it's an excellent film and

it's an excellent film and only a crytpo-religious fanatic would hate it - or someone who believes humans have the right to kill and use other creatures as they wish free from repercussions.

Damn!

Outed!

"postmodern" sci-fi

I tend to agree with the last commenter, though I would hesitate to classify D9 as a postmodern science fiction flick.
Yeah, Steve, I was bummed that the trailer bit wasn't in the movie, and I sure wanted answers to all the questions you had, but that, I believe, makes this film all the more uncompromising. Despite the shoot-em-up elements, it does NOT deliver a concise package for the Hollywood viewer and instead offers a non-hero in a bizarre world where the U.S. does not play a role at all.
Moreover, the audience is left with many many questions, much like we would be in a Tarkovsky film, for example. In fact, we never even see the inside of the alien ship, which I know tantalized me from the very beginning.
I can't wait for the sequel.

A rare disagreement with the Burgess

The Burgess should be a noble title like the Dutchess, only it means being a very good Vancouver-based writer of magazine features. But I digress.

District 9 is kickass action cinema with a brain. It had enough setup to bring us into the situation and therefore into the emotional dilemnas that bring the movie into the realm of drama.

While you're right that there is no explanation for how the fluid works, why the aliens came to Earth, or how a certain mutation worked, the film doesn't need them. The answers are both easy to imagine (it's midicloridans!) and irrelevant to the tone of the film and to its substantive concern, which is (a) the political awakening of a company man and (b) a particularly literal examination of the notion of inner beauty.

Burgess didn't get it

The main questions that Burgess asks are actually explained, and I think he just didn't get the movie. Don't listen to Burgess. This is a great film that doesn't cram explanation down your throat, but allows you to piece together the complex plot. And the main story is a great character transformation of a meek person who follows authority into a courageous person who begins to stand up for himself and others.

MINOR SPOILER ALERT

"And considering the amazing ability of the alien weaponry, why are the aliens dumpster diving in a squatter camp, being pushed around by pop-gun-toting humans?"
The Prawns are likened to workers, as in an insect colony, and are noted for their tendency to follow authority. It is questioned why they are here without a leader, and the missing control ship is mentioned as a possible explanation by one of the people in the documentary. Christoper does give orders to other Prawns and refuses to take them from humans, which prompts Wilkus to call him smarter than the other ones.

"What is the mysterious fluid Copley discovers -- space ship fuel, or a substance that causes alien mutations? Or a dessert topping?"
We don't know because Christopher never tells Wilkus. But we do know that the Prawn technology is biotechnology and is based on their DNA, which is why humans can't use it. Their fuel source is likely the same, and the connection with Prawn DNA is likely what causes the transformation. It's actually so obvious that I'm surprised Burgess missed this.

I liked it!

I liked it!

Completely Agree with JL; amazing..

I love this movie, its up there with Alien and Aliens as my top alien movies.

This movie has action, it has story, and it has tons of character. Everything fits, its gritty, and fun to watch. The story makes sense, although its cryptic. Just because there isn't a pamphlet handed out to explain everything to you, doesn't mean its bad, in fact its normally a good indication of a good film.

Go see it, its a great romp.

Too close to the screen

Steve
Before your time, but the first reviews of Kubrick's "Space Odyssey" read a lot like what you're written here. Cogent observations about the apparent lapses in logic coupled with an underlying concern that the viewer is going to be duped somehow.

Some reviewers read like frustrated movie directors, on the constant lookout for methods by which the work in question fails to be as good as the movie in their head. This stems from sitting too close to the screen. Back up and see it for what it might be.... your need for tidiness reminds me of my first wife... we lay in the grass on a clear night, looking at the magnificence of the stars, and all she could think about was the possibility there might be a spider lurking nearby.

Enjoy the moment for what it is, Steve. It is good.

Oddly enough...

...I actually did move a few rows back early on during the screening, which did indeed help the visual experience. And still odder, I would probably spend a lot of time worrying about spiders in that situation. And even more time wondering why I was lying on a blanket with you.

It's clear that my view is not the majority here--although as I pointed out above a few critics have made the same points I did. To reiterate: I really feel the movie set up a great premise and then completely fudged it. The plot quickly becomes a story of an evil corporation trying to acquire weaponry. Why set up the whole apartheid scenario if you're just going to trot out that old chestnut? The film has the opportunity to really delve into interesting territory and make some points. Instead the point is... we should all boycott the fictional MNU Corporation? After that District 9 went in all sorts of directions, none of which interested me like the initial premise did. As a straight sci-fi action flick I found it routine.

What did you like about it, Dorothy?

District 9 Review

All I can say is, I'm a 67 year Little Old Lady and rarely like sci-fi stuf...f but I LOVED this movie and think Steve Burgess' review was missed the point. I enjoyed seeing the character development of the civil servant, as well as various "prawns".
And Steve, I do not need to understand what that strange liquid was! This is science fiction and one should be prepared to accept the so-called "science"!