“District 9″
Sharlto Copley, Jason Cope, Dir. Neill Blomkamp (2009)
Directed by South African special effects expert Neill Blomkamp and financed by Peter Jackson of “Lord of the Rings” fame, District 9 has suffered from a clever but low-key advertising campaign which makes it look like a low cost movie (which may possibly describe a $30 million budget these days).
Emphasising the special effects shots in the film posters though might give away some of the tremendous delights of the movie, which has more to offer than “GI Joe” and “Transformers 2″ put together (there, I’ve already given away one surprise just by mentioning Transformers, and will have to try not to do it again).
The movie’s based on Blomkamp’s 2005 short “Alive in Joburg” which also featured Sharlto Copley in a small part, and it’s his stunning characterisation as a minor functionary put in charge of clearing out an encampment of aliens in Johannesburg which takes the movie far beyond the alien shoot-’em-up level. So far, so similar to “Alien Nation”, which also saw an alien colony dumped on Earth, but the insectoid aliens in “District 9″ or “prawns” are integrated so closely into the movie’s opening documentary-style shots that it’s almost impossible to believe they’re not real.
The clever conversion from documentary mode to horror/action/political thriller (yes, it’s that multi-layered) coincides with Copley’s forced change in attitude towards the aliens, and to give away any more would be to spoil the plot development of one of the most intelligent sci-fi movies ever made.
Yes, there’s a deal of gore, strong language and shooting, but this is a movie which starts out fascinating and becomes consistently stronger as it moves along. Very highly recommended, and looking forward to a sequel, which I suggest could be called “District 10″ 
“Star Trek”
Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Dir. JJ Abrams(2009)
This is going to be a short and sweet review, based on the fact that I spent two months trying to NOT find out anything about the movie before its release. I didn’t want to know which era it was set in, who the characters or the cast were, or anything else about it, and wouldn’t want to spoil any one of a number of plot surprises in store for anyone else going to see the movie.
Suffice it to say that director JJ Abrams of “Lost” fame has succeeded in revitalising the Trek franchise, that the casting is imaginative and inoffensive with one exception, and that the movie is a big improvement over the last two in the series. It’s set after the era of “Star Trek; Enterprise” but, following a moving opening sequence, seems to diverge very markedly from what we all know about the subsequent period. About halfway through the movie, understanding dawns, as one character’s interference with the timeline becomes the justification for variations from the well established backgrounds of several familiar names.
There’s very little padding (unlike in the near namesake original movie widely derided as “Star Trek; The Motionless Picture”) though the developing plot is confusing, and one unfortunate comedy episode mars the action, as does one casting decision which uses a well known comedy actor as a central character (actually there’s two examples of this, one slightly less offensive than the other).
The movie keeps up the pace though, and there are sufficient enjoyable in-jokes and references to keep the most ardent Trekker happy. Actually although the movie has plenty of action, an ardent Trekker would appear to be the target market – a lot will go right over the head of anyone not thoroughly familiar with the various movies and TV series.
Recommended though. Hopefully the franchise will now return from a level at which it had become little more than a series of slightly expanded TV episodes, to once again having plenty to offer for the future.
Mark Jenkins
“Knowing”
Nicolas Cage, Dir. Alex Proyas (2009)
Though Nic Cage mumbles his way through the movie, Alex Proyas (who directed Will Smith in the similarly SF-themed “I Robot” as far back as 2004) has done a great job of making a complex and multi-layered movie relatively comprehensible.
In fact the movie has something for everyone – starting with a well delineated father-son relationship, then a bit of spooky mystery, some romance, the abrupt introduction of absolutely spectacular special effects, the development of the SF theme, and an admirable build from mystery towards dramatic action. Other directors who allow the pace to sag in the middle, please take note – not that this is intended as a dig at the very lengthy “Watchmen”, the episodic nature of which is inherent in the graphic novel upon which it’s based.
“Knowing” although it touches upon a theme of numerology also found in Darren Aronofsky’s “Pi” seems unrelated to the beliefs stemming from analysis of the Aztec calendar which predict the end of the world in 2012, but it does have an apocalyptic theme, one which is faced head-on and with the minimum of unnecessary sentiment. There is a pro-religious sub-plot presumably added as a sop to those so inclined, but this doesn’t detract too much from the handling of the subject matter.
Very highly recommended, “Knowing” though likely to be equally moving on DVD release, is at its best on the big screen.
Mark Jenkins
“Watchmen”
Billy Crudup, Carla Gugino, Dir Zack Snyder (2009)
I knew almost nothing about “Watchmen” before the movie’s release, having not seen Snyder’s previous graphic novel interpretation “300″ though having enjoyed “V for Vendetta”, a movie adaptation of another Alan Moore work which the author disliked so much he had his name removed from it.
Watchmen the movie has in fact been in production almost since the original graphic novels appeared in 1986, and comic book fans will of course be most concerned as to the faithfulness or otherwise of the adaptation. Having intentionally cultivated a state of complete ignorance about the original however, I was able to sit back and enjoy the ride.
And what a ride it is. Developing slowly and mysteriously in the early part of its near three-hour running time, the movie just begins to pick up pace when it is brought to a crashing halt for a series of narrative flashbacks, each explaining the origin of one of the central characters. Since a great deal of backstory has been cleverly included in a montage during the opening titles, this insistence on repeatedly bringing the developing plot to a halt might have become irritating. But once the viewer realises that aspects of each character are simply going to remain obscure until it’s their turn for a flashback, the repeated structure becomes clear; and in fact it’s a simple reflection of the way the original graphic novel is structured.
The ultimate backstory is that of Dr. Manhattan, the only one of the Watchmen who is a true “superhero” (in that he’s suffered a Hulk-type scientific accident). The origins of the powers of the other characters are poorly explained; we at least know now, thanks to Batman Begins, that Bruce Wayne is in fact a trained Ninja, but the abilities (such as they are) of most of the Watchmen remain unexplained.
In fact the movie’s very much about the limitations of these abilities, and the human weaknesses which persist even when characters set themselves up as “super-heroes”. As the movie repeatedly asks, “Who watches the Watchmen?”, and the personal differences between the characters becomes a turning point of the plot.
Married to this is the move by Dr. Manhattan from earthly concerns to those of a transcendent being, rather unfortunately accompanied by a very large slice of the Philip Glass music from the landscape movie Koyaanisqatsi – a superb piece, but an odd idea to use one well known movie soundtrack in another movie. The presence of Glass music lifted from Paul Schrader’s“Mishima” for use in Jim Carrey’s idiotic “The Truman Show” jars equally.
Watchmen though becomes more and more spectacular as it develops, and if you can keep pace with the whirling typhoon of ideas being presented, is terrifically absorbing.
Then I went and looked at the graphic novel. And everything became clear…
Mark Jenkins
