I find that I usually agree with the critical consensus when it comes to recent releases (more often than not, anyway), yet my previous two reviews have both differed quite drastically from the popular opinion. I viewed G.I. Joe as an excellent summer popcorn movie that accomplished exactly what it attempted – to be an action extravaganza without forcing things, like unnecessarily complicated character development or a plot that attempted to be too smart for its own good, down our throat. It was based on a beloved 80's cartoon, and I felt it stayed very true to its origins. (G.I. Joe has a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 37% at the time of this writing.)

Now, Neill Blomkamp's District 9 is being praised as brilliant (currently with an 89% rating at R.T.) by most, and I have to step out and disagree. District 9 is hardly brilliant; at best it is slightly above average. There are however, hints of brilliance hiding beneath its celluloid surface, and this is why I ultimately felt cheated out of what could have been an excellent Science Fiction film.

Science Fiction is the perfect genre to make an analysis of the human race and either it's present condition or its distant, but ultimate, doom. Film has been used to provide this commentary many times before, some successfully, some not so much. The genre generally places its audience directly in the future as witness to the ultimate dystopia in which we'll probably wind up. The creators, being able to bend the rules in every way imaginable, have essentially a blank palette in which to form their views.

District 9 takes a different approach, placing its narrative in present day, albeit an alternate timeline in which aliens came to Earth 30 years ago, becoming stranded and ultimately prisoners in the militarized zone that is ‘District 9'. Rather than make suggestions to our future, the film prefers to reference our past, which is an admittedly strange approach for a science fiction project. Yet, this is the most impactful aspect of the entire film. By placing our first contact with the aliens, and the subsequent segregation of the human and alien races, in the past it draws more direct parallels to the apartheid system of South Africa and makes the commentary that much more significant.

Unfortunately, any attempt at significant commentary is lost in the films muddled structure. The films three distinct acts are just that – distinct. They are so different from each other in both content and tone that it feels as though Blomkamp, in adapting his short film Alive in Joburg, tried to do too much with everything; translating his original 6 minute short to a two-hour $30-millon dollar picture, allowed him to elaborate on everything – story, character, and more impressive effects. This is exactly why the film feels like three separate acts, rather than one cohesive whole.

The first act focuses primarily on the aliens and their relationship with the humans, and is filmed in primarily in a documentary-like manner, complete with interviews and news clips. It's an effective approach that gives credence to the events that are happening. The second act does away with the documentary format nearly completely, and shifts focus to the protagonist, Wikus, and by the third act any remaining commentary is thrown out the window for an explosive action climax. It feels too little like one great film, and too much like three separate, very good films.

I applaud Neill Blomkamp for infusing his film with some excellent metaphoric content, even if it could have been elaborated on more. I stand by my statement that there is certainly something brilliant going on here, it's unfortunately a little too clouded by an unfocused script and incoherent film making technique. I do however, look forward to Blomkamp's future work in which he'll have a chance to develop a full-length feature from an original concept.