So this week District 9 is finally released in the UK, the South African sci-fi comedy-drama that’s about to pass $100million at the US box office. And it hasn’t just struck box-office gold: it’s also a critical hit, with over 80% acclaim on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, as well as, of course, 4 stars in Empire. And the whole thing, with its near-flawless effects and entirely convincing CG (even in close-up) was pulled together for a paltry $30 million, about the price of the average Hollywood rom-com. Without stars.

This got me thinking two things. Number one:can you imagine what this guy could’ve done with an eight figure budget on Halo, on which he worked for the guts of two years before the plug was pulled? And number two*, is low-budget sci-fi actually at an advantage?

Stick with me for a minute: the demands of low-budget sci-fi demand that you exercise creativity in your approach, discipline in your storytelling and restraint in your casting. It therefore rules out three of the biggest problems in movies: a by-the-numbers attitude (The Island, perhaps), an all-over-the-place plot (we’re looking at you, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. And Terminator Salvation come to think of it) and a diva-ish big star who changes the role to suit - or on whose behalf the studio changes the role (we’re looking at you, I Am Legend).

Low budget sci-fi in the last couple of decades has brought us, off the top of my head, Right At Your Door,Cube, Pitch Black, The Terminator, Cypher, Serenity, Moon and Equilibrium (well, I liked it).

I’m not saying that big-budget is bad - you’ll look a long way to find a bigger fan of Independence Day or Terminator 2 or Star Trek. But maybe there’s something to be said for reining it in and forcing filmmakers (esp. Michael Bay and McG) to occasionally make a film for under $100 million. Judging by District 9, they don’t need those extra millions for effects, so maybe we should demand more for less. At least once in a while...

*and possibly contradictorily...