One of the most anticipated animated science fiction films is upon us. Does it meet its own hype?
Directed by Shane Acker Written by Pamela Pettler based on the story by Shane Acker
Cast
Christopher Plummer ... #1 (voice)
Martin Landau ... #2 (voice)
John C. Reilly ... #5 (voice)
Crispin Glover ... #6 (voice)
Jennifer Connelly ... #7 (voice)
Fred Tatasciore ... #8/Radio Announcer (voice)
Elijah Wood ... #9 (voice)
Runtime: 79 min Rated PG-13 for violence and scary images
One of the main draws of 9 is the fact it is an animated film aimed at adults. After seeing it I am convinced this is not a movie made for kids. At the same time, I am not sure it is actually an adult movie either. To say the movie is confusing is an understatement.
The title of the movie refers to a being called #9, named as such because he is the ninth creature created by a kind scientist. In the opening monologue, the scientist explains that technology has destroyed the planet and all humankind is falling because of it. We flash forward to #9 coming to life and trying to find his way. When he steps outside the world is destroyed in what looks like a post-war apocalypse. The setup takes us right into the action as #9 finds an old man known as #2 wandering the streets. They are soon attacked by a skeletal robot dinosaur type creature and #2 is captured and taken away. This sets #9 on a quest where he finds more beings like him including one-eyed #5, muscleman #8 and elder #1. They set out on an adventure to find and rescue #2 only to end up causing more trouble and putting all their lives in danger.
The movie is both highly original and very repetitive of other movies. While that sounds confusing, it is testament to the fact this movie never knows what it wants to be. The creatures we are given to love are stitched up dolls, infused with life, each with their own unique characteristic. They are tiny, about as tall as a stair step, yet wise beyond their years (except #8). The creatures that hunt them are robotic monstrosities similar to various animals and insects and vicious beyond belief. The movie, in this area, reminds me of nothing I have ever seen. The designs of these creatures are magnificent.
At the same time, it reminds me of other films in the story elements and plot. There are strong similarities to The Matrix in that #9 is possibly The Chosen One in a world overrun by technology. There are similarities to Terminator when the prospects of man versus machine are brought up. This movie could easily be a sequel to Terminator if all the humans were to die. I was also reminded of many other movies based solely on shots in the movie including Jurassic Park (the opening dinosaur attack) and Return of the Jedi (the fire ring at the end). When I leave a movie and immediately compare it to others there is something dangerously wrong with the plot. What bothers me most about the entire movie is the group sets out and loses a member, so #9 convinces them to set out to save that character and they lose someone else. They then continue to repeat this task like lemmings to the slaughter. It is a repetition of the same event over and over again.
The tone of the movie is all over the place. There are moments as frightening as anything I have ever seen and creatures as grotesque as any I have seen as well. There are moments that are overly sappy and moments childishly comic. There are also moments that are nihilistically dark while others are wistfully hopeful. This movie hits the entire spectrum of the emotional kaleidoscope yet never finds steady footing. 9 is a movie that wants to be everything to everyone but never knows where to go next. The dialogue is also very childish at best. Everything that is said, whether it is the newly awakened #9 or the elder #1 is simplistic in execution. Everything is stated matter-of-factly and there is no depth to the dialogue in the script. It is childlike speech in a movie geared towards adults.
The movie is, at its heart, a science fiction story but, unlike the best science fiction, nothing makes scientific sense. The movie wants to remain whimsical but it needs to be grounded in something and have more explained. Throughout the film, we remain as clueless as the doll-like creatures we are asked to follow. There are things the creatures do to survive that makes absolutely no sense. We are given exposition by the scientist but it is ridiculous and completely unrealistic. I don’t mind fantasy in my films but I don’t believe anything in this movie and that hurts my appreciation of it. To give an example, there is a devise the creatures must use to defeat the great evil. This device is used to create, destroy and resurrect yet it does all these things the same way and it is never explained why it is able to randomly do what the plot demands at any given time. It is the worst case of deus-ex-machina.
Despite all the problems in the jumbled, confusing storyline, there is one thing I can appreciate wholeheartedly in this film. 9 is one of the most beautifully animated films I have ever seen. Producers Tim Burton (The Nightmare Before Christmas) and Timur Bekmambetov (Night Watch) saw something in animator Shane Acker’s short film 9 they liked and supported him in making his feature length debut film. Acker’s previous experience was working on Peter Jackson’s The Return of the King and has turned into an animator with a bright future. Whether it is the ultra-realistic doll-like creatures (known as stitchpunks) or the amazing visual landscapes, Acker creates a visual masterpiece that is a treat for the eyes. The movie is CGI animated but is stylized to resemble stop motion animation. It is gorgeous and while much of the plot is familiar, the animation is unique and visually dynamic. The explosions and devestation seen in the movie are just as amazing and it should stand the test of time as one of the best looking animated films made.
