"District 9" Best Sci-fi Movie of 09? 705
Travis wrote in with a story that says much of what my friends have been saying to me all weekend: "Slashdot covered 'District 9' back in July. I was originally excited to see this movie for its exhibition of exoskeleton robot 'mechs' (see images and video at Hizook.com ). After watching the film this opening weekend, I can honestly say that it was an amazing science fiction movie! Everything was spot-on: the plot, the human elements, the alien elements, the technology, and the seamless blend of special effects with real camera capture. This film should vault Neill Blomkamp into sci-fi stardom, on par with George Lucas and the Wachowski Brothers (of Matrix fame). This is certainly a must-see movie — easily the best movie of the year."
good, not great. (Score:3, Interesting)
The third act is where the movie devolved into traditional Hollywood tropes.
The long-awaited shootout with the asshole who has been hounding the protagonist since the first act. Pitting two factions, MNU + Nigerians, against each other. The hero being saved by the downtrodden prawns at the very last minute.
The little alien Wesley Crusher who's in the downed alien craft and after 20 years discovers how he can wake up the mothership to save the day.
How the love for an adult and his child can make anything happen.
Finally two adversaries become friends much like Dragonball Z.
Everything leading up to the end was good but it's like they ran out of ideas.
Okay, they ran out of good ideas.
At least it wasn't another sequel... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think "Moon" has been the only other major sci-fi non-sequel I've seen in the theaters in a long while...
I liked D9 and hope it does well.
On par with George Lucas and the Wachowski Bros (Score:4, Interesting)
That is a fucking insult if you ask me.
The film has a great look. I think alien films in daylight and with the psuedo-documentary looks are the hardest things to film.
The viral ad campaign has been very interesting with the fake NMU ads and such.
I have much hope for this movie, but if it ends up being just another EVIL CORPORATION movie, I will be disappointed.
Re:Isn't it really the only Sci-fi movie of 09? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a good thing either way (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to agree (Score:4, Interesting)
Whoa, what?? It was pretty good, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Great movie, but shakycam? (Score:5, Interesting)
Saw this yesterday, thought it was awesome. At its heart the plot isn't necessarily that original, but the execution is sublime. The "hero" and many of the other characters and weapons/vehicles/etc. feel so much more vulnerable than in any other holywood movie.
In every other movie you shoot at someone and miss completely if they're the good guy. Or your car/spaceship/cat is invulnerable to missiles conveniently. Not in this movie.
HOWEVER, the combination of shaky cam and gore left everyone I went with feeling a bit nauseous. I'm really not even sure if it was the shaky cam or the gore that did it. Please put a bullet in these shaky cams. For whatever reason they're being used, it's not worth it.
A Great Film, But Don't Forget Moon (Score:5, Interesting)
I saw District 9 this Friday, and I have to agree that it was a great piece of cinematic sci-fi: an allegory for apartheid with a very human unlikely hero and some great popcorn-fodder action sequences. I'd like to remind everyone, though, that it still has some competition for year's best sci-fi movie in the form of Moon, which is a drama of isolation, loneliness, and ethics set in the stark, cold beauty of space, very reminiscent of 2001. While it doesn't match the action of D-9, it makes up for it with its emotional intensity and thoughtfulness. I highly recommend any Slashdot movie fans out there see both.
Re:Great movie, but shakycam? (Score:4, Interesting)
Saw it. It rocked. (Score:5, Interesting)
Overall, was tremendously impressed with the look, feel, cinematography, etc. Documentary style absolutely made the movie. And I generally loath shaky-cam. Thing is, shaky-cam has generally been used to imply that you *are* someone, so you never see what the hell is happening, whereas in District 9, it makes you feel like you're *watching* something, so you follow the action but feel the peril. Very effective.
There were some *amazing* scenes - I can't go into it due to spoilers, but really, unbelievably cringe-inducing moments of humanist horror. There is a richness to the interaction of the main character with his world that I just haven't seen elsewhere.
My friends and I kept looking over at each other with wild grins on our faces, unable to believe how intense, crazy, and just totally new the whole thing was. I really can't recommend it highly enough.
