i may get it. never really saw it myself, but apparently there's an alien eating cat food, which my mother found disgusting when she and my dad went to see it
Really? As I understand it, "an" should only be used if the word that follows begins with a vowel, otherwise "a" is used. But then I'm American - is what you suggested common usage in the British Isles?Woodsey said:It's "an historic" not "a historic" though.
EDIT: Bah forget that, it's down to personal preference I suppose - I've always been taught the former.
Flap Jack452 said:Nice review, and great movie. And because it's appropriate (0:57-0:59 is the funniest I think):
<youtube=E49BB1vE2tY>
Valid point. I did wind up thinking that if humanity is going to handle alien encounters as stupidly as they did in this film, they deserve to get wiped out by a very pissed off Prawn fleet. So maybe that was the point.kemosabi4 said:Maybe I'm being an artsy douche by saying this, but I thought Wikus's attitude towards the aliens only captured how easily humans can break trust and how quick they can betray others without a second thought. His turnaround only amplified the message behind the movie.Garaw said:The biggest problem I had with this movie was the fact that its protagonist was an unsympathetic douchebag who had no concern whatsoever for his company's ruthlessness until it was turned on him. I can't think of an actor/script combination that better captures 'weaselly little shit'.
Well, I highly recommend the movie to others, and I have to say I quite enjoyed it, but here's the thing - I don't even consider it all that mind-blowing myself. I think, from a critical standpoint, that the movie is excellent because it takes a very cliche idea and runs with it in an inventive way that somehow manages to sidestep many cliches that are the pitfalls of most effects-packed movies nowadays. And yet it does have generous amounts of action in it nonetheless, so you can really say it's a rare gem that shows theme and character development really can be bridged with flashy guns and action scenes.hURR dURR dERP said:Meh, I've always thought District9 was overrated. A decent enough flic, sure, but not as good as most people seem to claim.
The whole apartheid thing was shallow, the zOMG EVIL SCIENCE CORPORATION OR WHATEVER HUMANS ARE THE REAL MONSTERS is boring and predictable, The evil cannibal voodoo negroes are retarded, the plot is full of holes, and halfway through it gets tired of its own weak shit and is like "fuck it I'm gonna do an action movie in stead".
But yeah, I know most people liked it and I can see why because it was pretty cool. It'd just be a lot better if it just accepted that it was a cool and reasonably original action sci-fi and didn't bother to pretend that it had an interesting plot because IMO it didn't.
Also don't use "without further adieu". It's "ado", not goodbye in French.
I'm well aware that the apartheid is based on real-life events, but that makes it all the worse. Don't you think it's just a little odd how in a movie that takes a human-vs-alien apartheid situation and uses it as a "racism is bad" (gee, really?) story makes one of its main villains (next to the extremely cliche "evil capitalists who care more about guns and money than about human/alien life!") some kind of racially stereotypical crazy negro cannibals? They're ooga-booga colonial nightmares rather than believable antagonists.kemosabi4 said:First off, the "evil humans" motif was thoughtful and fleshed-out. This and the apartheid were based off of real-life events taking place in Cape Town in the 1970s, where 60,000 blacks were forcibly removed from their homes and moved to bleak government settlements.
And please offer more about the Nigerian gang than "retarded". Their behavior is based off of real beliefs and behavior. The eating of body parts to gain power is a popular belief in underground South Africa.
I'm just going to have to disagree with you there. The movie starts in an interesting mockumentary style that to me seemed to promise a reasonably intelligent approach to the premise. This starts to fall apart when Wikus is pushed to the front as the unlikely (anti-)hero. Not only does it make the mistake of trying to 'alienize' a thoroughly unlikable human being (as Garaw pointed out) rather than making us care for the witless backdrop aliens or at least making them more relatable (the elements were clearly there in the father-son relationship of the only two intelligent prawns, which is all but ignored for that purpose). Anyway, back to the point - after learning that discriminating against aliens might not be a good thing when he starts turning into an alien himself (how convenient), the plot pretty much comes to the conclusion that the only way to really help the aliens is to blast the shit out of everyone who stands in their way, the bumbling Wikus turns into Action Jackson and does just that. While the transition between the two halves of the movie isn't as abrupt as I perhaps made it sound, it's certainly not "justified and seamless".kemosabi4 said:And I thought the transference to action was justified and seamless. There was pretty much no other way to do it. I thought that the action in the movie felt natural, rather than forced.
I'd say that the ones mentioned in your review were already pretty significant ones, but they're by no means the only ones. Why is it that Wikus, and untrained human, can instantly use alien machinery that the aliens themselves haven't figured out how to use in all of the twenty years that came before? Why is it that this alien machinery is just lying around in all the obvious places when the evil capitalists clearly want them so very badly and obviously has the means to go in and get them if they want? Why is it that even though the aliens have been there for so long, the international community hasn't taken an interest in the situation, for better or for worse? Etc.kemosabi4 said:The plot was interesting and contained virtually no holes aside from the ones mentioned in my review.
I did a quick search on this and the reason seems to be related to whether you sound the vowel or pronounce the consonant (bear with me).Gildan Bladeborn said:Really? As I understand it, "an" should only be used if the word that follows begins with a vowel, otherwise "a" is used. But then I'm American - is what you suggested common usage in the British Isles?Woodsey said:It's "an historic" not "a historic" though.
EDIT: Bah forget that, it's down to personal preference I suppose - I've always been taught the former.
The audience might not be able to relate to Wikus, but I believe that, more often than not, the audience is capable of seeing themselves in Wikus. Humans are, after all, predatory panic-driven selfish and stupid animals for all their contentions of intelligence. Can any of us really say we would act any differently in his situation?hURR dURR dERP said:... Wikus is just not a protagonist you can relate to. He's a cowardly bigot who, even when subjected to the same kind of discriminations the prawns endure (and arguably worse), acts only out of self-interest to the point of attacking the only one who might be able to help him when things aren't going fast enough for his taste.