Advertisement
Obviously it’s ironic to criticize a critic so aggressively, but that’s just what people love to do to infamously contrarian New York Press film critic Armond White, who seems to be getting his worst scrutiny yet over his negative review of District 9. The comments and campaigns against him have been going on all week, but now that Roger Ebert has gotten himself involved, it’s a bigger deal. Especially since Ebert first defended White and then took it back. Yet his initial statement that White is “the ideal critic” who “is often valuable because [his opinion] is outside the mainstream” remains on Roger Ebert’s Journal to contractrict the change of mind.
It’s also a bit ironic that this is all because of a movie about creatures who’ve been segregated against. Would District 9’s fanbase prefer to ghettoize critics who disagree with them? Should there be websites and free weeklies that have “Populist Critics Only” guidelines? I don’t want to side with or against White, becuase there’s no need to, what with freedom of speech and press and everything. I will admit that when I began writing film reviews many years ago, I looked up to White more than anyone and even gave myself the nickname “The Film Cynic” (which I still use for my Twitter moniker at least), because I was a more negative and cynical person back then, and also, I honestly admit, because I thought it’d help get me controversially noticed.
Certainly White gets a lot of notice and publicity for his opinions, too, but the important thing is that he’s an interesting read, and not just for how against-the-grain he is. Even if he is ever intentionally anti-majority just to be anti-majority, he presents reasonable arguments and raises necessary points while doing so. Besides, does anyone really want to live in a world where everybody likes District 9 or Up or The Dark Knight and where nobody has anything fresh, smart and positive to say about Transformers 2? How boring that world would be.
That’s my two cents. Check out a few other film blog responses to the White blackballing after the jump:
Armond-watching has become a sport in itself of late; he’s frequently a critical wild salmon, swimming upstream against the tide of popular opinion. But as a reader, I love his work and I find that even when I disagree with his reaction to a film (as with D9), I understand why he feels so strongly.
Sure, it’s easy to disagree with Armond, or even spend entire threads talking about how “he just doesn’t get it.” But he does and a majority of the fanboy/armchair critics find it far easier to say he’s wrong than take the time to understand what he’s writing. I’ll be willing to put down money that 7/8’s of the crowd denouncing his District 9 review didn’t even bother to look up You, The Living in terms of his comparison. And so what if he loved it compared to Funny People?
I’m all for diversity, but seriously, there are times I wonder if White isn’t just out to be “that guy.” And I guess I’m not alone in those ponderings, as some folks are much more up-in-arms at the critic’s most recent review, taking to Twitter to blow off some steam…Of course, I’m not advocating that White be de-credentialed or anything. His nonsense is at times refreshing and sue me if I’ve agreed with this or that outside-the-box take.
I realized I had to withdraw my overall defense of White. I was not familiar enough with his work. It is baffling to me that a critic could praise “Transformers 2″ but not “Synecdoche, NY.” Or “Death Race” but not “There Will be Blood.” I am forced to conclude that White is, as charged, a troll. A smart and knowing one, but a troll.
The fact that Roger Ebert wrote “WTF” makes our Friday. It’s almost as awesome as when he admitted to reviewing a film after seeing only the first eight minutes. So anyway, Ebert goes on to to defend most of White’s gripes with this film (Note: Ebert gave it three stars in his own review), and now people are going bonkers over that, too.
See, Armond? Anyone can change their mind! Maybe give Wall-E another shot on DVD?
Armond White is either deliberately playing the devil’s advocate for publicity (it’s working) or he’s some kind of diabolical genius, a literary Andy Kaufman laughing while ruining everyone’s fun. I’m still not sure, but neither seems very professional. Most RottenTomatoes users believe he is a “troll,” an Internet term for someone whose intent is to provoke others.
Also, in White’s review of District 9, White approvingly cites a piece by—a film blogger! Who referred to a Morrissey song in a piece about Roy Andersson’s You, the Living. Well of course he did! White doesn’t tell us where the piece appears, but still, that’s kinda sweet.
I rarely agree with Mr. White and I never know where he’s coming from in his reviews. In his review of Coraline earlier this year, which he liked, he spent the majority of the text bashing WALL-E. It seems he can’t critique a movie on its own, it always has to be compared to something else, and in most cases multiple comparisons are made. There are times when comparisons are appropriate, but White is constantly doing this and it drives me nuts. He also has a hardcore crush on Speilberg, case in point, he named both War of the Worlds and Munich as his co-best films of 2005.
