Haven’t seen District 9. GI Joe struck me as largely a commercial for the new Hasbro toy line, with a half-hearted nod to people my age’s nostalgia for the previous line of toys . . . the final assault on the sub-polar ice cap base was a blatant Star Wars ripoff.
I wrote this in another thread and will say it again.
District 9 was amazing, I thought it was very unique and original. Also had a message of universal brotherhood, if you could look past the different/maybe weird and unique style of the movie.
GURP, you might be able to find some deep meaning in the Hanna Montana movie, too.
lol k Tom, I’ll give it a viewing, BUT only because you said so, ahaha :)
Lol, I’m not claiming it’s great or even good. I’m only claiming it’s better than D9. :)
The way opinions are presented here, but by no means by all, they take on the attitude of judgment. “You liked it? Well, you’re entitled to your own opinion. But it sucked.” Do we need these sorts of exchanges? Hyperbolic language doesn’t really help me understand you (“agonizing boredom”, “poke in the eye with a dirty butter knife” – I don’t believe either of these comments and don’t understand why clarity would be less interesting or even dramatic). It is difficult to dare enter into this discussion because it becomes so explosive so fast and there is nothing much being said. I have not seen G.I. Joe but my six year old son would like to correct that. I have see District 9 and thought it was good. The child in me thrilled to that space ship hovering in the sky. But the adult was also interested in the film as about, admittedly, a banal theme: you can be morally transformed when you live like the one you oppress. But in a world jam packed with poverty and where privileged nation’s (like the one Iive in) encourage that poverty while shouting FREEDOM at everyone, it seems a theme worth offering. And the idea of swallowing the flesh to have the power! I am not Catholic but it is still an interesting new perversion of an old communal sacrament. These are my small ideas and isn’t a forum about the exchange of these sorts of things, even the challenging of them and not just a shouting of Terrible! and making comparisons under the guise of defending the purity of cinema, which can certainly defend itself?
Civility could be improved but we are human and we get frustrated sometimes. We should try to avoid letting our frustrations become insulting to another poster but, well, we’re back to the whole human thing.
I think that part of being human beings is placing civility above frustration, civility is easy when there is no frustration (another theme of District 9). But I am also asking about what people here think or is this not the thing that is done here? For instance here are two comments: “The “message” of D9, which you went into detail about, is high-school-level crapola. It might be okay for a high school puppet play but not for a movie that takes itself even the slightest way seriously.” PolarisDiB’s comment, referenced here, suggested that the film’s message had to do with a man realizing that his life, his job, his marriage, his idea of his future was tied to a system that wished to, in PolarisDiB’s evocative phrase, sellout an entire ethnicity. I think he/she is on to something with this and that a discussion would be valuable to me in my thinking about this film. (And so I ask PolarisDib besides the presentation of the dilemma, a dilemma I think I know about in my life and in my family’s, what do you think the film showed or felt about the entanglement of a purity of heart/goodness and worldly success? Or are the two becoming exclusive of eachother?) If you are going to put this down as crapola, please say why. I don’t want to dismiss your dismissal but you have not said anything.
In the same vein: “I will admit that a turd which just lies on the sidewalk knowing it’s a turd is less offensive than a turd that lies on the sidewalk wrapped in poorly written political ideas.” There are two questions that immediately occur to me on reading this – one about the film and one about the comment. The question about the comment is why would the wrapped turd by less offensive? And more importantly about the film what do you mean, specifically, by poorly written political ideas? Also, if I understand even a little of what you write in this sentence (that crap is still crap even if it contains political rhetoric of emancipation and development) I wonder if you got the idea from the film as it seems to be presented there quite well.
Finally, I feel pretty lucky to watch every film I watch. I have in my life seen maybe 5 films that I thought were absolutely terrible. Inglorious Basterds, District 9 and likely G.I. Joe would not be among them. My favorite films are by Ozu, especially the silent ones, but I certainly would not use that affection to appraise or temper my evening with whatever film I watch next (It’s Winter).
