• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Just got back from seeing District 9...

Started by LloydJBailey,

123 posts in this topic

KingOfRulers

KingOfRulers

Posted
Posted
One of the things I really enjoyed about D9 was the way your view of the protagonist changes.

 

When we meet Wikus, he is an utter cad, that guy at the office (who is often your boss) who was propelled into a good job by family ties. You don't like him, you don't root for him, you want to see him get thrown into the pit.

 

In the second act, Wikus is humanized by the occurrence of events that he gets wrapped up in, and you start rooting for him. He becomes a fish out of water, thrown into a situation by chance that he can't control, and obviously isn't well prepared for. You begin to root for him to succeed because he is the underdog.

 

In the final act the audience starts rooting more for the alien to succeed, and Wikus becomes more of a supporting character.

 

Some people may attack the allegory as gimmicky, but the fact of the matter is the Movie is about change.

 

The audience, along with the protagonist Wikus, changes throughout the duration of the film, because it is all about perspective.

 

At the beginning, the movie is about the sensationalism of the beastial prawns. This is something we have never seen before so we want to check it out. Wikus couldn't give a rats arse about the prawns because he is still stuck into the mindframe of being prejudiced against them (ala alien Apartheid)

 

When he gets thrown into the Suck, and betrayed by the Establishment and called a prawn-humper, he wakes up and we see his transformation from Grade A Wanker to Everyman start to begin. He is fighting against all odds and the audience starts to like him better and root for him.

 

In the third act we are transformed by the actions of Wikus into rooting for the alien to succeed. Wikus' self enlightenment and correlation of his love for his wife and the aliens love for his child ties the thematic element of racial (and interspecies) discrimination together.

 

Some people might not feel that this movie is the greatest, but I believe the director not only made a great looking film with groundbreaking special effects work for only 30 million (a pittance of a cost for a film of this type), but he also incorporated a nice philosophical message. He doesn't MAKE you think about the issue of discrimination, but you eventually DO by following the character arcs described above.

 

Quite the accomplishment for a first time feature director, and that is why Peter Jackson's name and money are on this film.

 

 

Wow!!! Just.... Wow!!!!

Great job!!! (thumbs u

 

I think even I touched myself while reading this. I hope my Wife didnt notice!! :luhv:

 

That's what lookwhoitis does. He's a part time movie junkie, along with comic junkie.

 

For my own opinion, I saw this movie, and I also liked it. It was a while ago when I saw it, so I don't remember a lot of pro/con specifics, but it was good.

 

Someone also mentioned Gran Torino. I liked that movie until the end. The end was dumb. What happened to vengeance being a dish best served cold, and all of that stuff? Some of those guys will get out of jail in a year or less, come back, kill the kid, his family and take the car. Great job saving the day Eastwood. I discussed this movie with Tupenny a few weeks ago, and have the same sentiments today. Eastwood is getting soft in his golden years. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ogami

Ogami

Posted
Posted

Since when is going out in a blaze of glory considered going, "soft"?

 

The Wild Bunch were a buncha pansies, I tell you.

 

Besides, he had terminal cancer. Crazy like a fox, if you ask me.

 

Classic Eastwood.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KingOfRulers

KingOfRulers

Posted
Posted
Since when is going out in a blaze of glory considered going, "soft"?

 

The Wild Bunch were a buncha pansies, I tell you.

 

Besides, he had terminal cancer. Crazy like a fox, if you ask me.

 

Classic Eastwood.

 

 

I don't consider letting yourself get swiss cheesed on a mid-west front lawn, "going out in a blaze of glory". He didn't bust one cap the whole movie. "Classic Eastwood"? :sick: Lets put this movie next to Dirty Harry and examine the differences. hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ogami

Ogami

Posted
Posted
Since when is going out in a blaze of glory considered going, "soft"?

 

The Wild Bunch were a buncha pansies, I tell you.

 

Besides, he had terminal cancer. Crazy like a fox, if you ask me.

 

Classic Eastwood.

