Seriously though this film came out the same year as James Cameron’s bore-fest Avatar, and the contrast between the two ways of humanizing the aliens species is so stark and makes Cameron’s obvious reliance on making the aliens attractive so we are more naturally humanize them. Whereas Neill Blomkamp’s District 9 makes them ugly and filthy, and yet does so much more of a competent job of humanizing the alien characters, especially in regards of making them physically unpalatable but more socially palatable than any of the humans. The humanization relies entirely on character development and character action, as opposed to Avatars lazy fucking doe-eyed puppy-nosed blue fuckdolls.
I loved the idea of aliens refugees coming to earth but I didn’t really like the movie that much. From what I remember in the end there was just a lot or shooting and running which was disappointing. Around 2009 I was used to less action packed and more thoughtful science fiction like “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”, “Moon” or “Never Let Me Go”.
Yeah unfortunately Blomkamp was in the running to be chosen to direct Halo movie and was working rough on drafts and concept art (he really wanted to be chosen) for a while before Microsoft canceled the entire project. He did make a short film for their ads (Halo: Landfall (2007)). I know that they put him on the shortlist on the strength of a short film (Alive in Joburg (2005)) whose plot eventually went on to be the seedlings of District 9 which would come out in 2009.
Once you recognize that they were trying to salvage a lot of the work they did in preparation for Halo, suddenly it becomes a little more obvious why it was an action movie instead of something more grounded with the same ideas. To me the alien weapon designs seemed very Halo style.
And I agree entirely, I think the film was held back by trying to be an action movie and social commentary at the same time. However, that somehow didn’t seem to hold back Avatar in the same way, despite it being an action movie about aliens and social commentary on humanity, environmentalism, impact of “progress” on native populations, and so on… and yet both my girlfriend at the time and I fell asleep for periods while seeing an IMAX screening of Avatar.
There’s usually some interesting story behind bad movies. I had no idea bout Halo movie but this makes sense.
I never saw Avatar. Not my type of a movie.
I really miss the late 90’s/00 sci fi movies. Gattaca, Children of Men, The Fountain, Primer, Timecrimes… It’s really hard to find movies like that now. For more than a decade now most sci fi is either marvel or star wars. The Platform was a nice exception but I can’t really think of anything else.
Children of Men continues to be one of the greatest sci-fis of all time and it holds up so well (other than the CGI baby) because of its brilliant cinematography.
Some sort of apartheid In South Africa? The crazy shit science fiction writers come up with, right?
I know, fucking wild, right? So unrealistic. /s
Seriously though this film came out the same year as James Cameron’s bore-fest Avatar, and the contrast between the two ways of humanizing the aliens species is so stark and makes Cameron’s obvious reliance on making the aliens attractive so we are more naturally humanize them. Whereas Neill Blomkamp’s District 9 makes them ugly and filthy, and yet does so much more of a competent job of humanizing the alien characters, especially in regards of making them physically unpalatable but more socially palatable than any of the humans. The humanization relies entirely on character development and character action, as opposed to Avatars lazy fucking doe-eyed puppy-nosed blue fuckdolls.
I loved the idea of aliens refugees coming to earth but I didn’t really like the movie that much. From what I remember in the end there was just a lot or shooting and running which was disappointing. Around 2009 I was used to less action packed and more thoughtful science fiction like “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”, “Moon” or “Never Let Me Go”.
Yeah unfortunately Blomkamp was in the running to be chosen to direct Halo movie and was working rough on drafts and concept art (he really wanted to be chosen) for a while before Microsoft canceled the entire project. He did make a short film for their ads (Halo: Landfall (2007)). I know that they put him on the shortlist on the strength of a short film (Alive in Joburg (2005)) whose plot eventually went on to be the seedlings of District 9 which would come out in 2009.
Once you recognize that they were trying to salvage a lot of the work they did in preparation for Halo, suddenly it becomes a little more obvious why it was an action movie instead of something more grounded with the same ideas. To me the alien weapon designs seemed very Halo style.
And I agree entirely, I think the film was held back by trying to be an action movie and social commentary at the same time. However, that somehow didn’t seem to hold back Avatar in the same way, despite it being an action movie about aliens and social commentary on humanity, environmentalism, impact of “progress” on native populations, and so on… and yet both my girlfriend at the time and I fell asleep for periods while seeing an IMAX screening of Avatar.
There’s usually some interesting story behind bad movies. I had no idea bout Halo movie but this makes sense.
I never saw Avatar. Not my type of a movie.
I really miss the late 90’s/00 sci fi movies. Gattaca, Children of Men, The Fountain, Primer, Timecrimes… It’s really hard to find movies like that now. For more than a decade now most sci fi is either marvel or star wars. The Platform was a nice exception but I can’t really think of anything else.
Children of Men continues to be one of the greatest sci-fis of all time and it holds up so well (other than the CGI baby) because of its brilliant cinematography.