I like this movie a lot. It makes me laugh, and outside of The Wedding Singer, it's the only time I've found Allen Covert funny on the big screen (He actually is funny though on Adam Sandler's comedy CDs).

The movie's not great, but damn I think it's fun and laugh-out loud funny (although thanks to his recent overexposure, I'm starting to find Nick Swardson less and less funny)

Oh, and I'll agree with others that this movie made me notice Linda Cardellini. She's not only beautiful, but she can actually act too.

You're missing my point. You are free to enjoy any movies you like. I said based on you thinking Caddyshack was a bad movie, I can now dismiss any movie reviews from you in the future, based on the fact that our movie tastes are so far off. Don't infer any other intent from my comment.

Defining what works and what doesn't work in a movie is up for interpretation -- such as character development - which realistically would be subtle for most movies, but then there are some movies that go overboard and add completely implausible amounts of it. The same goes for the story.

The things that you can have a judgement call on are the basics -- if it has a story, if it has characters, deciding if either one is good or not does effect how good a movie is. Running Scared has a story, character development, decent acting despite Paul Walker and is nicely shot -- doesn't mean it's a good movie.

Black Swan goes campy and corny, and yet it still fits suitably well into the category of good movie.

There's a reason there are aggregate sites for movie critics, because there really is no one definition of what makes a movie good. Each thing is a checkbox on an overall good/bad list but the weight have the individual aspects cannot be measured for everybody. You can have great cinematography, tell a complete story with solid characters and great acting with solid direction and still be a shitty movie. There are professional aspects that make a movie safe to proclaim as good -- but that alone doesn't make them good movies. Some styles just work better with the masses than others. While technically perfect, I personally don't recommend many Pixar movies because while they're beautifully rendered, tell complete stories with complete characters, are well directed and have top notch voice talent -- they come off as derivative, dull and boring to me. Alas, on the surface they're what would be considered completely professional "good" movies.

The King's Speech won Best Director, Original Screenplay and Best Picture. It was, imo, one of the weaker directorial efforts of the 10 nominated Best Pictures and yet there it is, winner. And for shits and giggles, I consider Wild Things to be a good movie, and why not, it's nicely shot, has a complete story, has character arcs, has passable acting, is well directed and is simply fun. It's also absolutely implausible, raunchy and completely trashy.

And then you have movies like Mulholland Drive - It's nicely shot, amazingly well acted, tells a complete story, has a compelling narrative and has more character depth than any movie I think I've ever seen. And yet it divides audiences completely because it's shot like the tv show it is, has stiff acting with shallow characters and is incomplete nonsense with no narrative to speak of.

If you don't like my movie suck on my golf balls!

bwahahahahaha

HAHAHAHAHA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_A...nder_apartheid

HAHAHAHAHA.

Oh, you're hilarious.

Yeah, thought it was pretty well known that the movie was just the apartheid recreated with aliens. Didn't care for the movie myself, but it had a clever concept.

That's how I feel.

Another thread about a movie featuring boobs, stoners and monkeys driving cars ruined by Spottedfeather...

Why are you being a jerk ? Nothing I said about District 9 is funny. It IS unrealistic. If aliens really did land, we wouldn't just stick them in slums. We would try to communicate with them speak with them. What does that have to do with apartheid ? What is wrong with you guys ?

D9 was an interpretation of what humans COULD do to aliens. Some Humans were able to learn the language but I don't think physically speak it, cuz clicking for human is too much at the pace that the Prawn do it. They also treated them like 2nd class citizens based off the alien manners, etc. Most of the Prawns were workers...not exactly teh most "intelligent" of Prawn. Christopher was smart though. He was something else entirely from the rest. He knew about the technology that most of his kind probably didn't in D9. So when the humans have to face mostly lost and confused worker bees who can't logically think independently....how else does one try to integrate a culture or understand w/ them.

It doesn't seem entirely too unrealistic. What we're unsure about it is the in between time frame of when they landed and when MNU (the Private Military company) took care of it. There are gaps in history there, we don't really know what the gov't did besides house them. And...considering man's huge comforting nature for the unknown and disturbing...just shoving them in one place to not face an issue isn't too far off. MNU had prawn Tech. We wanted to learn from them but out of fear...we as a race for the most part....shove out what may be disturbing and try to forcibly interpret what we now have. If that makes any sense...

Apartheid is a historical backdrop that is used as a story element (or visual comparison if you like) for D9. Pretty cool if you ask me. The Director wasn't commenting on it, he was just using it as a story element....but we all know apartheid was bad.

Nothing is wrong with them. Your reasoning just sucks.

Reasoning about what ? Why the District 9 sucks and is unrealistic and not even the least bit original ? Sorry, but my reasoning is solid. If you don't think it is, please explain.

I just poked my head in here, wondering why a thread about Grandma's Boy had reached 4 pages.

Yikes. Good night now.

He is trying just a little too hard. And that is why his posts make me laugh because they are a good comedy bit. Before him there were a few other posters that always had to be “that” guy. The one to make sure everyone knew that their thinking was completely different than everyone else’s. There is nothing wrong with that but again he is trying a little too hard to be the different one and get noticed for that. Which he has apparently succeeded at. If you see any of his other posts they are basically the same with many reactions like the ones in here.

It doesn't suck because it has an excellent central performances and effectively uses CG to create a character the audience can invest in. It's realistic because if the human race encountered non-hostile aliens and we were given a chance to exercise power over them without any sort of reprisal, we would; making them second-class citizens of our planet is sadly logical. (I mean, if we did it to our own race, what's to stop us from doing it to someone else? And even if the specific apartheid situation isn't the most likely option, there would definitely be a bubbling hostility towards them no matter what.) It's original because you probably cannot name several other popular examples of alien movies that tackle real-world political issues, body horror, or the mockumentary format, much less one that combines all of them.

These are opinions that can be objectively validated by majority opinion as being true "enough" to be legitimate.

Solidsnake and droid have both posted solid rebuttals about why your reasoning is not good. Please reference their posts, I agree with both of them. It just ain't that hard to believe something like that could happen given the circumstances.

On the point of it being unoriginal...well, that's a new complaint. Not one I agree with either...sure, there are derivative elements in the film...what movie isn't to some degree. But it brings a lot of fresh things to the table too which made it a new, and compelling experience, imo. You're going to have a tough time convincing me this is a carbon copy of something else. Mainly cause it really isn't.

Certain Star Trek episodes and movies tackle real world political issues. The X-Men movies tackles racism and biogtry. How's that for not being able to name other popular examples of alien movies that tackle real world issues ?

Fresh things ? You're telling me there's never been a movie or tv show about aliens coming down to earth and being horribly mistreated ? You're telling me that there's never been a movie or tv show about aliens coming to earth that are big mechanical monstrosities and try to kill humans ? You're right. It's nothing like Independence Day, Transformers, Predator, Alien Nation, or any other alien story made in the last 100 years.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vid...nes-else-loves

Watch the whole video, but specifically go to the 27 minute mark to hear about District 9. Sums up exactly what you refuse to understand. I am REALLY interested in hearing your response to this video.

You did notice in the film the aliens did NOT come to earth to try to kill humans? In fact, one might even consider the story of aliens coming to earth because their ship broke down to be rather different than the standard alien invasion picture. No, this isn't really like ID4. That being said, I'm sure you can find some other instance of a film doing something similar. You can with any film.

But certainly not in my book can you use such vague story elements to accuse a film of being unoriginal. If those are your standards, I don't know how you watch movies...absolutely nothing is original. EVERYTHING ever made is derivative in some way or another. It's a meaningless complaint used by those who cannot properly figure out why they don't like something.

Try again man. You're 0 for 2 for good reasons.

I'm not trying hard to be anything. I'm just me giving my honest views about things. I don't care if you don't agree with me, but I'm sick of being attacked just because I don't fit your view of things. I'm not trying to be different. I'm just telling the truth. Topics that I post in wouldn't get so out of hand if you people would just accept that I feel differently than you and stop making fun of me and attacking me just because you have a different view of movies. You say that I can't back up my views. So, I respond to your accusations. But still, you jump down my throat because I hate movies you like because you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that someone doesn't feel the same way as you do about the movies that you love. Why ? Why can't you just accept my views and explanations and movie on ? Does it really do anyone any good to attack my point of view ? You have your view and I have mine. I don't attack you for thinking what you think. I couldn't care less. You can tell people what you think ; that you hate certain movies....and that seems to be fine. But when I tell you that I hate certain movies, nobody can handle it and everybody gangs up on me. I really don't understand all the hostility.

Nothing I say is meaningless. I know exactly why I didn't like District 9. We've seen the same story before. The Day The Earth Stood Still, for one. Certain episodes of Doctor Who, for two. District 9 didn't even try to be original. Not in the slightest. Are you telling me that an alien ship stopping at earth because it was broke down is an original plot point ? Didn't happen in Alf ? Didn't happen in My Favorite Martian ?

I'm saying that these specific plot points to do not define originality. I even already said you can name films with similar specific plot points, but are you really going to argue this film and My Favorite Martian really have anything in common besides some very general points?

Originality is not defined by simply having a plot never done before. You can do a remake of a film and still come up with something original. In your quest to make movies an objective thing, it seems you have completely lost sight of what makes film such a versatile form of expression.

As for being attacked, grow up man. If you don't want people to challenge (or potentially even laugh) at your points of view, don't post them. I mean, what can I say, some of what you say is in fact making me laugh. But I'm sure you're a big boy and can handle a little ribbing, right? Right??? I respect your right to have an opinion, it doesn't mean I'm going to respect your opinion.

While these are all obviously your opinion, your writing style implies fact which tends to irk on nerves. There's a difference between saying "I thought it was stupid" and "It's stupid!"

District 9 wasn't a movie I particularly cared for, not because it wasn't original -- as it took an old tale (aliens abandoned on Earth), applied modern political issues (the apartheid and South African sentiment) and plot lines and added a very current movie trend (documentary style) to the mix. The real issues with it had to do with jarring style changes, slow plotting, cliches (more the human -> alien aspect than anything), dull characters and it essentially becomes a non-interactive videogame in the final stretch.