 

 

I don't consider letting yourself get swiss cheesed on a mid-west front lawn, "going out in a blaze of glory". He didn't bust one cap the whole movie. "Classic Eastwood"? :sick: Lets put this movie next to Dirty Harry and examine the differences. hm

 

Surrounded by witnesses, every single one of those thugs is getting life.

 

He couldn't have done a better job by firing a thousand bullets.

 

It was brilliant strategy and he got the job done.

 

 

I'm not knocking you, KOR, but it's a brilliant chess move and a worthy end to that movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KingOfRulers

KingOfRulers

Posted
Posted
Since when is going out in a blaze of glory considered going, "soft"?

 

The Wild Bunch were a buncha pansies, I tell you.

 

Besides, he had terminal cancer. Crazy like a fox, if you ask me.

 

Classic Eastwood.

 

 

I don't consider letting yourself get swiss cheesed on a mid-west front lawn, "going out in a blaze of glory". He didn't bust one cap the whole movie. "Classic Eastwood"? :sick: Lets put this movie next to Dirty Harry and examine the differences. hm

 

Surrounded by witnesses, every single one of those thugs is getting life.

 

He couldn't have done a better job by firing a thousand bullets.

 

It was brilliant strategy and he got the job done.

 

 

I'm not knocking you, KOR, but it's a brilliant chess move and a worthy end to that movie.

 

I didn't think you were knocking me. I'm just having fun discussing the movie and how I think Eastwood has gone completely soft. :) That entire movie could be edited into an episode of "Little House on the Prairie" and it would edit in seamlessly.

 

In chess you want to win. Eastwood died. :gossip: He knocked his king over.

 

None of those guys will be in prison for life. It is nearly impossible to get someone in prison for life. And in this case, it was not even 1st degree murder. So, they will certainly be back. Eastwood was on their property. They "thought" he was reaching for a weapon and "defended" themselves. My guess would be a bunch of manslaughter charges or something to that similar level and some felony weapon charges. A bunch of them will be back on the streets in under a couple of years, or even under a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JiveTurkeyMoFo

JiveTurkeyMoFo

Posted
Posted
Since when is going out in a blaze of glory considered going, "soft"?

 

The Wild Bunch were a buncha pansies, I tell you.

 

Besides, he had terminal cancer. Crazy like a fox, if you ask me.

 

Classic Eastwood.

 

 

I don't consider letting yourself get swiss cheesed on a mid-west front lawn, "going out in a blaze of glory". He didn't bust one cap the whole movie. "Classic Eastwood"? :sick: Lets put this movie next to Dirty Harry and examine the differences. hm

 

Surrounded by witnesses, every single one of those thugs is getting life.

 

He couldn't have done a better job by firing a thousand bullets.

 

It was brilliant strategy and he got the job done.

 

 

I'm not knocking you, KOR, but it's a brilliant chess move and a worthy end to that movie.

 

I didn't think you were knocking me. I'm just having fun discussing the movie and how I think Eastwood has gone completely soft. :) That entire movie could be edited into an episode of "Little House on the Prairie" and it would edit in seamlessly.

 

In chess you want to win. Eastwood died. :gossip: He knocked his king over.

 

None of those guys will be in prison for life. It is nearly impossible to get someone in prison for life. And in this case, it was not even 1st degree murder. So, they will certainly be back. Eastwood was on their property. They "thought" he was reaching for a weapon and "defended" themselves. My guess would be a bunch of manslaughter charges or something to that similar level and some felony weapon charges. A bunch of them will be back on the streets in under a couple of years, or even under a year.

 

This was one of my favorite movies of the last few years. And I loved the ending; very fitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ogami

Ogami

Posted
Posted
Since when is going out in a blaze of glory considered going, "soft"?

 

The Wild Bunch were a buncha pansies, I tell you.

 

Besides, he had terminal cancer. Crazy like a fox, if you ask me.

 

Classic Eastwood.

 

 

I don't consider letting yourself get swiss cheesed on a mid-west front lawn, "going out in a blaze of glory". He didn't bust one cap the whole movie. "Classic Eastwood"? :sick: Lets put this movie next to Dirty Harry and examine the differences. hm

 

Surrounded by witnesses, every single one of those thugs is getting life.

