Quote clever meets not-quite-satisfying
District 9 begins with a classic science-fiction premise. A flurry of documentary-style interviews and mock TV news footage recap the chaotic recent events: a giant alien ship appeared over South Africa, and after months of watching it hover silently, human soldiers cracked it open to see what was inside. They found a large number of malnourished, human-sized, insect-like aliens. The ailing creatures were moved en masse to a holding camp called District 9, which has, in the twenty years since, become a crime-ridden slum where black markets sell alien weaponry and underground dealers import large quantities of cat food. The aliens find canned fish delectable. They’re intelligent enough to speak a language and build space ships, but on earth the “prawns,” as the aliens are called derisively (they look like giant shrimp), have become a societal burden.
In a series of witty interviews with a human functionary named Wikus Van De Merwe, District 9 establishes some obvious but critical similarities to our own world—as good science fiction always does—from concentration camps and genocide on the extreme end to immigration, xenophobia, poverty, asymmetric warfare, and urban renewal on the softer side. The story weaves together enough familiar elements that reviewers sound like they’re playing a parlor game when they try to describe it: it’s The Office meets Alien Nation. It’s The Fly meets V. It’s City of God meets The Day the Earth Stood Still.
Unfortunately, it’s also clever meets not-quite-satisfying. For over an hour, District 9 is fueled by an explosion of creativity. It boldly gives us a lead character in Wikus who looks and sounds like a jovial Aussie office wonk but who also seems to be a raging racist. Or speciesist, I suppose. Acting on behalf of a multinational corporation that’s been tasked with controlling the aliens, he knocks on slum doors to tell the residents to move or be moved, shooting any who spook him from the rear. Later the film further complicates his situation in ways that harden but also confuse the way he feels about the aliens, and the way they feel toward him. We’re in Archie Bunker territory, here, except for all the oozing fluids and bullet-pierced exoskeletons. The film provocatively makes its aliens and their twitching mandibles excessively disgusting, more like Brundlefly than E.T., so that anyone who wants to side with these sentient creatures needs to have strong enough moral principals to overcome the gag reflex.
That’s a fantastic idea for a thinking creature’s action film, but in its rush through the climax, District 9 favors loud blasts over logic. The two aren’t necessarily incompatible, but asking for both in District 9 is like asking the prawns and the humans to let bygones be bygones.
When our not-quite-lovable hero is finally alone with a friendly alien, you’d think he’d have a load of questions. “Hey, where are you from? Why are you here? Why South Africa? If you just need to get back to your (still hovering) ship so you can fly away, why didn’t you do that earlier, when you were still on the ship?” But our hero, like the film itself, is not the least bit interested in those questions once the wheels are set in motion. Instead he shouts, “Don’t fucking move! Don’t fucking move!” or inquiries to that effect. A few late-arriving changes of heart are unconvincing on all sides, and the film, which feels nearly complete at 85 minutes, lacking only a smart capper, continues for another brain numbing half hour. On balance, it’s a decent action flick, at least as stimulating as the Terminator sequel that opened the summer, but it’s a film that might have been a modern science fiction classic if it had spent a little more time in the incubator.
Watch the District 9 trailer:


what's the last wide release movie that you liked robert?
This summer, I liked Public Enemies, BrĂ¼no, and Up (and that last one is among the best of the decade, in my opinion). With some reservations I also enjoyed Away We Go. The new movies from Quentin Tarantino and Mike Judge coming out in a few weeks are really entertaining.
But honestly, I'd say that I "liked" District 9, too. As with The Hangover or even Angels & Demons, I can enjoy the ride and appreciate many aspects while still wishing it were better, which I hope is clear from the various reviews.
It's not a wide release, but I really hope people will find In the Loop. I suppose its foul-mouthed cynicism isn't for everyone, but I laughed all the way through it.
BTW, fans of the film should check out Sean's post about Blomkamp's short films.
I think the rating does not live up to the review. Shouldn't your rating at least be in maybe a 78-80 range. It wasn't the best ever for you and it did need some tweaking; but District 9 is still one of the best sci-fi movies in a long time. History is always the best judge of a film, so I guess we just need to wait and see.
Could be, Joseph. People sometimes complain about my numbers. I'm still getting used to a 100-point scale, but I think I'd have been comfortable with 3- or 3.5-star rating out of 5 (our old scale), which translates pretty well to 65 out of 100. On a grading scale that's a low B. Oh no, I'm talking about numbers again. You all suck me in. :-)
The other thing is that it's more fun sometimes to write about the good stuff than the bad stuff. I may have done that here.
Another interesting question: how much can a great movie be harmed by a bad ending? What if Citizen Kane ended with an extra 30 minutes of really bad tap dancing, offensive jokes, and spaghetti recipes? Could that knock it from an A to an F+? Is the rating held up by the good part, or is the rating even worse than it might have been if the whole thing had been bad because the ending spoiled a great party. Hmm, critical philosophy. I dunno. District 9 isn't quite that stark -- a pretty good treatment of a great premise, followed by a 30-minute finale that's not terrible but patience-trying, IMO -- but I do feel like a film's final stretch is what sets the mind thinking as you leave the theatre.
Someone should volunteer to discuss all this with me on my (infrequent) podcast. Mount a defense!
I thought this movie was fantastic. Logical gaps are concomitant with sci-fi flicks, and even still 9 seemed to have spent plenty of time "in the incubator." It was thoroughly entertaining, emotionally provocative, and visually stunning, all the while preserving a healthy pinch of social (historical) commentary. Thanks for your review, I enjoyed it.
I totally agree. From all the ads I had seen, which were brilliant, I was expecting a little more of a mock-documentary on racism and immigration in South Africa. I thought the setting would make the satire all the more poignant since South Africa among all other countries has had the biggest legacy of racism and apartheid. Instead, it was much more of an action movie. And while the action was amazing, it seemed a little bit disappointing considering this film had so much potential.
i just saw the movie, and i thought it was great. i'm rather picky with the movies i watch, and am not usually a sci-fi fan, but this movie drew me in.
i disagree that you have to have a good gag reflex to root for the aliens. i found my self completely rapped up in the characters and hanging on every moment the movie had to offer.
Well, I meant the humans in the story have to get over the insect-like appearance of the aliens, not that viewers of the movie would gag. If aliens all looked like Padma Lakshmi, they'd be easy to support, but if they look like disgusting creatures, as they do in this story, it's easier for the humans to treat them inhumanely. But we in the audience can see the crime in that inhumanity. That's one of the core ideas of the movie, and I like it very much (even though the film cheats a little by putting a red t-shirt on the alien we're supposed to care the most about and giving him a cuter, big-eyed child).
"It boldly gives us a lead character in Wikus who looks and sounds like a jovial Aussie office wonk but who also seems to be a raging racist."
No real complaints about the review (though I liked the movie a great deal more than you did), but I just wanted to warn you that any Saffie that stops by is likely to blow a blood vessel over being compared to an Australian. The accents are quite different.
I'd also argue that Wikus does not come across as a raging racist, but as an institutional racist, of the type that was all too prevalent in the apartheid-era. He does what he does not out of hatred, but out of conviction that he is helping make decisions for a group that is incapable of making decisions for itself. Obviously wrong as well, but worth making the distinction.
Finally, I don't think any American reviewers have picked this up, but the prawns are named after Johannesburg's "Parktown Prawns", a type of cricket prevalent in the area.
Ow, thanks for the correction, Bonnie. Maybe I should have said "who looks and sounds like a jovial Aussie ... to a dimwitted American like myself".
I wholeheartedly agree with you about the institutional, bureaucratic racism (which can also be raging, I'd argue).
Interesting note about parktown prawns. I had the image of spot prawns in my head, but the cricket is closer and makes more sense.