Re:Great movie, but shakycam? (Score:1, Interesting)
Thanks for the warning, I hate shakycams. So much for that movie ...
What is it about these days that a cameraman has to be totally wasted?
Re:Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you saying that this movie is as good/groundbreaking as Star Wars or The Matrix? I am somewhat dubious.
Lots of movies have been billed as "the next star wars" but in terms of success and popular impact, the Matrix is the only one that really nailed it, at least as far as sci-fi's gone. I don't know if geeks will be having matrix-themed weddings decades from now but hey, it's already got ruinous sequels just like Star Wars!
I hear District 9 is good but will probably remain on the scifi geek list rather than crossing over into the mainstream like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. Probably more like a Blade Runner or Terminator 1 or 2. I wouldn't quite put LOTR on the same cultural impact comparison list since Star Wars and Matrix did not exist in any form before the theatrical release whereas LOTR has been loved for decades beforehand -- in other words, it had already made quite an impact before Peter Jackson touched it.
Re:Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here (Score:4, Interesting)
Moon. He's on the dark side, mining Helium-3. And he's on the frickin' MOON. Not to mention that the story and acting is excellent. I liked District 9, but Moon is better.
Re:A lock for "Most Naseauting Cinematography" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Great movie, but shakycam? (Score:1, Interesting)
For years I believed shaky cameras were used because producers thought the movie would look more real (false: our neck muscles dampen the vibration when we look around, also while running), but even the stupidest producer would understand the idiocy behind their use. Now I have a different theory: shaky cams are put there because a continuously moving picture is harder to compress in a small space, therefore at the same quality ripped movie files get bigger and therefore longer to up/download. Not much, but they definitely get bigger and require mandatory multi pass conversion which makes the process a bit longer. Not that this will stop piracy, as it represents only a minor hassle, but I could understand if they used whatever they have in their arsenal to slow down pirated movie spreading. I sincerely hope this is the reason behind the use of shaky cameras because I can't think of any good reason to use them in any serious production (Ronald D. Moore, are you listening?) besides emulating what people on crack see.
Plot holes big as swiss cheese! (Score:2, Interesting)
Here are the issues I had:
1) Where did the aliens come from, why were they in our galaxy? why did they leave? Would it have been so much to ask to piece together some of the back-story for the viewer so we could relate better to their plight?
2) WTF happened to all of the aliens who knew shit about how to run their starship? Why is it their population consists of 99.999-percent idiotic worker-class drones and what happened to their intelligent leaders? Why did precisely 1 intelligent alien survive this?
3) How believable can it be that this fluid has a very specific dual purpose of a) turning humans into Prawns, and being unleaded gasoline for your starships?
4) The gore was completely over the top and detracted from our enjoyment.
5) We made the mistake of sitting close to the screen and the shaky camera gave me a splitting headache.
I felt like this movie is a lot like the Defying Gravity series on ABC. The movie is trying so hard to tell a heart-wrenching story that the sci-fi aspects become a crappy afterthought for the writers.
Firefly? You sure? (Score:2, Interesting)
If there was any shakycam in it, that was sporadic and limited at best (worst).
I base that on the fact that I don't remember any, and I've sat through all of it (some of it couple of times) and Serenity and I've liked it all.
OTOH... BSG annoyed me constantly with its continuous shakycam so I was barely able to last to mid-season 2. Never saw it entirely. Don't plan to.
Could watch Firefly again though...
This movie has to be confounding Hollywood (Score:4, Interesting)
I suppose Peter Jackson's name was the only thing that kept this from being laughed out of Hollywood. 'District 9' and 'Moon' are the best sci-fi movies I've seen in awhile.
Re:Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you saying that this movie is as good/groundbreaking as Star Wars orThe Matrix? I am somewhat dubious.
Yes. It. Is.
No one has done anything like this before. The style of seamless blending of handheld, real documentary, fake news, CCTV (security cam) and live action fluid is tight. There is even first-person/third-person shooter cams. It's a distinctly unique style of "omniscient" camera person which can which from any source / any angle, yet while blending and cutting between all of them, it still feels cohesive and non-jarring.