 

He couldn't have done a better job by firing a thousand bullets.

 

It was brilliant strategy and he got the job done.

 

 

I'm not knocking you, KOR, but it's a brilliant chess move and a worthy end to that movie.

 

I didn't think you were knocking me. I'm just having fun discussing the movie and how I think Eastwood has gone completely soft. :) That entire movie could be edited into an episode of "Little House on the Prairie" and it would edit in seamlessly.

 

In chess you want to win. Eastwood died. :gossip: He knocked his king over.

 

None of those guys will be in prison for life. It is nearly impossible to get someone in prison for life. And in this case, it was not even 1st degree murder. So, they will certainly be back. Eastwood was on their property. They "thought" he was reaching for a weapon and "defended" themselves. My guess would be a bunch of manslaughter charges or something to that similar level and some felony weapon charges. A bunch of them will be back on the streets in under a couple of years, or even under a year.

 

Good stuff, KOR, but to use another chess term, we are at an empasse. I think it's brilliant writing, and I'm not factoring in the local DA and his chances of conviction when I make my determination. lol

 

I respect your disagreement and see what you are saying.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
Since when is going out in a blaze of glory considered going, "soft"?

 

The Wild Bunch were a buncha pansies, I tell you.

 

Besides, he had terminal cancer. Crazy like a fox, if you ask me.

 

Classic Eastwood.

 

 

I don't consider letting yourself get swiss cheesed on a mid-west front lawn, "going out in a blaze of glory". He didn't bust one cap the whole movie. "Classic Eastwood"? :sick: Lets put this movie next to Dirty Harry and examine the differences. hm

 

Surrounded by witnesses, every single one of those thugs is getting life.

 

He couldn't have done a better job by firing a thousand bullets.

 

It was brilliant strategy and he got the job done.

 

 

I'm not knocking you, KOR, but it's a brilliant chess move and a worthy end to that movie.

 

I didn't think you were knocking me. I'm just having fun discussing the movie and how I think Eastwood has gone completely soft. :) That entire movie could be edited into an episode of "Little House on the Prairie" and it would edit in seamlessly.

 

In chess you want to win. Eastwood died. :gossip: He knocked his king over.

 

None of those guys will be in prison for life. It is nearly impossible to get someone in prison for life. And in this case, it was not even 1st degree murder. So, they will certainly be back. Eastwood was on their property. They "thought" he was reaching for a weapon and "defended" themselves. My guess would be a bunch of manslaughter charges or something to that similar level and some felony weapon charges. A bunch of them will be back on the streets in under a couple of years, or even under a year.

 

Losing your life is not always considered a loss, especially if you are ready to go.

 

He got everything accomplished that he wanted to do and tied it all up with a nice ribbon. As far as I'm concerned he was ready to go.

 

The ending was seamless.

 

That leads me to the hard/soft Eastwood comment...he was as cool as could have been in this movie. The fact that he can make a movie with tension and emotion and tie it all together and not have to fire a single shot is called maturity, not going soft.

 

That's what they teach you in most self defense classes. You only fight as a last resort.

 

That's not to say that the cowboy Clint Eastwood isn't cool, it's just that they are both good...both sides of the same coin.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comics-rock

comics-rock

Posted
Posted
Since when is going out in a blaze of glory considered going, "soft"?

 

The Wild Bunch were a buncha pansies, I tell you.

 

Besides, he had terminal cancer. Crazy like a fox, if you ask me.

 

Classic Eastwood.

 

 

I don't consider letting yourself get swiss cheesed on a mid-west front lawn, "going out in a blaze of glory". He didn't bust one cap the whole movie. "Classic Eastwood"? :sick: Lets put this movie next to Dirty Harry and examine the differences. hm

 

Surrounded by witnesses, every single one of those thugs is getting life.

 

He couldn't have done a better job by firing a thousand bullets.

 

It was brilliant strategy and he got the job done.

 

 

I'm not knocking you, KOR, but it's a brilliant chess move and a worthy end to that movie.

