Reviews

I read the reviews. Came to this site and read the glowing comments, comparing the film to the likes of "Blade Runner," the original "Alien," John Carpenter's remake of "The Thing," among others. Said to myself "I gotta see this." Did.

Now I'm wondering: did I see the same film as those who sang its praises? Because what I saw was a REALLY BAD MOVIE, with virtually NO redeeming qualities.

OK, the special effects were all right, but the special effects are ALWAYS all right these days. And the 'documentary' feel initially drew me in, but then failed to deliver, the jerky, hand-held camera becoming tediously affected and ultimately, through overuse, genuinely annoying.

Was there a point to this film, other than to invite us to substitute an oppressed minority of our choosing for the prawns? Oh yes, because simple xenophobia wouldn't explain those chopper-borne snipers, we had to graft onto the 'plot,' late in the game, a SOULESS, EVIL CORPORATION.

And the less said about the wild west shoot-em-up at the end, the better -- but I'll say it anyway: "action" is almost always a cover for lack of content, and that was certainly true of "District 9." There was enough ordinance expended to have killed the entire film crew -- including Gaffers and the Best Boy -- at least twice.

If you see this piece of Deck and leave the theater as po'd as I and my companion were, don't blame me. You've been warned.

*******NOTE: POSSIBLE SPOILERS*******

My partner and I usually agree on the films we've seen. Not on this one.

She loved it. Raved about every aspect of it. Called it "brilliant" (not a word she uses lightly). Said it might be the best film she's seen this year.

Oddly, she's not much of a QT fan. I am, and seeing "Kill Bill" was my idea.

I was ok with it, though not really LOVING it, up until the battle royal in the Japanese restaurant/night club. Then I almost dozed off; if I'd been there alone, I'd have got up and left. Boring Saturday-morning-cartoon kiddie stuff.

Yeah, the cinematography was good, and the music was arresting. But there was no "there" there, and I left the theatre feeling cheated.

***WARNING - POSSIBLE SPOILERS ENCLOSED***

I went with an open, hopeful mind, having read that this was "cerebral" sci-fi that dealt with Big Questions. Not!

First of all, it was overly derivative, e.g.: a) The "Third Expedition" segment of "The Martian Chronicles." b) The penultimate scene in "2001: A Space Odyssey" (the hotel room that was obviously the construct of an incomprehensible being). c) "The Monkey's Paw," a hundred-year-old short story that is a cautionary tale about being careful what you wish for. d) The "false memory" angle dealt with in "Blade Runner."

Being derivative isn't necessarily a sin, as long as you deliver...but this movie doesn't. Rheya's dawning awareness of who she "was," and what she really is, is the only mildly interesting angle to be found in this pointless, aimless plot.

And the whole question of Solaris itself is given incredibly short shrift. It's obviously a very odd "rogue" celestial body that's wandered into our solar system, and long enough ago for humans to have placed an elaborate observation structure in orbit, but we aren't told anything about it. It's just...there.

I'm not a big fan of George Clooney, but this disappointing film is hardly his fault - DeNiro or Edward Norton would have had trouble making the character interesting/believable.

No, the blame goes to writer/director Steven Soderbergh. It's hard to believe this is the same guy who wrote and directed "Sex, Lies and Videotape" back in 1989.