Comments on: Theatrical review: District 9

By: Cachou

Cachou — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:04:07 +0000

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…).

By: lovlid

lovlid — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:27:47 +0000

“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.

By: thirstydog

thirstydog — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:32:54 +0000

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!

By: Joel78

Joel78 — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:40:03 +0000

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.

By: Stu

Stu — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:38:51 +0000

Treat the star ratings as verisimilitudinous, and you won’t go far wrong.

By: Russ Whitfield

Russ Whitfield — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:49:43 +0000

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

By: Aaron Asadi

Aaron Asadi — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:25:57 +0000

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.

By: Captain Subtext

Captain Subtext — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:03:00 +0000

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)?

By: Joel78

Joel78 — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:45:22 +0000

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?

By: James Rundle

James Rundle — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:00:53 +0000

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.