 

I didn't think you were knocking me. I'm just having fun discussing the movie and how I think Eastwood has gone completely soft. :) That entire movie could be edited into an episode of "Little House on the Prairie" and it would edit in seamlessly.

 

In chess you want to win. Eastwood died. :gossip: He knocked his king over.

 

None of those guys will be in prison for life. It is nearly impossible to get someone in prison for life. And in this case, it was not even 1st degree murder. So, they will certainly be back. Eastwood was on their property. They "thought" he was reaching for a weapon and "defended" themselves. My guess would be a bunch of manslaughter charges or something to that similar level and some felony weapon charges. A bunch of them will be back on the streets in under a couple of years, or even under a year.

 

Losing your life is not always considered a loss, especially if you are ready to go.

 

He got everything accomplished that he wanted to do and tied it all up with a nice ribbon. As far as I'm concerned he was ready to go.

 

The ending was seamless.

 

That leads me to the hard/soft Eastwood comment...he was as cool as could have been in this movie. The fact that he can make a movie with tension and emotion and tie it all together and not have to fire a single shot is called maturity, not going soft.

 

That's what they teach you in most self defense classes. You only fight as a last resort.

 

That's not to say that the cowboy Clint Eastwood isn't cool, it's just that they are both good...both sides of the same coin.

 

 

:golfclap: added to that the fact hes 80 years old..been in the business 60 years...great film....

 

...and the only reason i was annoyed earlier is because ive got some a@@hole dropping the word 'wanker' on me (an Englishman to boot!!!) because i didn't like a film he liked...internet bravado!!!

 

i knew people would be divided on this film...and i personally got NO enjoyment from it whatsoever...sorry to those i offended who liked it, but to offer opinion and be called a 'wanker'??? next time ill keep my opnions to myself!!! (thought that was what the forum was about!!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KingOfRulers

KingOfRulers

Posted
Posted
Since when is going out in a blaze of glory considered going, "soft"?

 

The Wild Bunch were a buncha pansies, I tell you.

 

Besides, he had terminal cancer. Crazy like a fox, if you ask me.

 

Classic Eastwood.

 

 

I don't consider letting yourself get swiss cheesed on a mid-west front lawn, "going out in a blaze of glory". He didn't bust one cap the whole movie. "Classic Eastwood"? :sick: Lets put this movie next to Dirty Harry and examine the differences. hm

 

Surrounded by witnesses, every single one of those thugs is getting life.

 

He couldn't have done a better job by firing a thousand bullets.

 

It was brilliant strategy and he got the job done.

 

 

I'm not knocking you, KOR, but it's a brilliant chess move and a worthy end to that movie.

 

I didn't think you were knocking me. I'm just having fun discussing the movie and how I think Eastwood has gone completely soft. :) That entire movie could be edited into an episode of "Little House on the Prairie" and it would edit in seamlessly.

 

In chess you want to win. Eastwood died. :gossip: He knocked his king over.

 

None of those guys will be in prison for life. It is nearly impossible to get someone in prison for life. And in this case, it was not even 1st degree murder. So, they will certainly be back. Eastwood was on their property. They "thought" he was reaching for a weapon and "defended" themselves. My guess would be a bunch of manslaughter charges or something to that similar level and some felony weapon charges. A bunch of them will be back on the streets in under a couple of years, or even under a year.

 

Losing your life is not always considered a loss, especially if you are ready to go.

 

He got everything accomplished that he wanted to do and tied it all up with a nice ribbon. As far as I'm concerned he was ready to go.

 

The ending was seamless.

 

That leads me to the hard/soft Eastwood comment...he was as cool as could have been in this movie. The fact that he can make a movie with tension and emotion and tie it all together and not have to fire a single shot is called maturity, not going soft.

 

That's what they teach you in most self defense classes. You only fight as a last resort.

 

That's not to say that the cowboy Clint Eastwood isn't cool, it's just that they are both good...both sides of the same coin.