The integration of the aliens into the movie is especially groundbreaking and unique. There are aliens in literally 80-90% of the scenes and they look real. Not like Jar-Jar Binks or people in outfits. The look dirty and solid. Their textures reflect the environment. They move and interact with the environment like real creatures. You can actually *BELIEVE* they are there. Trust me, the special effects on this movie are unlike ANYTHING you've even seen before and that doesn't even count the action scenes.
.
Looks interesting, I'll definitely Netflix it.
To be honest, if I could only have see one film in the actual Theatres this year out of all the ones I've already seen, I would chose District 9 - that includes comparing it to Star Trek, Harry Potter, Transformers, etc. It's definitely a "Big Screen"-worthy experience.
This movie really is groundbreaking in many facets and there is no way you can simply dismiss it regardless of how many other movies are coming out this year. Your whole, "hum drum oh maybe I'll watch it on Netflix" attitude shows you're not even seriously interested in District 9. I didn't know much about it but it blew me away completely Besides, you're in now way qualified to pass any judgements on this movie until YOU'VE ACTUALLY SEEN IT.
Ads (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't be the only one (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me say that I was highly disappointed with this movie, and surely I can't be the only one. I went to see it last night, and walked away not recommending it to anyone. There were definite plot holes, the hero (Van De Merwe) I had a hard time rooting for instead of rooting that we would just get shot. He was weak and pathetic, and only had courage while in the exo-suit, and even then, he was wishy-washy. His character was sort of like Borat, the sound effects sounded like the Matrix, and I just couldn't believe the government would allow the Nigerians to become so powerful inside the district, especially when they knew how dangerous they were. The father in law was evil for no apparent reason, and his wife suddenly believes Wilkus without explanation why? I don't know, I just don't buy it at all. A lot of the gore was unneeded, and made me turn away from the screen a few times... Did we really need to see him biting off his nails? And yes, I did think the parts where the humans blew up from the alien weapons were cool, but it just begs the question, why weren't the aliens using the weanpos to revolt instead of selling them to the Nigerians?
All in all, I just found the movie to be simply unbelievable (yes, I KNOW it is only sci-fi, but still, c'mon!) that were this situation to occur, I just can't see people acting like that. I'd expect tighter government controls, with more international pressures. If this movie wanted to be about apartheid, which is a good social justice issues movie, it needed a little more believability to it, and a little more on the interactions between humans/aliens when the aliens first arrived.
Mod me up or down, I don't care, it was just that I was expecting so much more, and left feeling like I got a better deal on the popcorn
Re:Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here (Score:5, Interesting)
You're wrong. In fact, one of the real strengths of the movie is that both the white people and the black people involved are inherently self-interested and capable of huge atrocities. Even the aliens come off as wretched individuals (though you don't really see them do anything that isn't unjustified.)
It isn't about alien apartheid. It's about South Africa.
Re:Great movie, but shakycam? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:On par with George Lucas and the Wachowski Bros (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is another EVIL CORPORATION movie. Not only that, it also has an EVIL CEO who directs the EVIL CORPORATION, and carries out their EVIL PLAN.
On a serious note, I'd say that the movie has fantastic special effects, a great premise, and superb acting; but it falls just short of greatness by its many flaws in execution and scope. This makes it even more disappointing than a regular bad movie, because it is so obvious that it has such great potential, and this potential will now never be exploited properly. It is not a bad movie with some good moments; it is a fantastically great movie with distressingly too many flaws, which makes its fall from grace so poignant and frustrating.
The first half of the movie is pure exposition, relating what has happened so far, and how the aliens came to their current situation. It is done in a pseudo-documentary style, with a montage of mock news segments from various sources. Frankly, it is over-wrought and slow, and not very effective at conveying the full story. I promise you that I was able to absorb much more information regarding the back-story from Blokamp's 10 minute short film, Alive in Josburg, than what's offered in Distric 9's much longer preamble.
That said, it is definitely worth the ticket price (especially if you catch a half-price matinee, as I did), if at least to experience his vision for yourself and to form your own opinion. The visual effects alone are a sight to behold (think a "Ratchet and Clank" style of over-the-top-tech weapons!).
It is Blomkamp's very first feature film, and sadly it shows. However, perhaps it proves him enough within the industry so that he may get a second chance at directing. I'll be watching out for anything he makes in the future, and hope he does not waste his talent in a "Second-System-Syndrome" type of production, like George Lucas and the Wachowski brothers did.
-dZ.
Re:"of Matrix fame" (Score:3, Interesting)
People don't remember what Paris is famous for? I remember hearing about her pretty clearly - My reaction was, "There's a leaked sex tape of who? What, you mean like the hotel chain?" And then the pathetic part, "Interesting - I'll have to check it out."
To this day I can't figure out why she's maintained any level of fame. Some bad acting in bad movies, worthless reality TV, and a media frenzy over rich-bitch-goes-to-jail.
The Wachowski brothers at least did something memorable - It's a pity that there were no sequels [xkcd.com].
Re:Great movie, but shakycam? (Score:3, Interesting)
Shakeycam is used to hide crappy FX. I don't care what BS the director tries to put out there it's really easy to hide crappy EFX if you shake the hell out of the camera.
Re:Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here (Score:3, Interesting)
The director, Verhoeven, was disgusted with the book. As a dutch liberal he probably felt that the the world view propagated in the book was too totalitarian. The movie is a counter-argument to the book. It tries to be a movie (or art in more general) produced by such a society described in the book. And very well in my opinion. If you don't believe me, watch it again. All the "would you like to know more" -stuff indicates that you are in fact watching a movie from that era what the movie is about.
The fact that the movie even tries to take part in a serious debate about the society in general is a plus. That it does it well, is a double plus. That it goes on and don't try to re-do the book but to continue the theme of the book is a such a fashion is double-double plus.
Please have some knowledge of the movie you're talking about before you go spouting about what "dutch liberals probably feel." The movie had a plot and script and was in preproduction before the rights to the book were secured -- they changed some character names and a few plot points in order to make it Starship Troopers but most of the production team hadn't even read the book before shooting the film.
My anal-ness for accuracy being satisfied, the rest of your point is good and well-taken :-)
Re:A lock for "Most Naseauting Cinematography" (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. Bourne Supremacy. Shook the hell out of the fricking camera for 15 minutes during a fight scene.
Re:good, not great. (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, there are definitely some tropes in there toward the end, but I feel like in many ways it remains beyond most Hollywood fair. The main character never has a full moment of realization or sympathy. Everything he does right up to the end is for self-preservation and selfish reasons. Only when he realizes he will probably die before reaching the ship does he decide to act at all for selfless reasons, and even then he cautions that he may change his mind at any moment.
Where else could the movie go?
Re:Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here (Score:5, Interesting)
Starship Troopers? [imdb.com]
*ducks* ;)
Well, it does tell us something about ourselves: how easily we resort to fascism in times of war, and how tempting it will seem to do so. And I don't think the movie, lame though it may be, is all that wrong there.
Re:Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here (Score:3, Interesting)
The movie was practically completely unrelated to the book, but I agree with you: the movie was better. Not great, but better.
The book is basically just a script for a military action movie. The movie actually shows a little bit of human insight into our fascist tendencies, and does so in a pretty creepy and believable way. Other than that, there's not much of interest in the movie, and it makes little sense in lots of places, but that one bit of insight is still more than most movies have these days.
Re:Plot holes big as swiss cheese! (Score:3, Interesting)
3) I didn't view the fluid as fuel. Note that the starship stays hovering for 20+ years with no problem. It has plenty of power. Rather, I think the answer to this lies in the weaponry and 2). It is apparent that the aliens have a caste system promulgated not only through culture but through genetics. The lower worker castes are less intelligent (can't understand English), less motivated, and can't operate the machinery (the ship breaks down -- they can't use the weapons and trade them away, etc). The ship may only accept commands from the highest caste of leadership, of which there are no members remaining. So, the few remaining members of the technician or scientist caste work to mutate the system to either accept their DNA as command DNA, or alter their DNA to what the ship requires. The poor human is exposed and the substance does its job.
This is probably not exactly what the writer/director had in mind, but I'm pretty sure the general gist is right: it's the biological nature of the weaponry and their control systems.
Interview with Neill Blomkamp and Sharlto Copley (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Frustrating movie (Score:5, Interesting)
Keep in mind that the ship has been sitting there for 28 years, without any noticeable change. The scientists, the media, the philosophers all got bored and went home 20 years ago.
Re:Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here (Score:5, Interesting)
the CGI effects were astoundingly good. Best I've ever seen
The fact that they produced the best looking special effects you've EVER SEEN on a budget less than 1/10 that of a normal summer blockbuster didn't phase you as something groundbreaking or revolutionary ?
There were plenty more elements to the plot than apartheid. Personally, I felt the bigger parts of the plot were the interactions between the main character and his wife -- who is rarely shown but constantly mentioned throughout the movie. Despite everything that Wikus is undergoing, he is actually gaining humanity throughout the movie rather than losing it -- and his connection to his wife is the greatest force driving him... not some apartheid or megacorporation. Yes, those are shallow devices to setup the situation and they certainly have some flaws, but in the end, this is a uniquely personal and human journey of fear and loss that Wikus takes us through.
Re:Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted, there were guns and explosions. And the notion that a few ounces of fuel was all it took to fly the giant mothership back to wherever it came from was a bit hard to swallow... But if that's all you got out of District 9 then you weren't paying attention.
Try substituting the mothership full of Prawns for a boatload of Africans/Irish/Chinese and see if it makes any more sense.
The aliens are given a derogatory name... They're assumed to be lazy, unmotivated, unintelligent... They're crammed into slums... They're the target of much fear, prejudice, violence, and hatred... They're exploited in every way possible... They're treated as nothing more than livestock or animals... Any of this sounding familiar?
The dude isn't turned into a mix of alien & human, he eventually turns completely into an alien. At the end there is no way to differentiate him from any other Prawn. It's a very obvious and heavy-handed way to point out that the Prawns are no different than humans and in no way deserve their mistreatment.
Then you've got all the ugly bits of humanity that don't look quite as ugly in the context of Humans vs. Aliens - but look far more ugly when you start thinking of them as funny-looking humans.
The MNU Soldiers marching around in their white outfits... Killing Prawns just because it's fun to watch them die...
Wikus willing to sacrifice hundreds (thousands?) of Prawns just so he doesn't have to look like one of them...
MNU conducting all sorts of medical experiments on the Prawns...
Seriously. If all you noticed was some explosions and robots, you missed out on a fantastic movie.
Re:Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here (Score:4, Interesting)
Whereas the apartheid metaphor was obvious, it was certainly not central to understanding and appreciating the story. If anything, the film seemed to go out of its way to make the point that this was NOT an exercise in so-called "white guilt" -- the reluctant human hero was a white guy and some of the nastiest villains were black.
This was a concept film. As such, yes, the concept was simple and there wasn't much "story." It told the story it needed to tell and nothing more.
(spoilers ahead)
To me, one of the most interesting and most genuinely SF-like aspects of the film was the way the that we were easily led to interpret the behavior of the prawns as random and aimless, inscrutably alien. Old junk collecting, circuit boards hung from the walls, seemed like weird habits until the film switched to giving us translations of the aliens' thoughts. When we learned they were collecting fuel and building an apparatus to distill it, we had to reevaluate what looked moments earlier like low-level scavenging.
Then there were the unanswered questions: Was the captain a higher mental caste than the rank and file aliens? Why did the captain evacuate the ship in the first place if it was safe to return to? I like that the film didn't even attempt to resolve such issues. In real life situations are not neatly wrapped up and I feel that added to the verisimilitude.
Re:Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here (Score:3, Interesting)
The movie was practically completely unrelated to the book, but I agree with you: the movie was better. Not great, but better.
The book is basically just a script for a military action movie. The movie actually shows a little bit of human insight into our fascist tendencies, and does so in a pretty creepy and believable way. Other than that, there's not much of interest in the movie, and it makes little sense in lots of places, but that one bit of insight is still more than most movies have these days.
In the book it becomes much more clear that the humans and the arachnids are very much the same: 8 eyes, jumping capabilities, things that the film did/could not show.
