Weekend Bites: "9"

- Posted by Rusty


Review: “9”

My rating: 2 ½ bites [out of 5]

“9” isn’t a bad movie…but it’s the kind of thing where you walk out of the theater and say, “Yeah, that was all right” or “Not bad—it looked cool, and was pretty entertaining.” It doesn’t inspire enthusiasm, but just calm indifference. And that’s too bad—“9” looked like it was going to be something truly special. The brainchild of some great imaginations, the movie has a lot going for it: the back-story and set-up is actually pretty interesting, the voice acting is really well-done across the board—sincere, emotional, and never over-the-top, and the visuals are some of the most beautiful and memorable that I’ve seen this year (if ever in an animated film—really, the effects and details of the post-apocalyptic setting rival some of Pixar’s best stuff). But “9”, running at just a scant 80 minutes, has a story too weak to give any of those elements their due, and we’re left with a film that just can’t live up to its amazing potential.

If you watch the original short this movie is based on, it puts “9” (and its problems) into much sharper perspective (I embedded it below—check it out if you have the chance—it’s definitely worth your time). Shane Acker (who directed this movie as well…and was a UCLA student!) wrote and directed it, gaining the attention of movie giants like Tim Burton and Russian crazy-effects-wizard/“Wanted” director, Timur Bekmambetov—it’s basically one long scene set in a post-apocalyptic world (we don’t know any of the background yet), and revolves around a silent ragdoll and his attempt to stop a mechanized, soul-eating beast. Very cool stuff, and a very impressive achievement for a young animation student. And I’ll give Shane Acker major credit here—he did expand upon his short. The movie tackles similar ground, but with much more detail—after the destruction of the human race, nine dolls (brought to life by mysterious means) band together to survive and take down the source of the world’s demolition, led by the stalwart 9 (Elijah Wood).

It’s a fantastic set-up, and Acker brought out some great mythology, carefully explaining why every human has died out and the landscape fell into the hands of sentient ragdolls and malevolent machines. But Acker, along with his screenwriter Pamela Pettler (“Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride” and “City of Ember,” which fell apart too, story-wise), came up with an interesting short story to supplement the original idea, not a feature-length movie. Really, if you write down what happens in the film on paper, there’s probably 20 minutes of story here at best. True, the filmmakers fleshed out the short, but only in a very limited way, and so we’re left with a movie that tries to stretch a good idea across 80 minutes, offering tons of action, but few characters who grow and develop in the process.


And the resulting movie goes something like this: the characters talk about the plot. They fight a monster. They talk some more about the plot. They fight an even bigger monster. And Repeat, all the way until they fight the final, biggest monster and learn the final secret of the plot. And the characters, all animated with such care and attention to detail, never become the fleshed-out heroes they should have been. It’s fitting that all the ragdolls are named 1 though 9—that’s pretty much the amount of personality they get too—just one or two identifying features per doll, and that’s all they have time to show. Thus, we have characters like 1 (the always stately Christopher Plummer), who’s pompous and cowardly, 7 (Jennifer Connelly), who’s fearless and action-hero-like (a quick kudos to the filmmakers for making a girl the film’s only action hero), and, of course, 9 (Elijah Wood), who’s curious, brave, and is the crucial character for the Future of our world.

Then there’s a character like 6 (Crispin Glover)—my friend and I had the toughest time deciding what his purpose was to begin with. Everyone else contributes in some way—9 leads the resistance, 7 fights, and 6…well…he prophesizes…and sometimes draws stuff to help him prophesize. There’s actually a stretch of the film where 6 goes away, and it only hit me at the end that he was even missing from the group. You see what I mean? A film this well-made, that attempts to give us an original, thought-provoking story, deserved better characters—we needed well-rounded, interesting personalities, those that grow and change through the experience, and not simply move the plot along while we admire their designs. There's a lot more story here to explore, far more details into these characters' lives that are left untouched, and maybe one day we'll get that in a sequel...but for now, "9" needed a more complete narrative, and much less reliance on its fantastic action sequences.


On that note, the action really is something spectacular. These bits are thrilling and brimming with inventive energy—if anything, these scenes prove than Shane Acker is going to have good, long career after this. He stages his action well, and he has a sure hand with delivering the suspense and scares—especially as we meet the bigger machines, with all their whirring parts and endless ways to try to kill our heroes. As an action fan, the film worked great for me on that level, but, after a while, the action started to feel like a time-filler before the final reveals.

Still, as said before, this is one amazing-looking film. Every detail of this world is gorgeously constructed—the ruins, the endless wasteland, the smattering of everyday objects transformed to do something else (Martin Landau’s 2 is a very clever bit of animation and design), and even the ragdolls themselves—all similar-looking, but each composed of minor differences, be they different types of cloth or the inclusion of zippers. It’s clear that a lot of hard work went into this film—Acker obviously has a lot of heart and affection for his vision, and he’s a major talent from just a stylistic perspective. It’s actually kind of fitting that Tim Burton is a producer here—Burton was always visually interesting, but it took him years of experience to become as confident a storyteller as he is today (and it still took the occasional stumbles like “Planet of the Apes” and “Mars Attacks” along the way). I think Acker is following a similar course—his film-storytelling instincts just aren’t there yet—he can wow an audience, but he hasn’t quite cracked the need for the proper amount of emotional investment to compliment those amazing visuals. But I think he’ll get there—that short you see below shows a strong command of story and tone. Now Acker just needs to learn to sustain that momentum—to make the action feel organic to the plot, and not just a way to delay the development of the narrative and characters.


And, so, I’m really on the fence about recommending “9”. It’s very entertaining, and it should satisfy those hoping for some escapist action…but the lack of solid characters and the rather thin storyline might prevent it from being a satisfying experience (like it was for me). I wasn’t upset that I watched it, but I expected something much more moving and powerful. And, so, a fair warning: “9” is partly worth seeing, but it won’t live up to its amazing previews—as it stands, it’s a dazzling piece of work, but it’s more of a missed opportunity than the respected sci-fi classic it could have been.

Shane Acker's original short film, "9":

Images courtesy of Focus Features.