 

 

I "enjoyed" the movie, but just the ending was not to my liking. I wanted a one man assault on the gangster HQ. And that's not what happened at all. The pacifism seemed silly to me in a real life situation. I don't recall him being a Quaker in the movie. (shrug) However, I do see why people would like that final scene though, I guess.

 

Fight as a last resort? Getting shot at or friends getting shot at doesn't qualify as a "last resort"?

 

Plus, the movie didn't have Tony Stark in it. A classic film making blunder...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
...sorry to those i offended who liked it, but to offer opinion and be called a 'wanker'??? next time ill keep my opnions to myself!!! (thought that was what the forum was about!!!)

 

...well I did think you personally came across kind of strong so that probably helped fuel the response from those that were replying to you. I think I even told you to relax.

 

(shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
Since when is going out in a blaze of glory considered going, "soft"?

 

The Wild Bunch were a buncha pansies, I tell you.

 

Besides, he had terminal cancer. Crazy like a fox, if you ask me.

 

Classic Eastwood.

 

 

I don't consider letting yourself get swiss cheesed on a mid-west front lawn, "going out in a blaze of glory". He didn't bust one cap the whole movie. "Classic Eastwood"? :sick: Lets put this movie next to Dirty Harry and examine the differences. hm

 

Surrounded by witnesses, every single one of those thugs is getting life.

 

He couldn't have done a better job by firing a thousand bullets.

 

It was brilliant strategy and he got the job done.

 

 

I'm not knocking you, KOR, but it's a brilliant chess move and a worthy end to that movie.

 

I didn't think you were knocking me. I'm just having fun discussing the movie and how I think Eastwood has gone completely soft. :) That entire movie could be edited into an episode of "Little House on the Prairie" and it would edit in seamlessly.

 

In chess you want to win. Eastwood died. :gossip: He knocked his king over.

 

None of those guys will be in prison for life. It is nearly impossible to get someone in prison for life. And in this case, it was not even 1st degree murder. So, they will certainly be back. Eastwood was on their property. They "thought" he was reaching for a weapon and "defended" themselves. My guess would be a bunch of manslaughter charges or something to that similar level and some felony weapon charges. A bunch of them will be back on the streets in under a couple of years, or even under a year.

 

Losing your life is not always considered a loss, especially if you are ready to go.

 

He got everything accomplished that he wanted to do and tied it all up with a nice ribbon. As far as I'm concerned he was ready to go.

 

The ending was seamless.

 

That leads me to the hard/soft Eastwood comment...he was as cool as could have been in this movie. The fact that he can make a movie with tension and emotion and tie it all together and not have to fire a single shot is called maturity, not going soft.

 

That's what they teach you in most self defense classes. You only fight as a last resort.

 

That's not to say that the cowboy Clint Eastwood isn't cool, it's just that they are both good...both sides of the same coin.

 

 

I "enjoyed" the movie, but just the ending was not to my liking. I wanted a one man assault on the gangster HQ. And that's not what happened at all. The pacifism seemed silly to me in a real life situation. I don't recall him being a Quaker in the movie. (shrug) However, I do see why people would like that final scene though, I guess.

 

Fight as a last resort? Getting shot at or friends getting shot at doesn't qualify as a "last resort"?

 

Plus, the movie didn't have Tony Stark in it. A classic film making blunder...

 

Steve you're missing the point...it was not supposed to be a shoot out movie.

 

IIRC the guy lost his wife, was miserable, times had changed and he wanted to make a difference in the world. By ending his life the way he did he left a lasting impression on the neighborhood that he would have been unable to otherwise by simply being snarky or preaching to them about the honor and justice were in the "good ole' days" as he tried to do earlier in the movie.

 

He wasn't a quaker, he was a tough mutha' that realized his 'time' had passed and he left a mark that would not be forgotten. He did a lot more good by NOT blowing up those bad dudes.

 

I understand you expected an offensive Eastwood movie, and they are great fun to watch, but if the checkmate in this movie was old fashioned honor and justice and doing a world of good by leaving a positive impression on those he knew in the movie, well he won't be forgotten by anyone any time soon.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ogami

Ogami

Posted
Posted
Since when is going out in a blaze of glory considered going, "soft"?