I wish the plot had been as amazing as the visuals. I sat in the theater and reveled in the beauty of the scenes. I followed the character 9 from one set piece to the next and couldn’t believe a man could make a movie that looks as incredible as this one. When the movie came to an end I had gained an immense level of appreciation and admiration for Shane Acker, the visual artist. Unfortunately, despite the movie being an exciting adventure based around a unique development, it is not enough to be considered a good story. It is an original plot weighed down by an unoriginal screenplay and remains a jumbled, confused mess. It is a beautiful mess, though.
The 411: Shane Acker has proven to be a visual master with his debut film 9. He takes a unique approach to his animation and makes a movie that looks like nothing I have ever seen. Unfortunately, the beauty of the picture is let down by a confused, ridiculous storyline neither geared towards kids or adults. It never knows what it wants to be and 9 remains all style over substance. I hope 9 is the start of an amazing career for Acker because, as a first film, he has proved himself to be someone to watch. Animation like this is not something you will see every day and it remains the best part of an underwhelming film experience.
Posted By: Ben Czajkowski (Registered) on September 09, 2009 at 11:04 PM
I have to disagree. I thought this movie downright sucked.
The trailer was one of the most misleading trailers I have ever seen. I thought it would've been an amazing animated action adventure, but turned into almost like a coming of age story.
Visually, impressive. Everything else, terrible.
Very boring movie.
Posted By: RockRobster (Guest) on September 09, 2009 at 11:16 PM
How can you disagree? I said the same thing, visually awesome, bad story...
Posted By: Shawn S Lealos (Registered) on September 10, 2009 at 12:18 AM
My thoughts exactly. Great animation, it looked really nice, but the story failed. Oh well.
Posted By: Leo (Guest) on September 10, 2009 at 05:57 AM
style over substance???
In a film that Tim Burton produced???
Surely you jest.
Posted By: COTD (Guest) on September 10, 2009 at 08:43 AM
damn it. I had high hopes for this one too.
Posted By: Todd Vote (Registered) on September 10, 2009 at 10:12 AM
I was disappointed as well, visually it was impressive at times. But the dialog, the music and some of the ambiance was lacking. It had a message, that wasn't shoved too far down our throats, which is fine...but it seemed to try to walk a line between appealing to kids (the cute characters and all) and appealing to adults (the violence and some of the imagery)
Its not the first time a trailer has been that misleading. The movie had potential...I just think they went about it wrong. I would have focused on more action...maybe made the movie a little longer
Side note, I went and saw Gamer after this and was really impressed.
Posted By: Ser Drake (Guest) on September 10, 2009 at 11:19 AM
How can you disagree? I said the same thing, visually awesome, bad story...
Posted By: Shawn S Lealos (Registered) on September 10, 2009 at 12:18 AM
The majority of the people don't actually read the review and only look at the score. Thats why a lot of them say "bad review" to a well written review just because they don't like the score.
Posted By: Guest#4228 (Guest) on September 10, 2009 at 04:55 PM
great visuals, no plot...
are you sure this isn't a Peter Jackson film?
Posted By: Darth Mortis (Registered) on September 10, 2009 at 05:22 PM
sorry...just noticed the run time. it isn't 3.5 hours of great visuals and no plot, so Peter Jackson obviously had nothing to do with it.
Posted By: Darth Mortis (Registered) on September 10, 2009 at 05:23 PM
Darth has a major point about the latest Jackson works, but who couldn't love Bad Taste and Dead Alive. I think Jackson needs to make the move back to ultra-violent horror and get away from hobbits. That shit is as gay as Pat Patterson.
Posted By: Guest#9797 (Guest) on September 10, 2009 at 07:44 PM
sorry...just noticed the run time. it isn't 3.5 hours of great visuals and no plot, so Peter Jackson obviously had nothing to do with it.
Posted By: Darth Mortis (Registered) on September 10, 2009 at 05:23 PM
The Lord of the Rings films had no plot? Silly me, thinking they were based on a well-plotted book series and adapted beautifully. Thanks, Darth, for pointing out the error of my ways.
Posted By: Guest#7711 (Guest) on September 10, 2009 at 11:29 PM
When did this become one of the most anticipated animated science fiction films? It just jumped on everyone's radar recently, and I have not heard of a soul that was interested.
Posted By: Guest#1113 (Guest) on September 11, 2009 at 02:43 PM
"great visuals, no plot...
are you sure this isn't a Peter Jackson film?"
No, but it's exactly like every damn film Tim Burton has had his name attached to for the last 20+ years.
Posted By: COTD (Guest) on September 12, 2009 at 08:59 AM
"When did this become one of the most anticipated animated science fiction films? It just jumped on everyone's radar recently, and I have not heard of a soul that was interested."
When? Ever since it was named the 411 staff's hit of the month in the monthly roundtable where every writer believed it was going to be awesome.
Posted By: Shawn S Lealos (Registered) on September 13, 2009 at 11:00 PM
"No, but it's exactly like every damn film Tim Burton has had his name attached to for the last 20+ years"
This movie has something in common with Edward Scissorhands? Please, educate me.
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on September 13, 2009 at 11:07 PM
*sigh* All you reviewers (Lealos and the peanut gallery) must not have children. I took my daughter to see this today, and there's nothing quite like watching a movie like this with a 10-year-old with a healthy love for science fiction and fantasy. The comparisons to Jurassic Park and Return of the Jedi are reaches as well (does any movie with an explosion remind you of, say, The Rock (or any other Michael Bay explosion-fest)?). I also enjoy that you say you can't believe anything in this movie, yet you praise Terminator, the Matrix, and Star Wars. Are robotic creations imbued with a piece of their inventor's soul really that much harder to believe than a world ruled by robots with time travel paradoxes galore, a world in which anything is possible if you can simply crack its code, or a world where you can control inanimate objects and human(oid) minds alike by some vaguely-defined natural law?
In terms of the stitchpunks being "lemming-like", it's called perserverence, and continuing in the face of adversity, no matter the cost. Did you miss the part where even 3, 4, and 7 were siding with 1 on eliminating the machine while 9 was hell-bent on making sure 2, 5, 6, and 8 weren't sacrificed in vain?
Yes, the story could've used more time to develop, as evidenced by the minute character traits that were shown, but not given the proper attention (the most obvious to me being 8's bullying behavior, especially toward 6, and then his fear while on guard duty - is it really so hard to imagine that's the bully in all of us, covering up for our insecurities and fears?) All in all, though, this was an enjoyable movie. Take a younger sibling or niece/nephew to go see it if you don't have kids, and see if their amazement/wonder doesn't rub off on you.
Oh, and you probably don't want to go see Where the Wild Things Are either, because its story isn't terribly deep, and it's derivitative of a bunch of other stories.
Posted By: Wyatt Beougher (Guest) on September 13, 2009 at 11:40 PM
I actually didn't praise Terminator or Matrix here. I said the plot line from this movie is pretty much the same as Matrix and could have been a direct sequel to Terminator if all the human's had died. Those were my exact words.
The Jurassic Park reference was due to the dinosaur attack at the beginning and the Return of the Jedi reference to the "Ring of Fire" and the green spirits appearing and smiling on to the survivors (just like Obi Wan, Yoda and Annakin).
I do have a child and I am sure he would be in awe of the movie because the visuals are amazing, as I said. Not that I would take my child because he is a bit too young to partake in the violence and overwhelming death in the movie.
As for your comments about Where the Wild Things are, you must have never read anything on this site before because I clearly state in many articles it is one of my most anticipated movies. I also believe there is nothing derivitive about that story and you are wrong about that. Read the book again if you think that.
But I can respect you liking this movie. It is shallow and not a very good story but the action is fast and the visuals are pretty. It's ok not to care about plot if you are easily entertained.
Posted By: Shawn S Lealos (Registered) on September 14, 2009 at 02:40 AM
Let me apologize, as my sarcasm with the Where the Wild Things Are comment obviously didn't translate well, as I had read that you were anticipating it and I was simply using that to make my point. Very little in this world is truly new, especially in the realm of stories. Just because The Magnificent Seven is a rehash of Seven Samurai, does that make it any less of a movie? As for the Jurassic Park thing, I still don't see the similarity - in JP, the raptor was in a pen and killed people trying to transport it; in 9, the cat/robot Beast was roaming free, seeking out the little stitchpunks in hopes of reactivating the Machine. I also fail to see how the storyline is a direct rip of the Matrix - if that's the case, isn't the Matrix a direct rip of Star Wars? Protagonist learns he has powers and abilities beyond what he ever imagined, gains tutelage from a more experienced mentor who later dies (not sure if that's the case in the Matrix because I have yet to watch the second and third), and eventually goes on to save the day. Isn't that the plot of most movies/video games?
As for the "easily entertained" comment as it pertains to the plot being thin, I did mention that the film could've used a longer runtime to develop the characters further, but the effort was there (8's bullying covering up his fear, as I mentioned; 1's willingness to send a comrade out to his death in order to eliminate potential opposition; 7's motherly instinct in protecting 3 and 4 (and their childlike glee in finding and discovering "new" information and showing it off for the "adults") - I think the intent was there, but whatever limitations (budgetary or otherwise) led to the truncated run time really hurt the potential of the film. As it was, it wasn't so shallow as to be in the Transformers 2 category, but no, it wasn't Seven Samurai or the Usual Suspects or any of the variety of other films I liked, and I don't think it aspired to be, either.
As for your child being awed solely by the visuals, trust me on this: when he/she is old enough that you feel it's appropriate for them to watch it, you might be surprised at how much they are able to empathize with these characters.
Posted By: Wyatt Beougher (Guest) on September 14, 2009 at 02:48 PM
" I think the intent was there, but whatever limitations (budgetary or otherwise) led to the truncated run time really hurt the potential of the film."
This is why I rated it a 6.5, which is still slightly above average on a scale of 1-10. There were just too many structural problems for me to call it a really good movie.
** And you are right, The Matrix is a retelling of the Star Wars story, all the way down to the religious undertones. **
Posted By: Shawn S Lealos (Registered) on September 14, 2009 at 03:48 PM
Copyright � 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
