Aug
27
Released: 4 September 2009
Certificate: 15
Director: Neill Blomkamp
Screenwriter: Neill Blomkamp, Teri Tatchell
Cast: Sharlto Copley, Jason Cope, Robert Hobbs
Distributor: Sony Pictures
Running Time: 112 mins
Long anticipated, Neill Blomkamp’s full-length film that replaced Halo on his slate is finally with us, following an exhaustive marketing campaign spanning well over a year. Landing in Johannesburg 20 years ago, the Prawns are alien visitors who appear stranded due to a lack of fuel, and who end up settling on Earth in an internment camp, where they are constantly and ruthlessly exploited by everyone from gangsters through to a pseudo-governmental corporation, MNU. Wikus van der Merwe is an MNU operative who is assigned to clear the District 9 slum, but during his rounds he becomes infected with an alien virus and slowly begins transforming into a Prawn himself.
The parallels with Apartheid are clear, and it shouldn’t escape anyone that the Prawn language is deliberately reminiscent of Bantu dialects, with its series of vocal clicks. Likewise, District 9 is itself based on Cape Town’s real locale of District 6. However, anyone hoping for a science fiction-framed exploration of this will be disappointed. District 9 abandons its overt political allusions after half an hour, and becomes little more than a chase film. Van der Merwe is one of the most unsympathetic protagonists we’ve encountered in film this year, and as his transformation accelerates and he’s experimented on by his former employers, it’s hard to feel pity. In the same way, the film damages its own allegorical credence by subtitling several black characters’ perfectly audible dialogue.It’s a shame, as District 9 could truly have been a great film – all of the seeds were there in the story, the acting from Copley in his debut role is satisfying, and the CGI is nothing short of incredible. For a film that has the overall budget of an average Hollywood production’s marketing spend it’s a remarkable achievement.
Unfortunately, District 9’s fractured identity rears its ugly head in the last act, becoming a sci-fi shooter with a decidedly mixed ending, and whatever message it once had is weakened by the stress of the film being pulled consistently in different directions. For a prime example, see the cinéma vérité style employed extensively at the start, but later mixed in with traditional camera work randomly, lending a disengaging and unsettling feel to the film’s presentation rather than enhancing its verisimilitude.
District 9 will appeal to science-fiction fans, but ultimately disappoint those looking for a deeper exploration of contentious issues.
Our 
provides all the latest Sci-Fi news, reviews, previews, interviews and spoilers, while our 
fan page is the best place to communicate with other fans of the SciFiNow magazine.
provides all the latest Sci-Fi news, reviews, previews, interviews and spoilers, while our fan page is the best place to communicate with other fans of the SciFiNow magazine.
Prawn language sounds like a Bantu language? What are you smoking chap?!
What a pretentious review.
District 6 never was a township by the way. It was a neighbourhood.
You are quite correct of course, I’d confused the District Six locale with the relocation to the Cape Flats township area. Apologies, and the review has been corrected to reflect this.
Negative reviews of good movies and TV shows are something that I have come to expect on the website and in the magazine. Yes, District 9 isn’t perfect but is any film? Giving the film three stars is too low, Terminator Salvation also received three and District 9 is a considerably better film than McG’s stale unambitious sequel. Transformers 2 was rated a two, how is that hideous piece of filmmaking almost as good as District 9?
It’s a pretty short review for such an ambitious and original movie. I somewhat support the other comments made here regarding the negativism at times. Another example was Moon, SciFiNow gave it three stars. Surely, Moon and District 9 are this year’s genre highlights(so far)?
Three star movies can be highlights and still be three star movies. A film can be among the best of those released in a certain year and still not be five star quality, or even four.
Bear in mind, when we review a film we compare it to the greats that have gone before it, such as Alien, Blade Runner and 2001. To do otherwise and heap praise on a film that doesn’t fully deserve it would be doing a disservice to our readers, ourselves and, most importantly, the genre. We cannot simply pretend that the heights reached by the classics that define sci-fi and fantasy are unattainable by modern filmmakers just because we want there to be more five star movies in a particular year.
It’s also worth mentioning that by sticking to our review philosophy, SciFiNow sacrifices a great deal of free promotion and commercial opportunities that comes with more lenient scores. We don’t give tough reviews for kicks, we do it because we feel it’s right.
Besides, we welcome the debate and are happy to have such vocal and passionate readers.
I think the topic of SFN’s scoring system raised its head in the forum a while back? Much discussion was had, but I think ultimately the SFN reviews are fair – because reviews are a subjective thing.
What SFN does so well is actually provide you with an idea of the movie/book/game whilst critiquing it. That may seem obvious, but so many reviews don’t do this, instead just launching into some self-absorbed nonsense and giving you the journo’s view of the director, writer, lighting etc whilst not telling you what the film is about. SFN is really good at telling you ABOUT the product as well as why they love it/hate it/are unmoved by it.
As for the stars ratings…well…that’s a matter of opinion. It has to be – for instance SFN editor Aaron thinks The Dark Knight is a brilliant movie on many levels. I think its pants. We can perhaps agree on some of the the technical aspects, but the artistic ones are harder to define because they’re personal. So I’d give it two stars. Maybe three. Aaron may well give it four or five.
I like to think that if SFN had been around when “The Phantom Menace” graced our local Cineworld’s it would have got two or three stars and not the six out of five that Empire, Total Film et al were rating it (only to make chagrined retractions upon reviewing the DVD once the word had gotten out that it was shit).
All in all, I think the stars ratings are fair enough in the context of the mag.
Cheers
Russ
Treat the star ratings as verisimilitudinous, and you won’t go far wrong.
I should explain that I don’t have a problem with District 9 not receiving four or five stars. The issue I have, and have had for about 18 months, is the fixation on criticism for criticism’s sake. For example, read the magazine reviews of both the cinema and DVD releases of The Dark Knight. If you showed those reviews to someone but not the final ratings, they would, I am sure, be surprised to see the movie receive five star ratings both times.
I too believe that only a few films are deserving of top marks, but as Joel78 points out, your unwillingness to over-praise means that far too many movies become bunched at the 3-stars-or-less end of the spectrum. This can make it hard for the reader to differentiate between flawed gems (Moon – 3 stars) and genuine stinkers (X-Files: IWTB – 2 stars). Changing to a marks-out-of-10 system could partially solve that, by increasing the range of potential ratings. Better yet, get rid of the ratings altogether and let the review stand on its own.
Personally, I think District 9 is magnificent, with Sharlto Copley’s stunning performance deserving particular mention. He’s a true Everyman – not stupidly good-looking, not insanely brave, often selfish and behaving as almost all of us would in such an extraordinary situation. He’s no-one’s idea of an action hero, and that’s what makes his character so fascinating, particularly when he is called upon to be genuinely heroic. And the way the films’s awesome effects work complements the live action so well must have folks like Michael Bay and Stephen Sommers chewing their arms off in jealousy. Can’t wait to see it again!
“Bear in mind, when we review a film we compare it to the greats that have gone before it, such as Alien, Blade Runner and 2001.”
Why? When I’m watching a film, I’m not sitting their thinking “this is crap because Alien was better”. I’ll judge it on its own merits, not for what I’ve seen before. If I took your view I wouldn’t have been to the cinema this year.
Some heights are unattainable, no one will ever do something similar to 2001 and better it.
Thank you for this review. It reflects exactly what I’ve felt while watching this movie. It was really a disappointment, also because all the critics I had read were good and more.
Now, I feel like an alien myself, especially when I see some comments on my blog about my review…
So it was just to say that: I totally agree with you (and I thank you for having told everything I felt about this movie so well and for making me feel less lonely…).