 

The Wild Bunch were a buncha pansies, I tell you.

 

Besides, he had terminal cancer. Crazy like a fox, if you ask me.

 

Classic Eastwood.

 

 

I don't consider letting yourself get swiss cheesed on a mid-west front lawn, "going out in a blaze of glory". He didn't bust one cap the whole movie. "Classic Eastwood"? :sick: Lets put this movie next to Dirty Harry and examine the differences. hm

 

Surrounded by witnesses, every single one of those thugs is getting life.

 

He couldn't have done a better job by firing a thousand bullets.

 

It was brilliant strategy and he got the job done.

 

 

I'm not knocking you, KOR, but it's a brilliant chess move and a worthy end to that movie.

 

I didn't think you were knocking me. I'm just having fun discussing the movie and how I think Eastwood has gone completely soft. :) That entire movie could be edited into an episode of "Little House on the Prairie" and it would edit in seamlessly.

 

In chess you want to win. Eastwood died. :gossip: He knocked his king over.

 

None of those guys will be in prison for life. It is nearly impossible to get someone in prison for life. And in this case, it was not even 1st degree murder. So, they will certainly be back. Eastwood was on their property. They "thought" he was reaching for a weapon and "defended" themselves. My guess would be a bunch of manslaughter charges or something to that similar level and some felony weapon charges. A bunch of them will be back on the streets in under a couple of years, or even under a year.

 

Losing your life is not always considered a loss, especially if you are ready to go.

 

He got everything accomplished that he wanted to do and tied it all up with a nice ribbon. As far as I'm concerned he was ready to go.

 

The ending was seamless.

 

That leads me to the hard/soft Eastwood comment...he was as cool as could have been in this movie. The fact that he can make a movie with tension and emotion and tie it all together and not have to fire a single shot is called maturity, not going soft.

 

That's what they teach you in most self defense classes. You only fight as a last resort.

 

That's not to say that the cowboy Clint Eastwood isn't cool, it's just that they are both good...both sides of the same coin.

 

 

I "enjoyed" the movie, but just the ending was not to my liking. I wanted a one man assault on the gangster HQ. And that's not what happened at all. The pacifism seemed silly to me in a real life situation. I don't recall him being a Quaker in the movie. (shrug) However, I do see why people would like that final scene though, I guess.

 

Fight as a last resort? Getting shot at or friends getting shot at doesn't qualify as a "last resort"?

 

Plus, the movie didn't have Tony Stark in it. A classic film making blunder...

 

One final thought on the ending, KOR,

 

Most veterans I've spoken to who have been in battle, have had too damned much killing already, and I think his character showed that aspect. Both, earlier in the film when talking about war, and in the end, when faced with tough choices.

 

Also, the Tony Stark line was :roflmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comics-rock

comics-rock

Posted
Posted
Yall ruined it for me.

 

I'm sorry. I didn't even think that I might spoil it for someone.

 

doh!

 

:(

 

 

ha ha...i thought he was talking about District 9...sorry, didnt mean (or think) to spoil it for anyone.....go see Gran Torino, even though you now know the ending. it dosen't matter. its Clints hard arsed, racist attitude that make the film what it is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unca Ben

Unca Ben

Posted
Posted

I liked District 9.

 

I also loved Gran Torino. At the end of the movie, Kowalski not only saved his neighbors but he came to terms with his own deep seated memory of killing an enemy soldier that just wanted to surrender.

The movie doesn’t follow up on the fate of the gang members, but in Michigan second degree murder can still bring a life sentence. I didn’t get the impression that those kids would be out on the streets anytime soon. I would imagine that rape and beating of a young girl will come into play as the reason for the final murderous confrontation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted

SPOILER

 

 

I also loved Gran Torino. At the end of the movie, Kowalski not only saved his neighbors but he came to terms with his own deep seated memory of killing an enemy soldier that just wanted to surrender.

 

 

That is what I forgot. Yes!!! That is what tied it all together.

 

(thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing