It was very allegorical, without being preachy, original, quirky, funny, and the best sci-fi film I have seen in a fair few years!
I saw District 9...
- Thread starter awsome117
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Honestly I can say it flowed very well. Sure it was dark, but that drew us in. The story was great, the actors were fresh (Honestly the first move I`ve seen with South African actors in it)and the setting was unique. That`s more than I can say about many other movies out this year.
I myself am a big fan of Blomkamp's work, and was just absolutely freaking stoked to see his short film years ago (Alive in Joberg) develop into a full feature.awsome117 said:
That... was just awesome.
And "Just another Sci-Fi flick"?
Did you watch the same film I did? It was a brilliant tongue-in-cheek metaphor for how the American Government treats people in 3rd world countries.
I laughed my arse off the entire film, just because it was so amazingly accurate.
WW2??? Nice try, but it's actually taken straight from the narrative of South African apartheid in the mid-late 80's, which is also where the movie takes place and where writer/director Neil Blompkapf is from. It's a Sci-Fi flick written from a personal and compassionate point of origin rather than one of spectacle and retro-baiting. Not to mention that it's one of very very few sci-fi movies to take place in a realistic setting. And regardless of what plot these movies have, my point was that this is the only one with sub-text and a meaningful one at that. Whether Spock<color=white>-trapped-in-an-ice-cave(spoiler) is full of righteous vengeance or a lust for fan service doesn't change the fact that he's merely there so the audience will say "hey look, it's Leonard Nimoy". District 9 had something to say about the human condition.Arbitrary Cidin said:
In that case I'm guessing you don't see many movies you like, at least not out of Hollywood.Shibito091192 said:
Someone here please point out a sci-fi movie that fulfills all of the following:
Takes place in a modern setting - not futuristic or fantastic. - Not Star Trek.
Takes place in a realistic setting - not on a space station or moon or alien world. - Not Star Wars.
Treats alien visitors as humans - not simply as compatriots, but as members of a living, breathing, fragile community just like one of ours.
- Not ET, he was alone and he lived in a fucking closet. He might as well have been one of those stuffed animals.
I actually thought it was one of the better movies I have seen all summer. It was cetainly one of the most original movies this summer, at least the ones I have seen. It had pretty good action and had a lot of feeling to it. And I appreciated the underlying message it delivered.
I enjoyed it. Yes the movie used the same themes that have been used in the past, but shook it up. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, I personally thought it was quite visionary. People who are dissing the film are only complaining to complain.
Of course the tropes that it uses have been used before, every idea that has been used, has been used before. Just not in the same structure.
Of course the tropes that it uses have been used before, every idea that has been used, has been used before. Just not in the same structure.
Oh be careful, you're spilling some of that pretentious crap on the floor.Shibito091192 said:
In a movie about aliens, you can't tell me that guys in cheap, Wal-Mart suits would put you in the story as well as excellent CGI. It doesn't happen. It's an immersion killer. It also is an immersion killer when the camera is boringly static, or pointed at the floor. Shucks, it sure it hard to get into this movie...all I'm doing is looking at floor!
Well the movies about Apartheid in South Africa, and it's literally been done before...by the same guy...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive_in_Joburg
It was pretentious of you to say that anyone who enjoys 'enhancing' CGI and special effects is an 8 year old.Shibito091192 said:
Thanks for putting words in my mouth! And for jumping to conclusions!
I never mentioned 'older' films, nor once did I say that a movie without, or with poor, special effects was 'rubbish'.
I'm sure they were immersive for their time. But we aren't living in 1950 anymore. I'm judging this movie on today's standards since we live, go figure, now. Not 50 years ago, not 30 years ago, but now. Pardon me if I'm not convinced by a 1960s monster movie. I'm sure at the time people were reeling at the way things were done. Good for them.
And thanks for only reading part of my post! The 'pointing at the floor' was only an example, along with 'boringly static'. With the definition of cinematography being the making of lighting and camera choices when recording photographic images for the cinema., I don't think that those two examples were particularly off. I'm ever so sorry that I didn't throw in a lighting example too.
30 million NZD! It's actually like 20 mil USD.easy evil said:
*POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD*
I thought the movie was an excellently executed piece of cinematography. They put their money where they needed it without going overboard on the explosions and impressive feats, which made me appreciate the actual fighting scenes much more since it wasn't being beaten into me (zing!). I thought the entire first portion of it, how the aliens were treated like prisoners in a POW camp, was just a huge slap in the face to those expressing prejudice characteristics. There's a whole different appreciation (and frustration) of watching people treat others like crap than actually being part of it.
One thing I really appreciated about the movie was that neither species was actually looking for the other one, and don't seem to care about one another, or their origins. We've always been obsessed with finding the origins of extraterrestrial life, but we don't seem to give a #*$& in this movie lol. It's like their simply a burden, rather than a gift of one of the biggest questions of our lives answered. It may fall under the same genre as some other movies, but the perceptions taken on it were fairly new to me.
i really enjoyed the way the movie was shot and enjoyed the story of the movie alot more than these current movies where all they have is shit blowing up... now dont get me wrong i like senseless violence as much as the next guy but after a while of having little to no reason and a plot filled with so many holes you could mistake it for a beehive does tend to get a bit dreary after a while.
District 9 however was shot in a very cloverfieldy way and in a way that people could actually see happening if this where to ever happen. And when the action does happen there is a definitive reason for it.
on the whole i really enjoyed this movie and would recommend it others.
District 9 however was shot in a very cloverfieldy way and in a way that people could actually see happening if this where to ever happen. And when the action does happen there is a definitive reason for it.
on the whole i really enjoyed this movie and would recommend it others.
i thought it was a very good movie, and before i went to see Inglourious Basterds (sic) i thought it was the best movie i had seen since The Dark Night, it had a phenomenal story, and i thought the way they did the camera work was very well done, it had the interview/semi hand-held camera, which at first i was worried about after seeing Cloverfield, that fit the movie extremely well, overall, a good movie
yeah tho that one is only 6 minutes long and will probly be on the extras for District 9bassrocker521 said:
that's my view, original story, old theme that kinda brings sci-fi back to it's roots. sci-fi and horror have long be a social commentary medium and lately we've forgotten that and i'm glad they remember what sci-fi is and what message it should put forthsuperbleeder12 said: