, more of a general indictment of human behavior. Really, I think it could be argued that between the characters’ selfishness and the disgusting behavior of the prawns is suggestive of a complexity that’s difficult to grasp. I’m wanting to sit on this movie for a few days before really making up my mind.
It certainly can be read as more extensive than the apartheid angle, but that’s the most up-front one on display. Even so, the approach is too heavy handed … I actually preferred how “I, Robot” detailed how robots integrated into modern society.
I’m also bored by movies which paint all of humanity as evil … it’s a lazy pose that too easily appeals to our cynical side.
It certainly doesn’t have a lot of good to say about humans, does it? Were it not for Copley’s wonderful performance, there might not have been any pathos whatsoever for the human characters.
I have to disagree with the other comments here. I thought the movie was brilliant!
Nice review, your closing statement hits the nail on the head. I too tire of the broad stroke approach to humanity’s natural inclination towards absolute self absorption save toddlers and narcissists.
I also share James’ view on the wider statement made about human nature, and obviously SA’s legacy serves as a perfect albeit all too available vehicle.
Copley blew me away. He was brilliant while the next in line comes from a prawn named Chris (and his offspring) and disappointingly not human counterparts such as the love interest, her politico father or the ridiculous cliche’ that was the MNU “head hunter.” This gusto laden roid-rager is the type of character that could bring a writer embarrassment and chuckles in an interview 20 years from now. Copley deserves wide praise in my opinion.
The prawns, Chris and his bay shrimp in particular, were amazing and highly realized for me. Without a doubt the best cgi characters since Jackson’s own Golum and Kong. Additionally I think the human interaction with CGI was top notch. Watch this as opposed to a Star Wars prequel and it becomes readily apparent.
Anyways, again great review and I agree…Neill may have alot to learn however I look forward with GREAT anticipation to watching him do it!
Thank you for this review. I haven’t been so disappointed by a film in a long time, after such glowing reviews. My biggest complaint is that it WAS NOT science fiction. It was a shoot ‘em up that included an alien species. I hated it.
Human beings can be cruel? I’m shocked, I tell you; shocked!
Human beings can be cruel? I’m shocked, I tell you; shocked!
I guess you haven’t watched many movies then, since the “Human beings are rotten bastards” is easily one of the top ten movie themes. And what Toto is referring to is the version which this movie emulates where the author invents some strawman race, sapient idealized animals (Bambi, Open Season et al) or whatever and then compares the eeevill humans to them. As Toto says, it’s lazy, cliche, obvious and doesn’t actually have any meaning, since it’s a strawman argument. Humans are evil? Compared to what other sapient race?
Why are conservatives so touchy whenever a movie or a book brings up apartheid? After all, it’s not as if you guys supported that system, or opposed civil rights for African-Americans back in the day, or…
Oh. Never mind.
But I think he has seen Casablanca, even if he was paraphrasing a little…
Glenn, I’m not touchy about apartheid. I am touchy about ham-fisted message movies of any stripe (liberals don’t mind that approach when its Michael Moore wielding the cudgel). Genre films (sci-fi and horror) are great at slipping in subtexts that add richness to the overall story.
Consider the zombies walking through the mall in Dawn of the Dead, a simple, stark image that speaks volumes.
And do we really need a story telling us apartheid was wrong? What’s next, an expose on the evils of smoking? Yeah, we get it. Let’s dig into more complicated material.
District 9 all but hits you over the head with its messages – including the sappy father/son alien coupling, and the “look, we’re both the same,” comment from the alien kid toward the film’s star. Yawn.
I’ll ignore the silliness of the rest of your commentary, but I appreciate you checking in all the same.
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/btm/feature/2009/08/12/blomkamp/index.html
An interesting interview with the writer/director Neill Blomkamp and his answers about the Apartheid questions. In short, Apartheid isn’t the main theme of the story, rather it is more about the modern city of Johannesburg and the nightmare that it has become.
JM – I did see that … and it opened my eyes a bit about the project. I still contend the alien vs. human themes are too awkwardly introduced, as are other elements at play. But I’ll be pretty eager to see Blomkamp’s follow-up project all the same.
In the context of the story, the aliens are much stronger physically, and seem to have vile tempers. Their appearance is frightening and their diet disgusting by human standards. It is perfectly logical that they would be segregated. Would you want several families of them living on your street, incubating their young on the decaying carcasses of cows, or chewing the tires off your car?
What makes the film so interesting is that the true nature of the aliens is never clear. Are they powerful and dangerous brutes incapable of rational thought, and requiring the cruelty and abuse the humans are so ready to apply to keep them in order? Most of them do seem to be so, yet there is the spaceship and its advanced technology, and a few individual aliens who, we see, are capable of affection, loyalty, and of highly complex long-term planning and construction which they keep hidden from the humans.
It is way too easy to make the connection Johannesburg = apartheid and interpret the whole movie in that light. The real question the film raises is, what is the correct way to relate to these aliens, who are so different from us, and who seem so primitive in some ways yet at the same time so advanced in others.
I didn’t find the film that original unless you call a “borefest” original. The final reel seems to come right out of Terminal Salvation, same robot and all. Well maybe Ironman. Transformer maybe. Anyway you get the picture. C+
Oh and I thought it was funny that “We’re both the same!” was followed by CJ’s dropping the unfortunate fact Wikus would be an alien for three years and then Wikus whacked him over the head with a 2×4. Everyone’s a bastard now!
Thanks…Great Post..You just got a new suscriber>>:D
I not sure that any of you have actually watched this flick, but if not I’ll point something out to you all.
Twenty years -plus a few years for the documentary that bookends the movie- is the span of the show.. starting in 1982(!) and climaxing in 2002. Get it?
1982.
This is an alternate reality flick (of course) where Apartheid—meaning separateness in Afrikaans (which is cognate to the English apart and -hood)—was a system of legal racial segregation enforced by the National Party government in South Africa between >1948 and 1994<. Was still in effect!
Apartheid in this movie is STILL in effect and the movie failed to ever make mention of it or create any narrative for it, it sorta sweeped in under the rug. Blacks traded their hatred of the whites to the aliens.. if you’ve noticed, most of the characters where *gasp* White! Villains to boot, I’m talking about the humans in Control where also all white.
Sooo,… That little thing called “apartheid” will be still in effect now in 200X for all of the blacks down there in that show.
Frankly, it’s hilarious how you all are debating about hidden messages within this flick when its throwing it’s offal in your face without a blink!
The movie has the benefit of being one of the summer’s most creative, original sci-fi offerings with lots of potential, but you’re spot-on about the ham-fistedness of some of its points. I went to see it with a friend, and afterwards we decided: especially on the “experimenting on aliens” bit and the “Big Evil Corporation” standard sermon (come on, the mere name of the company is the movie swinging a baseball bat at my head), YES, ENOUGH ALREADY, WE GET IT, ALL RIGHT, COME ON ?
Interestingly enough, though, the film does (a) depict humans of all races being bastards to the aliens (the former victims of apartheid seem to have no problem about interning the aliens; Nigerian gangs happily exploit the “prawns”), and (b) has some hint of some humans who aren’t bastards to the aliens, though they don’t play much of a role other than in passing mention.
Overall, interesting flick that stops short of realizing its potential because of its near-unbearable preachiness. Sharlto Copley is fabulous, though, and the CGI seamless in its sense of grimy believability. Worth seeing at a matinee all the same!
“Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And the Lord was sorry he made man on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart.”
Genesis 6:5-6
If our maker saw us this way, how arrogant would it be for a filmmaker (or critic blogger) see us any differently?
Or is God wrong in his assessment?
It’s an entertaining movie. Go and be entertained.
Let’s see: complaints about “ham-fisted preachiness”. Mention of “the apartheid angle” as “the most up-front one on display”. A link to the director of the movie talking about the role of apartheid in the movie. Yes, we are unaware of the “offal” this movie is throwing in our faces.