Well, first of all said the wrapped one was more offensive. Secondly I really was just trying to be funny in a snide kind of way. As for the politics I really thought is was a simplistic victim story of the Spielbergian Amistad variety. Seriously though, I don’t think Tom really cares for either film all that much so I doubt he was all that offended by it. If he was, apologies to him. Humans should place civility above frustration but we do slip at times.
I miswrote though my later paraphrase, I think, has your intent. I thought that was what you meant but given your second comment I will not reword. As for the politics what does “simplistic victim story of the Spielbergian Amistad variety” mean? Does it boil down to a problem with simplicity? If so, why? For instance our discussion of civility and frustration is a simple political discussion but nonetheless with some serious meaning to both of us in our lives with others. I would agree that all of the morality that I have seen in District 9 is not complicated but I am not sure why that is not a compliment to the film for making the moral visceral and immediate rather than something that is a concern for a lack of insight.
Sometimes simplicity is elegant. Crash tried hard to make a poignant political point, only to become a caricature of its own values and ultimately fall into almost sheer banality. That montage of crying people? Gag inducing. Sometimes sci fi, good sci fi, provides great themes by not delving deeply into them, but presenting them naturally while telling a whole different story.
“And so I ask PolarisDib besides the presentation of the dilemma, a dilemma I think I know about in my life and in my family’s, what do you think the film showed or felt about the entanglement of a purity of heart/goodness and worldly success? Or are the two becoming exclusive of eachother?”
You’re asking me—and forgive me, but I’m not too sure I understand exactly what you mean—whether there’s a conflict between being pure/good and being successful (worldly in this case meaning, I’m only assuming, economically or societally?). If that’s the case, then I’m not too positive I even really approach those themes the same way you do, thus am not sure any analysis into how the movie deals with them to be satisfying to what you’re asking for. But here’s what I can do for the sake of discussion:
The whole “living like them changes your opinion of them” is only half-correct in terms of what actually happened in the film. Throughout District 9, his joining of the Prawns’ side was almost entirely self-interested, even in the end when he began to understand their needs. Even becoming one, he still wants to be human as opposed to prawn, and any understanding felt by him is still nevertheless informed by the desire he has to be human and be returned to normality. From his character arc, this movie is a tragedy, whereas from the prawn foil’s character arc, this movie is a comedy.
Being a good person is rarely tied in with success, as the two are separate concepts (though I am NOT saying here that bad people are more successful. I’m saying that there’s no causal relationship at all). Success, however, is an arguable definition, because despite the fact that I, for instance, have very little money and a dead-end job, I am a quite successful person because I am happy, am working towards what I love, have money and no debt because of good budgeting, and have graduated college. I consider myself very successful, and a good person. In terms of District 9, the lead character was not a bad person even when forcing the prawns out of their shantytown. Stress was made, especially in the first section, to show that he was a really caring and considerate person all around, and he was successful in his job (he got the promotion, after all, and the job given him he worked very well, at the expense of the prawns sure but again without really relating to them in a meaningful way). Eventually the drama of his transformation, sure, changed his view, but he was still a good person and still doing what he needed to get his life back together and try to work things out for everybody. This was no evil-heart-tempered-by-cute-bambi-eyed child narrative, this was good-guy-doing-the-best-he-can-under-the-circumstances, fully loaded. He even never wanted to kill anybody, but was eventually forced into it.
As for the idea that this is a turd wrapped up in a political statement package, I just simply disagree and there’s no other way to state that. Again, the director used a real, historic base and a preproduction design he had to give up on to create a unique, well-crafted cinematic experience. He did it for especially cheap, and he was especially successful, both qualitively and profitably, whether you consider those two concepts exclusive or not. Again, I cannot comment to the quality of GI Joe—I like The Mummy and The Mummy Returns was silly fun, but I’ve never really cared for Sommers in particular and I’ve never been in the slightest interested in GI Joe as a franchise, so what’s the point of bothering? It may be well-crafted mindless fun that purports to be nothing but mindless fun, but that to me has absolutely no bearing on District 9’s relative quality or success, and does not stand out as a counter-example of what District 9 could or should be. I for one think that we are starting to have a real run of amazingly interesting science fiction films (this year alone, District 9, Moon, and Sleep Dealer, next year Inception, and later this year Surrogates and, yes, Avatar, which I still am interested in despite all the negativity on this site), and I’m really happy about that because science fiction fulfills my trippiness and weirdness aesthetic usually with the ability to create modern-day themes and ideas by positing decontextualized worlds or eras. Science fiction’s particular trope of speculation is a lot more interesting to me than some contemporary-based narratives simply because it has to move it’s ideas beyond simply “What the heck is going on?” to “Is this something that extends into our very essence as a culture, or is it merely a temporary trend?”, for one specific example.
I’d also like to point out that only two movies I’ve ever seen, The Man Who Fell to Earth and District 9, really have stood out in terms of humanity’s treatment to extraterrestrial aliens. Most people assume outright war and confusion, but District 9 is a lot closer to how I think it would work with segregation and distrust (no matter how valid, which in the case of District 9 it’s still important to note that it’s valid to worry when they’re massive carnivores that will eat you, this is no simplistic Awwwweee, da poor misunderstood Others argument), and The Man Who Fell to Earth posits a situation where people simply turn the alien into a human by sheer force of nature.
And even IF you consider District 9 unsuccessful for whatever reason, as someone who has argued consistently for the respect and understanding of Hollywood on this board, that nevertheless does not mean that I’d rather have a mindless movie over an unsuccessful movie that tried something new in concept or structure. As I mentioned before, Avatar may be not that great of a story or performance, particularly, but that does not change the importance of how it was shot and how that can affect the way future features are shot. In fact, in all of my various ideas of movies I want to make, unrealistic or not, hearing about Cameron’s process made me realize a way that a movie I never thought I’d be even physically capable of making could actually be made, whether it’s plausible that I’ll be in a position to make it or not. So yes, I will see Avatar to see what Cameron does with it, to see what I can glean from it, and I may or may not enjoy the movie itself, but I purport here and now that Avatar is better than GI Joe, which I’ve never even seen, because once again nothing about GI Joe’s concept NOR the way it was produced is in any way interesting to me.
So there. Pfffffft (Just needed to get the kid out of me after all that adult debating and stuff).
—PolarisDiB
Just to jump back a ways here in the discussion, I also felt that the main character was horribly cast in D9. I don’t know who that guy was, but I definitely did not like him at all. At ALL.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. I find this paragraph particularly intriguing:
The whole “living like them changes your opinion of them” is only half-correct in terms of what actually happened in the film. Throughout District 9, his joining of the Prawns’ side was almost entirely self-interested, even in the end when he began to understand their needs. Even becoming one, he still wants to be human as opposed to prawn, and any understanding felt by him is still nevertheless informed by the desire he has to be human and be returned to normality. From his character arc, this movie is a tragedy, whereas from the prawn foil’s character arc, this movie is a comedy.
This seems a significant point though I think it is complicated by the ending where the human/prawn must await the coming of the prawn escaped like some sort of messiah/bodhisatva; that he is not mired in a hopeless despair seems presented in his gesture of creating and discreetly presenting metal flowers. Yes, you are absolutely right he wants to be himself again but this does not conflict with his realization that the people he is among and now akin to are less than entities in their social situation. What white man in South Africa would not want to be a white man in South Africa in 1985 especially as his pigment started to darken? It is not a dismissal of the other, it is a recognition that the other is not what I want to be not because of the essential nature of the other but because of how I, and this is interesting to me, have helped write how that other is to be. I think the film would have been cheaper, although also not without insight, if he had become the leader of the prawns.
District 9 reminded me of another much lambasted film Starship Troopers in that in both films the perspective of the audience is aligned with the villain who is charged with decimating an alien culture. Starship Troopers is perhaps more complicated in that it provides us the thrills of our hatred where District 9 repulses us with our own acts against the alien.
