New or old, film or TV, it doesn't matter. Post the last thing(s) to appear on yer tellybox or in the cinema!

District 9 - 6/10

I dunno if I'd go as far to say that it's shit, but I just didn't find myself overly interested. If I were to sum it up, I'd just say that I don't see the point in making this movie. I know about the apartheid undertones, but it's just a weird way of going about bringing this important moral message to the fore. Also, it got a bit 'robots hitting each other' (to steal a line from Kermode) toward the end, and that hurt the tone of the movie for me.

Dig! - 7/10

Pretty good and enjoyable. Some really quite random moments and good music. It can get a bit uncomfortable at times though as the BJM singer is rather dilusional. Only other negative thing I could say is that the film doesn't really seem to have a point, it ultimately arrives at a fairly underwhelming conclusion.

Hard Eight - 5/10

Not a terrible film but more of a pointless chore from a man who is now one of the best directors in the industry. The characters are underdeveloped, I found myself not caring about anything that happens to them. The narrative is bizarre and flat, a revelation piece comes out much too late into the film that adds minute interest. Is it about redemption? Father figures? It was so half baked and felt like one big first act; I really didn't care.


District 9 does what good SciFi monster films should do (albeit less successfully because of its flaws and Michael Bayian 3rd act). It uses the device of Sci Fi to make films about personal issues as a reflection on us, i.e Alien with birth, Invasion of the Body Snatchers: Communist paranioa, Godzilla: The A-bomb.

But yeah it could have been better .

5/10 is a fucking joke. The characters were not underdeveloped, and the themes were clear and concise. You spent most of the time scratching your balls and giving yourself a dead leg.

Point being:

It's not a joke, the film was a pointless task with the PTA acting crowd doing what they usually do, with no real distinction of character. We learned nothing of John C Reilly's character other than he was a baffoon. No follow up on his mothers death, no insight into his life due to [insert revelation], nothing affects anything. It is the kind of 2 dimensional "cool" that possess certain gangster films. It didn't explore its themes vastly enough (or at all) to warrant a critical viewing status. Maybe that's why PTA needs a long run time to make a great film.

"the film was a pointless task with the PTA acting crowd doing what they usually do"

Makes no sense, it's his first film. It's not like he's repeating a formula with a so-called 'weak script'.

"We learned nothing of John C Reilly's character other than he was a baffoon"

No, what we learned was that at the start he had nothing, be it money or a path, but under the guidance of a new father figure, he gained self-respect and something to do with his life. His actions later in the film weren't that of a 'buffoon', they were that of someone who was in love and he blindly tried to defend her without thinking of the consequences.

I'd highlight your other points, but I think from the start you decided for whatever reason that you weren't going to like it. To be honest, I don't think you were paying attention. The themes are there, you just weren't looking.