Re:Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here (Score:3, Interesting)
All of that's beside the point, though- the real dealbreaker was the incessant deus ex moments and sudden changes of heart among the main characters. It felt like the scriptwriters were less interested in developing the characters, or even plotting the trajectory of already well-understood characters, than in doing the least amount of work possible to scoot them between a number of predetermined plot points. You remember when mr.fuckfuckfuck clubbed christopher and left him to die with the paramilitary guys, coincidentally invalidating the entire I-want-to-go-up-so-you-can-fix-me plot? You remember how five minutes later christopher does his "I'll never leave you" moment? Right. Good movies don't do that, because real people don't do that. And District 9 did it about every 10 minutes. Add to that what you call the "unanswered questions" and what I call the "plot holes", and all you're left with is another poorly done, film-school-metaphorical disposable sci-fi flick.
That's not to say the movie doesn't have its good points. I thought the pacing was well done in the textbook sense, and certainly the initial documentary style scenes were well crafted to hook the audience- I was honestly looking forward to seeing how those conflicting opinions would converge into the story at hand, at least until said story 'developed'. But its merits are small, its flaws are many, and at the end of the day, if this is the greatest sci-fi movie of the year it's my opinion that sci-fi is in a lot of trouble. Your mileage may vary.
That is exactly what I LIKED about it (Score:3, Interesting)
Wikus is a bureaucratic simpleton thrust into a situation far beyond his grasp. One of the major things I enjoyed about the film was watching the development of his character. With every plot twist, I had to wonder -- is he beginning to see? Does he understand now what he's been a part of? Is he beginning to get a better sense of life from the Prawns' point of view?
It was that constant character suspense -- do I want to root for Wikus yet or not? -- that was part of what made the movie such an edge-of-the-seat experience for me.
Re:Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, I'll take on that strawman.
1. "You don't know; you're not an alien." Christopher may be bipedal and his offspring may have some charmingly human-child-like qualities, but the amount we don't know about him (if "him" is even the best word to use) far outweighs what we do know. What he's actually thinking may be radically different than what we'd expect. Who says that an alien is EVER going to act like a psychologically sound person? (This movie immediately made me think of "The Sparrow" by Mary Doria Russell, an excellent novel of human-alien dys-interaction.)
2. What we do know about Christopher is that yes, he has been working on some sort of plan for 20 years, which at least one part of is to get the big ship working again and "go for help", whatever that means. We really don't know much beyond that about either the alien or the plan.
3. We assume that the subtitles at the bottom of the screen are accurate translations of what the aliens are saying and are reflections of their true intentions. About a third of the way through the movie, I started thinking about the bemusing and often bizarre subtitles on anime, and immediately threw the "accurate translation" assumption away. And I now suspect that mistranslation may be an underlying theme of the film, much like "Lost In Tokyo". Really, how could it not be?
Case in point: the aliens show up with enough firepower to easily take over South Africa, if not a much larger part of the Earth. Yet they don't even try. Why is that? What are they up to? Is the shipload of seeming refugees perhaps a sort of test? Judging human society by how we treat the untouchables (or, as it turns out, our prisoners)? Or is it a front for agents like Christopher to carry out a hidden agenda? Or are they simply...alien?
So, yeah, I call un-BS. And I'm very curious to see how things play out in the sequel.
Jesus, who says it's about Aparthied? (Score:3, Interesting)
All the TV interviews were real unscripted questions asked of real South Africans on illegal immigrants [wikipedia.org] in South Africa. I quote from here [wired.com]: To give the short a realistic feel, Blomkamp interviewed real people about the influx of immigrants into real-life Johannesburg; their frank answers to questions about Zimbabweans and other refugees were transformed into documentary-style commentary on extraterrestrials unwanted by a fearful local population. (See Alive in Joburg below.)
Everyone harping on about how this is about Apartheid is wrong. It's about modern, everyday xenophobia, alive and kicking in place like South Africa and havens of moral rectitude like the US of fucking A where just as many people hate foreigners because they're, uhm, foreign as people anywhere else do.
But no, it's set in South Africa, so it must be about Aparthied, right? I mean nothing else ever happened there, right?
Re:Let's Not Get Ahead of Ourselves Here (Score:3, Interesting)