Your paragraph on the compromising of one’s moral status was also thought provoking and your view of our anti-anti-hero is exactly what I was thinking about. He does seem a decent guy, perhaps too genuinely weak and eager to please for your average blockbuster hero, but a guy who in his vague and banal way thinks he might be doing good (sort of like what Hannah Arendt says about Eichmann’s view of himself as he arranged for the deportation of the Jewish people to concentration camps) but it takes seeing that the system that he trusted in was lying to him along with his assimilation that changed his perspective. (That said, he does acknowledge once the prawns have become real to him that they should never go to the camps implying that the moral change in him was recognition of other life as life all the same even if not a life he wants for himself.) I think he was a good citizen who became a good man and that the film shows a difference between the two.
I have no great opinions about Crash. People I like liked it and so there must be something I missed in it. I think it is a film that one can develop negative arguments about it that sound impressive and I think I have been guilty of this (the criticized racism is only of the most overt kind; white man saves black woman he sexually molested in a sexual way thus validating in some vague way his previous actions and show he was always a good guy). The Criterion Monterey Pop DVD has a montage of smiling people as a visual to Otis Redding’s Try a Little Tenderness. This tends to move me every time I see it. I am not sure why a crying montage couldn’t do the same, though I confess I do not recall this scene in Crash.
@Tom: I rarely post, but feel compelled to inquire… How old are you? I think maybe your age will reveal the nature of your strong opinion on this matter.
I must say, I’m always amazed at how film enthusiasts seem to spend most of their time trashing films. If you have something to say about a film, at least attempt to present a proper argument that is supported by some sort of logic. I think people have a hard time responding to your thoughts because they are rather … undeveloped.
@FRANCISCO: I beg to differ.
THIS is the best GI JOE movie ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAcg-kMC4QA&feature=related
“@Tom: I rarely post, but feel compelled to inquire… How old are you? I think maybe your age will reveal the nature of your strong opinion on this matter.”
Hi Hummer, your condescension is unappreciated.
I agree with Hummer that film enthusiasm seems too often being enthusiastic about what is beneath caring about (or about drafting lists). It seems smug to me: as if reactions from the erudite are the same as thoughts and have no need of depiction, defense or demonstration. Tom, I don’t think Hummers question was meant as condescending but as sincerce, impolitic but sincere. I don’t care how old you or anyone here is, I don’t want rank pulled on me and I don’t want to pull it, but Tom it would be great if you provided something more to consider than your declaration.
@Hummer, re: “I must say, I’m always amazed at how film enthusiasts seem to spend most of their time trashing films. If you have something to say about a film, at least attempt to present a proper argument that is supported by some sort of logic. I think people have a hard time responding to your thoughts because they are rather … undeveloped.”
Film enthusiasm is a passion. Unfortunately, “passion” does not equate “love” quite as much as you’d think. Sometimes it equates hate. I think in specific media/art passion, disappointment is what leads to …. and not to sound all Yoda here, but really… disappointment is what leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to numerous rants about how things aren’t quite like how you wish they could be. I went though a long stage where I railed against nearly everything coming out. I’d be stocking the new release wall at the rental place I work, and every other title I’d stock I’d be screaming, “WHAT THE HELL, who watches this?! Gah!” Basically, eventually that self-righteous vindictiveness started hurting me (“Don’t get a hernia, man!”) and I lost the energy to really get so upset about things. Other people, I guess, can keep up with it longer. Me, as I always say, I’d rather enjoy myself, it’s much more pleasant that way.
@Tom, re: “Just to jump back a ways here in the discussion, I also felt that the main character was horribly cast in D9. I don’t know who that guy was, but I definitely did not like him at all. At ALL.”
Honestly, I don’t know what to do with that. I liked him just fine, and the no-name actor did a good job. As David said, “He does seem a decent guy, perhaps too genuinely weak and eager to please for your average blockbuster hero, but a guy who in his vague and banal way thinks he might be doing good”, which means that he’s not really a hero you respect, but he’s certainly a person you can understand and relate to. Keeping in mind, too, that “like” isn’t always significant in terms of the general quality of the film. I really didn’t like Inglourious Basterds personally, but I thought it was a well-done film. My mother really didn’t like The Matrix when I showed it to her, but she could see how it was a good movie. You didn’t LIKE the actor, but I don’t see how he didn’t do a good job portraying the character and his changes.