And I’m not sure that you’ve read the post or this comments thread, so it all balances out pretty well.
BKJ – creative post … thank you.
I was entertained by the film … and I hope my review expressed that fact well enough. But I was also critical of the film’s preachiness.
“District 9″ clearly strives to be more than just mindless entertainment, so critiquing it as much is appropriate, I think.
I disagree – I thought this movie was brilliant. Oscar-worthy, and even saying that is damning it with faint praise.
Sure, there were a lot of heavy-handed examples of obvious prejudice and villiany, but there were also innumerable subtle turns of phrase, little details that made the scenario presented really gut-wrenchingly real. This was not merely a sermon about how prejudice is bad, but a scathingly detailed illustration of exactly how prejudice functions.
The movie would be commendable for that alone, but I also found Wikus to be a fascinating character – simultaneously reprehensible and sympathetic, capable of both horrific evil and true heroism, both without undergoing any great monologue-requiring epiphanies. The message, to me, was as simple as it was timely – that horrible things are not always done by unilaterally horrible people, but likewise, that even the most cowardly, selfish, back-stabbing and thoughtless individual (and Wikus was all of those, repeatedly) has it in him to dredge up some nobility and altruism. That prejudice is a choice, hate is a choice, nobility is a choice, forgiveness is a choice – that as much as we are products of our circumstances, culture, and physiology, it’s what we choose to do when all that is ripped away that makes us men or monsters.
Fair enough, CT. And your overall point is well-taken. It’s not “subtext” if it hits you over the head with a hammer and says “See?”
The film works by portraying ALL people, in fact, all living things, regardless of race or species, as susceptible to presumptuousness, selfishness, and cruelty. No one comes off entirely pristine in this GREAT movie; not the prawns, not whites, not blacks, fathers, wives, husbands, pacifists, soldiers…society at larger…even immigrants…no one is spared. There is very little recommending any particular group over another until one group wantonly subjugates the other. Until then, pretty much everybody in the film, including the “Prawns”, are worthy of contempt. Calling it PC suggests we on the right somehow identify with a government bureaucracy hell bent on breaking wrists. It could, and should, be viewed precisely the opposite.
…And Sonya – WONDERFUL POINTS in your post!!
This movie was about as thought provoking and deep as Transformers 2. Give me a break. Anyone who had trouble predicting what was going to happen, got confused by the “twist” or “turns”, or had trouble seeing the suble social refrences is an idiot. At least Transformers 2 had Megan fox to look at. Here all we had was poor CG aliens that were done better ten years ago in the Phantom Menace. Movies have been dumb down so much these days that when something slightly different comes along and askes its viewers to put forth just a bit more effort, it gets hailed as being deep and confusing. What a boring film.
Holy heck, a reviewer I kind of agree with. I don’t mind the mention of arpatheid (although Glenn’s assertions about “conservatives” are ludicrous and are the same kind of non sequitur falsehoods some people thrive by wallowing in), as there was vileness all around.
But hamfisted I agree with. Before I continue I have to say I thought it was a damn good movie even with, but there are a few scenes I could have done without. The first was the concept of interspecies intercourse. That was a pure shock value line and those types of things strike me as lazy sensationalism. The second was the use of a live target during the test fire sequence…why change methodology unnecessarily? The only reason is to make the eee-vil corporation more eee-vil. I’m already somebody who’s pretty damn tired of the eee-vil corporation as villain theme, so going over the top with villainy in this case just chafes me. The third would be, of course, the already mentioned caricatures of the military and management. There are probably others but I can’t recall them offhand.
I hope the next installment, if there is one, takes a different turn. If these aliens were so peaceful, why did they have an exoskeleton brimming with weapons available to them? Why did they arrive in the first place?
All in all though, good movie. Even great sometimes. I hope it kicks Hollywood square in the nuts at the box office…maybe they’ll wake up and start writing decent screenplays again.