District 9...

... The official review.



Ok, Ok, well, overall I'd say that it sucked. I mean, c'mon guys. The rule is simple, and it hasn't changed, practical effects out-weigh visual effects any day. Ok, sure, the movie has "top-of-the-line" visual effects, but for how long? Whenever a new blockbuster comes out, they swear up and down about how great the special effects look, but the fact is, a few years down the road it looks gritty and out-dated. When The Hulk came out in 2004, they thought the effects were great, now, it's almost unbearable. A few years later they released The Incredible Hulk, starring Edward Norton, well in THIS movie, they claimed that the visual effects were much more lifelike and believable, watch it now, and prepare to be unimpressed.
Technology dates films, simples as that. I mean, look at Alien. Ridley Scott took the time, effort, and money to actually build these creatures. This is back in 1979 when Special Effects were still special. If you have ever read "Fangoria", you would know how much time goes into these models. I mean the Aliens, the facehuggers, every litle slippery, slimy piece of goo they actually made, which made the movie timeless. 30 years later these effects still look believable and lifelike, and since the movie was made in the late '70's, it's obviously dated now, BUT the effects and film itself age together. Sure it looks old, they had old cameras, actors, lighting, and other stuff that has improved since then as well, but the effects don't stand alone like in District 9. The whole set in Alien looks integrated, the hallways, actors, and Aliens all fit in.
Back to District 9. Well, the first time they showed the "Prawns", I could obviously tell that they were done crappy. I mean, cool, they look great! They just don't look anything like the rest of the movie. Scenes where these "Prawns" can be found searching through garbage in the dumb are almost laughable because the layers literally stick out like a sore thumb. Why couldn't they just have spent those millions on practical effects? No, ruining a movie would be much more fun. I don't know, I just don't get it. Why does everybody say the creatures look good? They look the same as they did in Men In Black ten years ago. Nothing has changed, in two years everybody will say the graphics look horrible compared to ___ ( Insert next crappy blockbuster)

Anyways, let's look at the movie BESIDES the graphics. Ok, so the plot was absolutely unbearable. I mean, I like science fiction, I'm actually a HUGE fan, but what have we come to? Hasn't this Neill Blomkamp character seen " Signs " yet? Doesn't he know the #1 rule of films like this? DON'T SHOW THE FREAKIN' CREATURES! Geez! Want to snatch up an extra 50 million viewers, and actually sell a few DVD's? Well then give our tiny incapable human brains something to imagine please, .... please? In Signs, showing the Aliens' feet, arms, etc. while they ran through corn fields and birthday parties was great, but don't put some rubbery nonsense in my face like that, and don't kill my boy Joaquin. Please. They looked like the " Putties " in Power Rangers.

Ugh.. I don't know, I just miss the good ol' days of Science Fiction when you could ask for a copy of " The Day The Earth Stood Still" without receiving a box with Keanu Reeves on the cover. District 9 is the same way, it's more of a marketing plan than a film. They have their hands on just about the right concoction to get America to fall into movies like this. You can usually tell when they put the best clips of the movie in the trailer, and then delete them from the film ( see picture above ) Well, what happens when you have something and then subtract it?
Nothing.

Nothing = District 9
2/10