—PolarisDiB
>>And yet no love for Van Helsing…<<
I didn’t hate it, but I liked the MUMMY 2 better.
Well, I did not like the main character in D9, and I didn’t care about him at all. In fact, I was wishing he would just die. So that’s a major problem in a film. He was probably the worst lead character in any major film I have seen in the last decade or so. He was AWFUL.
But are you passionate for film or are you passionate for yourself as a film enthusiast? When you are in your video store railing against the titles and what they should be and what they are not, are you not also condemning a culture that encourages these releases but then also the public (people) who support them with their affection or interest? And if so how do you separate yourself from that same culture? I can’t do it. I like car chases, I like nudity, I like fast editing. I liked Transformers 2 though it was by no means a very good movie. I am not sure it should be measured like that; I also don’t criticize it for teaching me about Russian dance another thing it did not attempt to do. It was exciting. There are shots in almost every movie, or little bits of acting, or something, that gives me cause for celebration and appreciation. And sure there are scenes that don’t work as well, for me, right then, but I have often come back and noticed things that delight me on third or fourth viewing that I would have deleted had I had any stupid power. But maybe they don’t, maybe somethings are badly done, is that so bad in relation to that which works on me? People like what they like and I am interested in why. I have a good friend whose devotion to film mostly extends to dismissing it and it has become my task to defend the films he dismisses. He attacks, I defend. I like my side of the fence much better. I don’t think the love I have for the people in my life grants me an authority to be disappointed in them and to let that be known or that I should develop it into anger or hatred. I love them, if I do love them, as they are. If film passion is truly about love and hate then I volunteer that passion is best replaced by affection or love for film. In any case, I think enthusiasm bespeaks affection more than passion as love and hate. And this I offer is central to enjoying yourself more, tolerating something that is broken does not make you a fool. I have never managed to stay awake for a full viewing of The Matrix but I agree the problem, if there is one, is on me.
I agree that the main actor in District 9 was very good. I would like to extend to my initial thought about the character as a man who thinks he is basically good, that he was a man who thought that going along with the flow was perhaps synonymous with being good and that he was confronted with a true separation and thus depiction of what was good for him to do and what was not. He was an evil guy, doing terrible things unthinkingly while thinking that they pleased his own circle, (it is this sort of morality that puts people into camps and perceives the poor as threatening to middle class values). He knows he is lying to the prawns but he thinks it is for the good because they are not real to him anyway, as moral beings like him. And then it gets overturned and he sees it, and he tries to keep contrary obligations going for a time, and then… I was very impressed with his performance and while it is surely the limitations of my own imagination I cannot imagine a star being able to do this. Matt Damon has a suggestion of this quality but the District 9 actor, whose name appropriately escapes me, had the character down. A wife physically beyond him, and he knew it, but still felt secure in her insecure love – that is tough to present.
Tom, that is a big comment: the worst in ten years. You have interestingly shifted your emphasis from actor to character. I am interested in why you hated this guy. Have you seen A Christmas Tale or The Class? I would like to know what you thought of the characters Henri and the teacher.
Hmm, I find myself in a curious position of actually agreeing with a lot of what Tom said about D9 (eg. I also thought the casting for the lead was a bad choice), while not agreeing with his main point that GI Joe is a better film. As I mentioned earlier, I felt *D9*’s script really needed more work. I almost want to call the filmmakers lazy, as the film felt like a first draft. So I understand what Tom means when he calls the filmmakers "arrogant a**holes*. Personally, I wouldn’t got that far, as I can think of other reasons for this oversite (eg. just poor judgment, bad guidance from more experienced filmmakers, ie. Peter Jackson, etc.) For those of you who want specific problems, let me site a few. First, the filmmakers didn’t put much care or thought into creating a plausible or interesting way the main character escapes and then breaks back into the corporate headquarters. Second, the apartheid comparisons just seem thrown into the film without really developing or saying anything substantive about the issue. Third, the way the main character meets the alien and then develops a relationship with him—a crucial part of the film—needed more work to be believable and compelling.
Having said that I still disagree that D9 is a worse film than GI Joe. I’m not disputing that Tom’s experience of GI Joe was much better. How could I? But I think he goes to far—or at least I disagree with him—that D9 is a worse film. The thing is D9 had potential and I don’t get the sense that the film was made primarily for business reasons rather than for aesthetic ones—or even with the objective of making quality entertainment—unless of course your idea of quality entertainment is simply fx, babes and good actions scenes. The fact that Tom cites Pirates of the Carribean as a film made for commerical reasons is not a very good defense of Joe. Yes, commercial forces were probably strongly behind the Pirates film, but that doesn’t make GI Joe lessen my cynicism towards Joe. Moreover, Johnny Depp’s performance and character in Pirates is a lot of fun, even deserving of the Academy nomination. That character alone makes the film better than GI Joe.
Tom, I didn’t mean to be condescending. Heck, I’m no film school grad.. I just (honestly) thought that maybe you and I were of a similar age, in that we have a special place in our hearts for G.I. Joe!
But yes, I’m also bashing your commentary, which does not contain any relevant insight:
“Well, I did not like the main character in D9, and I didn’t care about him at all. In fact, I was wishing he would just die. So that’s a major problem in a film.”
More than anything, that’s just annoying. Sorry.
“Tom, that is a big comment: the worst in ten years. You have interestingly shifted your emphasis from actor to character”
I hated both. If I knew that guy in real life, I would never talk to him, and would not find him interesting in the least. How else can I describe this? It’s one thing to have a flawed or evil main character carrying a picture; it’s something else entirely to have a character who is just an uninteresting and despicable human being I would have no interest in meeting or knowing or learning anything about in real life. He’s just bad. Both the actor, and the character.
“Tom, I didn’t mean to be condescending. Heck, I’m no film school grad.. I just (honestly) thought that maybe you and I were of a similar age, in that we have a special place in our hearts for G.I. Joe!”
Yes, in fact, I did love the cartoon and toys when I was a kid! I also loved Transformers. But I found the GI Joe movie to seemingly have nothing at all to to do with either the 80s GI Joe cartoon, or with the old-school GI Joes our dad’s played with when they were young. It just seems like a random “advanced military unit” movie — an excuse for a lot of special effects. When I saw the trailer, I vowed not to watch GI Joe, because it just seemed like such an obvious and cynical money-making scheme. Then I found myself at the theater on a hot day with nothing else interesting to see, so I plunked down 8 buckaroos, bought a large Dr Pepper, and hoped for the best. Well, all I can say is that I enjoyed GI Joe much more than I enjoyed D9. D9 was like torture to me. The plot and “message” seems like something that was cooked up by some Prius-driving idiots in Hollywood who think they are about 10 times more clever than they actually are. At least with Joe, it seems like the production team had some fun designing the sets and vehicles and huge action pieces. The action and gadgets and all that were very much in keeping with the feel of a big saturday-morning cartoon, so what more you really ask for in a movie made for kids? Have you ever watched the old 80s Transformers or GI Joe lately, when you were an adult? They are incredibly terrible! The plots are ludicrous beyond all belief.
I found D9 to be an insult to intelligent people, while Joe was just made for fun, and didn’t insult anyone. It didn’t pretend to be anything more than saturday-morning fun. I think Jazz might be onto something with respect to this project being shepherded by Peter Jackson. Somehow I got the feeling that the filmmakers thought “they could do no wrong.” Whatever film they made would be automatically great. It’s new, it’s different, it’s edgy… it has a political bent… but in the end, it was just full of fail. I would rather be waterboarded for five hours by Kim Jong Ill’s eldest son than be forced to watch D9 again.
…while Joe was just made for fun, and didn’t insult anyone. It didn’t pretend to be anything more than saturday-morning fun.
I understand this, and, again, I’m not going to dispute youre experience of the film. Indeed, I actually had a little (very little) fun in GI Joe—and that was more than I expected, but I want to respond to the defense that it was just “Saturday morning fun.” There’s nothing wrong with “Saturday morning fun”—unless by definition that signifies crappy movies. See, for me, Saturday morning fun and quality films—films with characters we care about, decent acting and dialogue and a solid story—are not mutually exclusive. I love action films—when they’re well down (which is rare). I love going to films like Matrix (the first one), Die Hard, The Incredibles, and The Italian Job (remake) among others. These films are truly fun and well-made films. GI Joe is not. I like the fact that Hollywood makes action films, but I also want them to make good action films. There are too many filmmakers and Hollywood people who seem to think that you can just put some stars on the screen with f/x, high speed car chases, explosions and gun battles and you’ve got a good movie—not art but good entertainment. That’s horse-puckey! as Col. Potter would say.The comment that the film is just good Saturday morning fun sounds like an excuse for that kind of crappy filmmaking. Tom probably didn’t mean it that way, but I just wanted to make get that off my chest. You I guess I’m just as passionate about Saturday morning fun as the serious movies.
No I meant the Staurday morning thing literally. The GI Joe movie is very much in keeping with Saturday morning cartoons, IMO.
It’s not an excuse. Generally speaking, I despise the “it’s only a popcorn movie” excuse. Popcorn or not, a movie should be good or bad. So I agree with you on that, generally speaking. I think we are reading too much into this. I never said Joe was a good movie, because it’s not. Like you say, the characters are cardboard, the story is a ripoff of Star Wars, etc. But D9 was a painful insult to me as a viewer, so I say that Gi Joe > D9. Yo Joe! hahaha.
Jazz, now go devote some of your energies to my Nausicaa-ESB thread.. it is badly in need of some thoughtful responses. :)
Something worth mentioning is that District 9 isn’t directly about Apartheid in the sense that it seeks to criticize or comment on what actually is. It uses Apartheid as a springboard to speculate on what future extraterrestrial/human relations could be. And as I mentioned before, it’s one of two movies dealing with that sudden confrontation that adds anything new to that idea.
“the apartheid comparisons just seem thrown into the film without really developing or saying anything substantive about the issue.”
It’s put into the film because that’s what Neil Blomkamp is familiar with, it provides a great springboard for discussion, and it sets the stage for the story. He doesn’t over-simplify it by, for instance, making the prawns and black people live together, or putting them on the same side, or emphasizing that it’s the same thing, he just explores how those issues and conflict would develop given the situation. Without it, you just have another Mars Attacks! movie.
—PolarisDiB
Yo Tom! I’d love to comment on the Nausicaa v. Empire Strikes Back thread, but I haven’t seen Nausicca—or if I did, I barely remember seeing it.
Polaris,
I just don’t think Blomkamp says anything substantive about the issue. You mentioned that Blomkamp explores the way the racial issue and conflict would develop, but does he develop the issues in ways that aren’t predictable or obvious? To me, he didn’t, but I’d be open to ways in which the film makes incisive observations about racism.
Tomstradamus
“D9 feels like it’s made by a creative, thinking individual who genuinely wanted to make an interesting movie; while Joe seems to be made largely by suits who only care about maximizing profits. So, no, I disagree with Tom.”
Well, D9 seemed to me like it was made by some arrogant assholes who thought anything they made would be great. Joe seems like it was made by some people who had fun making a silly cartoon movie with lots of neat gadgets and action battles, etc. If you want to talk about “a film made by people only interested in money” then look no further than “Pirates of the Caribbean”, which is clearly the most cynical get-rich-scheme ever hatched by Hollywood greedmeisters.
While you may have a point about my expectations being moderate for D9 and low for Joe, the bottom line is that I somewhat enjoyed sitting the cool theater sipping a Dr Pepper watching GI Joe, while I absolutely HATED sitting through D9. That says it all right there. One moderately entertained me, the other was like a poke in the eye with a dirty butter knife.