All I know is that if Armond White had a podcast, I would subscribe in a heartbeat.
Is it fair or achievable (in a legitimate, fair-minded sense) to compare rabid believers among true-believer, herd-mentality fanboys with the right-wing birthers and townhall “death panel” protesters?…I suppose a case can be made by the more-than-500 comments on Rotten Tomatoes that attack N.Y. Press critic Armond White for having written a District 9 pan…There is a religious current inside the fanboy mentality — a current that gets really mad if you dump on the faith they’re buying into.
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
Having seen District 9 myself I believe there are some valid points to be made in critiquing the film similar to the way that Armond has. It is a very good film but it is not without its faults and perhaps some of the criticisims are justified.
However as a New Zealander with British and South African family Armond’s review is offensive in a number of ways first when he cites at as something to expect from a “second rate film culture” is he refering solely to New Zealand film or anything that didn’t originate in the United States?
Also he berates Peter Jackson as “intellectually juvenile” - once again is this because he doesn’t live in a elegant Manhattan apartment or Beveley Hills mansion and is therefore unable to obtain some misterious cinematic zen only Armond is aware of?
But perhaps most offensive of all is the fact his review preaches knowledge of apartheid yet he obviouslyhas serious gaps in his knowledge as to the complexities of South African race relations and to a lesser degree New Zealand race relations where he begins to mention Peter Jackson’s supposed prejudices toward Maori people; and Aborigines (which are entirely different).
To me a movie reviewer should review a movie - not preach about historic and geo-political events that they have little to no knowledge about.
Hence why I believe there has been such an uproar regarding this so called “critics” review; it focuses to much on Armond’s own warped world view rather than the merits of the film.
only hipster nihilists hate armond white. watch the hipster nihilists come out of the woodwork and post their smug, god-hating blasphemy in the comments of this smug, nihilist blog.
and you call yourself writers. this blog isn’t nearly as good as the writings of james bowman over at james bowman’s blog. i suggest you smug hipster nihilists go pay mr. bowman a visit and learn a thing or two about what it means to be a man. and get a job while you’re at it.
smug hipsters.
@aaron g: Shut up Mr Bowman
The problem I have with White’s review of D9 is that he insults everyone who likes the movie as well as the creators. He calls them racists, idiots and other degrading things. It’s one thing to give an excellent movie a bad review, but it’s completely unacceptable to use the media to launch scathing personal attacks on people just because the like a movie or because they created something you did not like. Of course White is supposed to be a cynic, but does that give him a right to attack the dignitas of Peter Jackson and everybody else who liked this movie? I think not.
You’ve got this completely wrong, as do others, and you may have to rewrite your blog entry with a different premise. There are not 500+ comments at Rotten Tomatoes on Armond’s review by rabid fanboys who hate that he panned their movie — there are 500+ comments by frequent RT visitors who have noticed an increasingly disturbing trend in the way Armond operates, and this review was the veritable last straw. Notice that compared to his, there are relatively few comments posted in response to other negative reviews of the film.
I will end this by pointing out, as have many, many others, that this man has given high marks to Transformers 2, G.I. Joe, and Dance Flick, while panning District 9, Star Trek, Iron Man, and every Pixar film to date. I believe this goes beyond a matter of innocent opinion, and those that support him knowing full well his incapability of delivering an unbiased review are just as guilty of playing the devil’s advocate as he.
I don’t understand why you think Ebert’s reasoning is stupid.
The weight of your argument is only as good as your balance, and Bloggers turned film critics don’t hold a lot of weight in my opinion.
Armond White is a polarizing figure for sure, and I stopped reading his column since I disagreed with him more than agreed. He would simply attack a movie without seeing any merit, and credibility is suspect.
It’s ok to be a hater if that’s what you do, but frankly there’s too much of it in the internet as it is and it’s become popular opinion to officially dislike something without really balancing why. You and White represent this trend, and anyone who doesn’t love movies (like I suspect White does) should not be reviewing them, specially someone who thought The Black Dahlia was the best slice of cinema ever. Wrong on the Dark Knight, wrong more than right. And that’s popular opinion from people who do write good reviews.
To finish it up, White’s usual trend of just fusing his own personal prejudice against a movie’s merits (or lack of) discredits his stance, I feel he simply hates movies and only champions something when it suits his political / social agendas. Review a fucking movie, don’t give me a master class on things you ASSUME people know nothing about. It’s this crutch that makes film reviewers extinct, and why Paramount chose wisely not to screen G.I. Joe for critics. Anyone who goes on a hate tirade like Armond for publicity (seems to be working0 should have his reviewer pass revoked. Film journalism is in the toilet.
What an idiotic critique of a very entertaining, thought provoking, disturbing movie — a rare find these days when most movies center around eye candy and not much in terms of substance, plot line or acting. Yours is a poor excuse of a review and your takeaways of this movie completely miss the mark.
Say its name, Jeff Wells. The “faith” they are buying into is Capitalism. The “religion” is Hype.
It’s easier to pay White to write a good review for your Movie than hope word of mouth brings in an audience … District 9 should have paid him his going rate …. wait … I guess word of mouth is getting the job done after all (top at the box office) … and to think I was going to see Transformers 2 until my freind told me “it stunk the place out!”
I’m pretty much fed up with this guy. Any review that is generally good on rotten tomatoes or any other website, he completely bashes. I think he wants the American public to see him as a mystery and try and figure out what he really likes in movies. Most of the one’s that he does like pretty much are horrid or are horribly reviewed by the mainstream movie reviews. An amalgamation of a human being if you ask me…
District 9 was ok, it didn’t come even close to the hype it had around it. If i scored it it would be 3/5.
I dont get the pretentious fan boy prattling about this movie. It wasnt that great, and it was hardly “smart”. The plot was a mess. Just for starters
* No explanation of why an evil Lockheed Martin company was put in charge of controlling and administrating the over 1.5 million SENTIENT aliens with advanced technology
* No explanation why there was no involvement of the UN didn’t get involved in the biggest event in human history
* No explanation of why the US didn’t get involved in the biggest event in human history
* No explanation of why the aliens, who have vastly superior technology to anyone on earth, let Nigerians kill them and control them, other than “cat food”
* The alien weaponry is shown to be ridiculously powerful and plentiful, with the military finding huge hordes of guns for 15 minutes, but none of the aliens ever use them, though they do fight back
* No explanation of why most of the aliens are stupid enough to walk around in bras and lampshades and others are genius chemical technicians who can pilot interstellar space craft
* No explanation of why there was no government, no representative, no hierarchy of control or command structure for a massive group of peoples who have been on earth for over 20 years
* NO explanation as to why they were being put into tents instead of actual structures and why the hell a force of 1.5 million vastly technologically and physically superior creatures would let humans do that in the first place
* The main character was like watching a Reno 911 characters most of the time. Felt like the Office, where a stupid agency puts a stupid person in charge of a massive eviction of 1.5 million being and their move to a new location over 240km away. The guy gets a crazy chemical sprayed on him, get sick, doesn’t tell anyone what’s happened, isn’t even curious about why he’s sick, no one asks him why.
* No explanation of why the ‘control ship’ landed on earth in the first place and was buried under slums that didn’t exist at the time or why the aliens didn’t tell anyone that they were stuck there because of this, only to have the coincidence of their finally discovering enough fuel to get their ship going on the SAME DAY the evil weapons manufacture finally decides to evict them
* No explanation as to how magical spaceship full culled from ‘discarded alien technology trash’ took 20 years to cull when it would have been far easier to find all of this technology when it happened in the first place
* No explanation of how magical jet fuel is able to turn a human being into an Alien or WHY this stupid man, when awake and faced with a team of evil doctors who want to dissect him to discover HOW he’s able to be genetically altered into Alien DNA doesn’t EVER TELL ANYONE that it was because he was sprayed by some vial he found which the doctors spend 3 minutes staring at while he watches
*No explanation as to why the only technology the aliens apparently had with them was weapons.
*No explanation as to why the aliens were saved from a slow death by starvation by humans, because they couldnt open their ship themselves.
Add that to the fact that the entire backstory seems to say that the minute the aliens got here, they started generally running amok, killing people, and derailing trains “for fun” with their super robot suits. That, with the fact that they appeared to be extremely dangerous hostile to the native population, The alien population doubled in 20 years, all on taxpayer support (from 1 million to 2.5 million!).
Somehow, I didn’t find myself cheering for the aliens.
Thats the tip the ice burg, I dont understand why people are drooling all over this film. Worst thing I’ve seen since Diary of the Dead.
In my opinion District 9 is one of the best science fiction movies in a long time. That being said, I think it is important to have contrarian reviews, because not all movie-goers have the same values, and there may be many people who enjoy different types of films or things about them who might find White’s opinions better reflect their tastes and help them to choose the best entertainment for them.
@james Agreed, 100%. Too many problems with the plot to be a good movie. However, I’ll give their marketing and publicity teams a 5/5…now THAT was a good movie.
I wish I had read Armond’s review before I went to see this ridiculous movie. I made the Idiocracy comment to my wife when she suggested
that the world must have devolved to a sad state for so many critics to have given this movie any rating above 1.
We walked out half way through and still don’t care what happened to Wikus or the disgusting bug creatures.
This movie was boring and stupid.
to James, Alan & his wife:
… Why not try out GI Joe … it sounds more like your kind of movie …
That critic is a no-name trying to make one.
“I know! I’ll deliberately bash everything that doesn’t align with my socioeconomic views.”
He’s been marked as a “hater” and a “troll”.
…and it couldn’t be any more warranted.
I have to say, this is the first time I’ve ever agreed with Armond White about anything. Generally, I think he’s got his head up his a**, but I disliked District 9 quite a bit for many of the reasons he stated.
@ James- I could not agree more. I absolutely hated this movie. It is the most over-hyped film of the year. There wasn’t really anything smart about it. The “underlying” social themes pretty much smack you in the face. I had no sympathy for the characters. Poor acting and lame dialogue. I felt like I was watching a B-Movie on the Sci Fi channel.
Mr. Campbell, you must understand that you are in the minority here. Despite your listed quotes, MOST people agree that Armond absolutely does NOT present reasonable arguments for why he hates award-winning movies and loves terrible movies. You can’t just throw out a statement like that as if it were a fact when Armond is, in fact, known for being an inconsistent writer at best.
And even his staunchest Armond supporters admit that he probably isn’t sincere in all of his reviews. So you have to ask yourself why he would write a review that does not accurately report how he truly feels about a movie. Is it to cause controversy for the sake of controversy, or is it all for self-promotion? Either way, it makes you look foolish for defending him.
There’s a lot of talk about Armond White being insincere (I feel that he genuinely believes everything he writes) but, isn’t it possible that a lot of the positive reviews for “District 9″ were written by critics who used the internet to get a sense of the “buzz” (through sites like AICN) and then crafted their reviews accordingly? I decided to stop reading reviews when I realized I could accurately predict how a movie was going to be received just by watching the trailer.
Maybe for some people, it’s so inconceivable that anybody would ever disagree with what seems to be the consensus opinion that it simply has to be a put on.
I think Armond is aggressively attacking the mainstream, and that can be off putting. But, if the mainstream is going to heap praise on what is essentially enjoyable violent pulp as if it were high art, then the mainstream is screwed up and needs a little attacking.
I thought the movie was stupid, I walked out of the theatre half way into it. The constant news casting faux documentary style was condescending in the least. Whenever you have newscasters having to explain to you what is happening in the movie, or used as a tool to fuse scenes together you know the movie is written poorly, as is this one. This movie is on par with robocop-swamp thing. Sorry, It’s B-rated at best. Why is it that humans must always feel superior? Why can’t we ever have aliens that are actually very intelligent? If they built such technology I would have figured that the vast majority of them are very intelligent, but no, we have the old alien cliche (predator) and they eat cat food, or tires, and run around without much sense. Whoever claims this movie has depth, and intellectual merit is a fool. If you want to see something that has depth, a real sci-fi movie that makes you think go see “moon”. If you are 12 years old conditioned into believing a splatter fest with explosions, gun fights, and stupid chase scenes is your type of entertainment ….go watch this videogame. In my opinion that’s all we have here, is a video game.
[...] few Americans (except the black critic Armond White, who has made himself wildly unpopular with fanboys of District 9 by pointing out the film’s strikingly caustic portrayal of black [...]
I have never seen a disaster of a movie on this magnitude be praised so much. This has got to be one of the worst scifi movies out there. There was more depth in robocop, which reminded me of this movie. This was a cross between toxic avenger, swampthing, aliens, predator, v-the final battle, independence day, and other idiotic movies. It was like the Frankenstein of bad scifi cinema disguised as deep pondering work. Actually a good way to describe this movie was like watching a video game. I can only conclude that the critics are in the tank for this movie, shame on them, but alas it will probably be removed very soon from theatres sparing the rest of us. As for me I walked out of the theatre in 40 minutes, but upon reading the reviews I went online to watch more of it, and found that despite how horrific the first half was, it only devolved into a run around shoot-em up first person shooter.
Goodness… You guys need to understand that this controversy has very little to do with District 9 per se. Armond has been building up a bad rep for quite some time by thoroughly trashing movies such as Wall-E and The Dark Knight, while praising Transformers 2, Norbit, Dance Flick, and I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry.
The D9 forum was simply the place where everyone started arguing over Armond’s motives because most people had predicted he’d write a bad review of the movie if most other critics loved it…. And the Armond-haters were right. You have to admit - he does seem to be doing it just for the attention.
No one has ever stated that D9 is a perfect movie or deserves a perfect rating.
I’ve always understood White’s reviews to be the sincere reactions of an intelligent person who generally cares about things yet finds himself in the silly absurd and increasingly stupid world that is modern film. His reviews are probably more interesting and personal and about something than 99 percent of the films out there indie or otherwise but alas they’re still only reviews. district 9 is crap I don’t even need to see it to know that. As soon as they hear a sci fi flick made for millions has allegorical relevancies any intelligent person in the world, all three of them, runs the other way if only to save their nine dollars in the middle of this depression we’re in. Why would anybody see this? so they can twitter about it? If white deterred one person… just one from seeing this film…well then that’s sadly the best a saint can hope for in our current world of trivialities and trifles fueled primarily by the disaffected half in half out nature of snarky hipper than thou film bloggers. Either way I don’t think he makes an impact on numbers for transformers 2. there’s plenty of entertainment out there…where’s the art? in district 9 with the space men?
Screw Armond. What’s this guy trying to sell anyway? A few months back I absentmindedly let a zuchini go bad in my fridge. They advertise that this stuff is supposed to eliminate household odors. Tell the people the truth!
The irony here is bloggers like yourself rushing to attack fanboys rushing to attack Armond White. Most of the fanboys didn’t bother to read Armond White’s reviews, and most of the bloggers didn’t bother to read the actual criticisms of White. The backlash against White has less to do with him bashing District 9 and more to do with the predictably contrarian way that he reviews movies. Armond White will reliably give any arthouse movie a sincere review, and any big-budget movie a review opposing whatever critical consensus is. Roger Ebert is right in his retraction; that is not critiquing, that is just trolling.
Armond White has a new book out!
It’s titled KEEP MOVING: THE MICHAEL JACKSON CHRONICLES
http://www.resistanceworks.blogspot.com
I had expected DISTRICT 9 to be one of my favorite movies this summer. And although it had an interesting premise, I discovered that I didn’t like the movie very much. I don’t know. I supposed that it could be that I found it questionable that the mother ship would remain hovering over Johannesburg for at least two decades or more, without any fuel or its command module. I’m still wondering how the aliens (who were ailing when the South Africans first discovered them) managed to get their hands on enough weaponry to trade with the Nigerians.
I found the movie’s portrayal of the Nigerians rather repulsive. Mind you, the South Africans were not portrayed in a positive light, including the main character. But the Nigerians were portrayed in such a one-dimensional and negative way that . . . well, it repelled me. And if the aliens are supposed to be metaphors of the black South Africans during apartheid, does that mean sleeping with them was supposed to be regarded with revulsion? Apparently, we’re supposed to regard Nigerian prostitutes having sex with aliens with revulsion. And could someone please explain why the Nigerians would refer to its shaman (or whatever) with a Southern African word, instead of a word in Yoruba, Hausa or Igbo. And are we really supposed to believe that all Africans who practice in paganism, indulge in cannibalism?
And why couldn’t Blomkamp have told the story with one of the aliens as the main character?
Also, there is one scene that featured the main character losing some of his teeth after being affected by the alien liquid. Yet, a scene or two later, he is smiling at the camera with all of his teeth showing. Hmmm? Also, the last half hour was an exercise in excessive action scenes that didn’t mesh very well with the rest of the film.
Yeah . . . DISTRICT 9 disappointed me.
The films was a great disappointment.
I expected a lot but it only turned out to be an irritating camera-shaking videogame. The plot-line was ridiculous and had great holes.
The biggest crap in 2009!!!
It’s time writers should read more traditional literature to create strong storylines. Not silly, mindless violent cinematic video-games.
A big waste of money and time!
I think that Armond White is an EXCELLENT reviewer! Think about it: who is the best reviewer?
a) one who praises only great movies
b) one who sometimes praises good movies, sometimes bad ones
c) one who praises only terrible movies
Now obviously b) is a crappy reviewer because based on his/her review you never know if a movie is worth spending $10 on the cinema ticket. But really, for practical matters a) and c) provide you with the same info. From their opinion you’ll always know if you’re gonna enjoy the movie.
Now Armond White is a certainly a c)-type reviewer. A 100% c). Perfect, superhuman consistency. There is nothing more one could wish for…
And who’s ever claimed that reviewer are supposed to support good movies?
@James
Quite obviously the film was a littlel TOO smart for you, as most of your little notes ARE explained in the film…if you were listening and intelligent enough to digest what you were being told. Which, its quite clear you were not. I agree…there are some plot holes, but no whre near as many as you claim there are.
To those of you bashing this film and calling it one of the worst films you have ever seen…well, you are a 1% minority. The other 99% of us like…nay love this movie…so you can all pick your dummies up now that you spit them out of the pram and go play soldiers or something.
Armond White is right. I believe District 9 was awful.
I really liked the film. The people declaring plot holes may not be sci fi nuts I guess.
It was pretty obvious, I thought, that the majority of the aliens were workers. Not smart. Stuck on planet without any idea what to do about the ship. The same as most of us can fly in a jet, but couldn’t pilot one to save our lives.
I don’t see any point explaining the movie to the people who didn’t get it. I am one of the ones that felt this movie to be one of the best I’ve seen in a long time.
It had many messages and a lot of subtext. Some not subtle, but a lot so much more subtle.
The fact Wikus just failed to tell anyone how he was changed etcetera was just part of his character. He was panicked. He was not a smart man. People keep thinking of what he could have done, but I thought the character was well thought out. He was a man completely out of his depth desperate to get back to the wife he adored.
Great movie. Loved it.
Ebert’s reasoning makes sense… btw I really enjoyed this movie. the kids will the blu ray since they haven’t seen it yet.
District 9 was an entertaining movie, however Peter Jackson’s previous film King Kong was unoriginal. While watching District 9 I became proud of myself for understanding the symbolic and literal references to “Kafka’s” “The Metamorphosis” as man transforms into a life form similar to insect. Although District 9 seemed compassionate, it was also intentional, and referring also to “Enemy Mine” directed by Wolfgang Peterson, starring Louis Gosset Jr. And Dennis Quaid, is necessary to complete a full analysis.
“Enemy Mine” is film about a human and lizard like alien who must become friends to survive.
Jackson was just crafty enough to revise his “new” plot and costume design into a package just “original” looking enough to fool any consumer.
So sorry, but King Kong is a remake and District 9 is an assemble of other material. Just because it was good- doesn’t say much for the rest of the films made within the past 10 years. Armond White is more intelligent than people understand, and the reaction to his review is a defense unjustified. Be angry, Be very angry.
i have been reading lots of reviews and need to start commenting in order to clear up some of the misunderstandings.
ive read so many (usa) reviews about the “unbelievable main character” and the “fake accent” and to any south african Wikus is 100% typical of our own red neck those-who-never-apply for passports true blue south african. we all know lots of south africans who speak and act and (unfortunately) think exactly like wikus.
there is a huge problem with nigerian violence, scams and drug trafficking in SA and the locals have been protesting about it. Our malawian gardener who comes to us once a week always gets himself robbed by nigerians when returning to the townships, we have opened a bank account for him so that doesnt carry cash anymore. Our friends in JHB had their son killed because a nigerian gang kidnapped him and asked for a ransom, which our friends paid for, and they killed him anyway. So yes, its very very appropriate to include them in the movie.
The ruwandans, mocambiqueans, botswananas, malawians and all manner of neighbouring africans who have flocked into SA are corralled into the worst parts of every township and are called “aliens” locally.
Racism? Well the white guys are depicted as the baddies and the black guys in MNU are the nicest humans so the racist card is not that clear.
The issue regarding “prawns” is actually a name that JHb residents use for a local king cricket that is indigenous to the area and is a real pest. They are like a cockroach who fly and jump at humans and an obvious name for the locals to transfer onto the aliens
I find it amusing that people who would walk out of a movie only 20 minutes into it can write reviews and have any sort of intelligent opinion. The director clearly states that he didnt need to patronise the audience by explaining every little angle and leaves much to audience.
A good movie is one that gets people thinking and talking and this movie sure does that !!
I understood the brilliance of the movie when seeing it the second time and so much fell into place that I couldnt take in the first time because it was so intense.
Hopefully the academy will do their due diligence and try and understand the social and criminal context, the accent and ignore some of the super ignorant reviews that have been written by folk who cant understand a movie unless it is soft and pretty and spoonfeeds and stars Will Smith !!
Lee Connor:
I see the point you are suggesting. But the recognizing effect is not enough and usually needless. Still the moral is very shallow since the social symptoms displayed are simplistic. I think anybody understands more about alien-problems in his neighborhood if he investigates and makes a little self-criticism but this movie does not even motivate for self-criticism. Like M.Moore’s mocumentaries are not an inch moving anybody who do not agree with his populism. This movie is sadly copying this mocumentary style which is used broadly/effectively for today’s brainwashing. Or should I take this as an irony on the movie itself as an intended self-criticism on this brainwashing-tool? The intention of the movie to show sarcasm and irony was also poorly implemented. Jokes and perplexing situations are very rare. There are hundreds of movies, tenthousands of short stories using satirical tools of any kind very well. Movie time is very often just going on and nothing special is happening, only like space-opera fighting or just trivial situations not related to the general alien topic. (I mean alien not as E.T. beings but any kind of xenophobic targets) E.g. in Brian’s life the ridiculous starship fighting scene is only to make a brake and let the viewer to rethink what was communicated and to say “take it easy, ‘am just joking”. When the director of D9 said they don’t want to explain every small thing, then I say they spent too much time showing/telling trivia. I don’t criticize the reality of the movie since scifi is free to display any universe with any rules. Recently I also read a short story collection of the best stories from ‘53. They had much more moral, different kind of humor styles and real story depth. They also dealt with topics which were simply forbidden on other areas of life because of the self-mortifying McCarthyism - and are still not welcome today because of bigotry. D9 does not brake any “limits” of this kind, so it is also boring from this viewpoint. That the Nigerians have villains is nothing special - there are everywhere people like them. So it has no meaning getting upset. When the greeks where upset about showing Great Alexander then a historian would say: be glad that the movie showed a character far away from the known reality since one has to neglect the originally wide-spread and “aknowledged” flunkey-writings to get a good picture.
So when you say this movie is good because it makes people discuss, then I say the movie does not give enough material to talk about, the scriptwriter and director just didn’t give enough, neither implicit nor explicit. The people are not discussing about the general alien problem but just fighting with each other on the web. At best I can hope the fans are catching up through this movie - but after they look at the aspects of alien-problems in their surrounding and/or in quality-stories then they will see that it is more sophisticated. But still the people really causing trouble will be not influenced. Otherwise I can be only very harsh to the fans: million flies cannot not be mistaken but I’m not a fly and don’t eat… (you know what).
White isn’t intellectually honest in his reviews and is using them to bait discussion. That’s his prerogative, of course, and it’s obviously working for him, but it makes it very difficult for me to take his writing seriously no matter how skilled a wordsmith he may be. The funniest thing about Mr. White is his regular insistence that he is rejecting anything “cynical” or post-modern, while he engages in perhaps the most cynical sort of enterprise in which a critic of popular culture could . . . and frequently does so with extra snark, while simultaneously chastising a film for its snarkiness.
White is partly a discussion troll, but mostly a very intelligent man who refuses to look in the mirror.
And for the record, I agree with White about District 9. The film wants to tackle profound ideas and issues, but it does so haphazardly, leaving any real depth to the issues it raises completely unexplored. It looks pretty, though.
I support Armond White.If you look closely you will realize that this movie was made to glorify Apartheid as a system that keeps savages in check ,diss Nigerians ,black South Africans and Zimbabweans but black South Africans are too kaffir to realize this.They always jump on the and wagon of their white masters all in the name of proudly South African.Apartheid has brainwashed them more than we will ever be able to comprehend.
There are so many port holes (and such cliched ones as well) that it is difficult to list them all. For starters, the typical “super-advanced technology that doesn’t work” - the entire mothership breaks down, yet all it took was a tiny canister of fuel and viola - everything works again? Because of a command module? Not only is it never explained why that flimsy module mattered so much, but also why “clever” CJ, who is so adept at coming up with inventive solutions, doesn’t do more in 2 decades’ time to help his fellows.
To wit - he could jack a ‘copter and get back on the mothership. Or, better yet, he could use some of the alien weaponry that’s basically just lying around. Or command the other drones to use them. It’s also never explained why these passive, unthinking workers have so many powerful weapons. What for, if they seem incapable of using them? And how did the humans get the weapons from them in the first place? All you’d need is one CJ to defend the entire million against the abusive humans. It’s all very stereotypically (and bigotedly) Afrikaans, and it makes for a very BORING “story.” Every “emotional” moment is so staged and so overwrought that it falls flat.
The character development is non-existent and cliched - you can tell exactly which of the MNU chasers are going to die immediately, and which relatively minor characters are only inured (their fates left to be decided off-screen). Hint: it has to do with facetime and # of lines spoken (you can’t kill minor charaters inhumanely if the audience has been exposed to them enough to develop a minor emotional connection, lol). None of the characters were compelling in the slightest. I went in thinking that even if the story stuck to the typical Hollywood formula it would be okay popcorn fare. I left after the film with one regret: that I hadn’t walked out 20 minutes in like one of my friends.
It is movies like this that makes me ask myself why am i still living in South Africa.First and foremost this movie is a cheap shot at Nigerians.I am a Nigerian and i live in South Africa.Last i checked we Nigerians don’t eat humans and we don’t have witch doctors.Most of us are Christians who believe in the holy spirit.The worst crime a Nigerian can commit is to send out scam emails and deal in drugs.No mention of drugs or scams emails were made in that movie.To make things worse the actors were not Nigerians ,they were speaking two black south African languages ,ZULU and sotho.The Nigerian leader was speaking Swahili a native language of Kenya.Anyways i know for a fact that most south African whites have low self esteem,low IQ and are obsessed with racism so i don’t expect them to see anything wrong with this movie.
It is not a secret that South Africa is the crime capital of the world.50 people gets murdered in South Africa everyday by fellow South Africans.A few years ago the great reggae legend LUCKY DUBE was murdered by fellow south Africans,when the killers were asked in court why they shot him, they replied :”we thought he was a Nigerian”. South Africa has the Highest rate of xenophobia in the world. Nigerians and Zimbabweans are the main targets of this hatred.Did you notice how the “white” actors emphasized on the fact that the cannibals were Nigerians?Did you you know that the name of the Nigerian leader is obasanjo,Obasanjo is the name of our former president.Now is D9 implying that our former president was a cannibal? That is very low and insensitive of Neil Bloukamp.And why say Nigerian women sleep with aliens,that is degrading to our mothers and ,wives and daughters besides that there are very few Nigerian women in South Africa and they DO NOT engage in prostitution.Angolan ,Congolese ,South African,Botswana and Tanzania women are the ones who prostitute in SA.
Nigerian women rarely travel out of Nigerian so i don’t know where they got that degrading storyline from.It is obvious that Neil has no regard for Nigerians and his feelings are dully noted.This movie has just reaffirmed to me how much South Africans hate Nigerians(xenophobia).I think Neil blomkamp and his New Zealand counterpart are just racist to the bone.Making a science fiction movie is one thing but racially degrading a whole nation is another thing.Nigerians who live in SA don’t live in ghettos,we live in upmarket suburbs and live our life to the fullest.The people who live in the ghettos are South Africans and Zimbabweans so i really don’t know why Nigerians were portrayed like that.Another thing that affirms that this movie is racist is that Nigerians were put in the same camp as non humans.I thought district 9 was for the “prawns’? How come there were Nigerians living inside district 9 a government allocated camp site for aliens which is guarded by missiles?
I have read some of the comments made in other topics in this group and i am not disappointed to see how ignorant South Africans are.Some have openly called Nigerians cannibals.What i will like to ask this Afrikaners and Zulu assholes is that how many of their relatives has Nigerians eaten before.Furthermore how many Nigerians have been arrested by the SAPS for cannibalism?last i checked it was ZULU who were arrested for muti killings not Nigerians so you Afrikaner idiots should stop spreading lies about my people.Nigerian population is 70% Christian and 30% Muslim.Cannibalism ended over 100 years ago in west Africa.The only place where it still exists is in South Africa ,East Africa ,China,Eastern Europe and Paupau New Guinea
In conclusion ,i think this movie is just a terrible movie,the story line was crap,the plot was full of holes and the movie itself was disturbing ,not something you will want to watch with the kids.Do you all remember how South Africans murdered foreigners last year in the massive xenophobic riots all over South Africa.Does this movie promote love or xenophobia?Personally i think this movie was just aimed at destroying the image of Nigerians as well as Africans and should be boycotted.