free counter with statistics 9 Review | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

9rev1.jpg
Mighty Fine Only Got You Somewhere Half the Time


9 / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | September 9, 2009 | Comments (19)


Director Shane Acker’s 9 gets full credit for its attention to detail and the voracity with which Acker constructs his CG-animated fantasy world. The boiled-down premise sounds dubious even for a genre movie — a group of sentient rag dolls fight giant robots in a postapocalyptic wasteland — but Acker’s assured tone and belief in his story make the film engaging. And yet, the film feels plodding even at 80 minutes. There are moments when the story begins to drift a bit, not from its desired outcome or eventual resolutions as much from its reason for being. It makes more sense when you realize that Acker’s feature (his first) is based on a short he released in 2005 and which was subsequently nominated for an Academy Award. The feature version of the story is longer but no more fleshed out, and too much of the development relies on random chases and a character’s arbitrary decision to run to a new place. And that lack of focus is a shame, because at its best, 9 is an entertaining and tightly made fantasy adventure, an animated steampunk fable for grownups that would be more worth seeking out if not for the way it runs out gas toward the end.

The film opens in a rundown room when 9 (Elijah Wood) — a burlap doll so named for the number painted on his back — drops to the floor from his perch and awakens for the first time. Although the film will eventually spell out what happened to ruin the world, Acker’s smart to get the show off with a proper bang by simply dropping the viewer in cold and letting their gradual understanding of the blasted-out planet develop parallel with 9’s. There’s something wrong with 9’s innards that prevents him from talking at first, and as such the film relies on strong visuals and tone to communicate the story for the opening sequence. 9 ventures outside to discover that the world has moved on, and that everything is brown and bombed and almost completely destroyed, and this is when Acker begins to make use of his master’s degree in architecture as well as an MFA in animation. The near-future world is elaborately built, and the only remaining things are machines and a few rag dolls that brim with a unique life and look. 9 finds another doll, 2 (Martin Landau), who repairs his voice and begins to help him find the rest of their small colony before a lumbering mechanical monstrosity known only as the Beast bursts into the dirty clearing and snatches 2 away in his jaws. This is the first of what will become too many plot points that revolve around 9 or one of the other dolls deciding to go rescue someone who’s been kidnapped or gone missing. At this point, 9 has no motivation and almost zero knowledge of the world, but after finding the hiding place of the other dolls, he’s determined to rescue 2 because, well, what else is there to do?

With little else guiding him, 9 recruits the help of 5 (John C. Reilly), who lost an eye in a battle long ago, to rescue 2, a brief journey that reunites them with 7 (Jennifer Connelly), who’s been living in the waste and fighting the machines because she can’t stand to live life hiding or under the leadership of the dictatorial 1 (Christopher Plummer). There’s an interesting idea hiding in here — namely, that even the last nine living beings on Earth can’t seem to get along — but Acker leaves that stone unturned in favor of having the characters run from A to B to C and back to A while dodging monsters and trying to hide. A fable like this one doesn’t have to be dense or intricately plotted, but it does need to have characters with basic desires that drive them to action, whether it’s the pursuit of a physical goal or the battle between warring viewpoints. The script from Acker and Pamela Pettler deals superficially with 1’s desire to maintain control versus 7’s position that the best defense is a decapitating offense, but mostly it’s just run, stop, run, stop, moralize, run, stop, repeat.

The voice cast is solid, though there’s not much they can do with lines like, “I started this. I’m the one who has to stop it.” But they invest enough emotion in their performances that the dolls take on recognizable personalities, which helps when the plot begins to sag. Additionally, the film is hindered by an unspoken desire to take everything very seriously, and any character’s stab at humor falls flat and feels sadly out of place. There’s an attempt to make 5 something of a comedic relief, but his “jokes” are too few and far between. This is the dimension that would have really grounded the characters and taken the film to the next level. But it’s just one of the things that got overlooked stretching a short into a feature.

As with the story, the animation oscillates between impressive and ungainly: There are moments when the dolls feel real, and others when it looks as though a burlap texture was quickly overlaid on a simple character template. It’s almost too polished, and breaks the spell that these special creations were given a spark of life. But Acker’s eye for design mostly makes up for this, especially with the villainous robots that anchor the action sequences, like the snake with the head of a broken baby doll that drags a cloth cocoon behind it to hold its captured prey and is all kinds of unsettling. One of the best things about the film is not its execution but the way that execution makes grand promises about where Acker might go from here, and there’s no doubt that he could do something amazing. This is the trial run for that.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


The Most Boring Film You've Ever Seen | This Is It Movie Poster



Comments

Sounds like a winner to me, although I am not nearly as excited as most of my friends are. I reeeeally wish they would have kept with the whole 'no dialog' aspect of the short.

Posted by: the_wakeful at September 9, 2009 5:02 PM

so it's not raggedy ann and andy in the matrix?

Posted by: gp at September 9, 2009 5:12 PM

I saw the original short film a few years back during its run with The Animation Show. I liked it then (but still not exactly blown away), but thought it was a bad move to stretch it into a feature-length film. Seems my theory was correct.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at September 9, 2009 5:13 PM

It appears I will never go to see a movie in the theatre again.
*Sigh*
Oh wait, there is Zombieland, so at least I will see one more movie before the year is out. Is The Book of Eli out yet? No? No? Shit, go fuck your mother.

Posted by: Deistbrawler at September 9, 2009 5:26 PM

You say plodded along, I say beautifully paced.

You say nothing was added but chase sequences, I say the film was beautifully fleshed out with great attention to character development and social/political relations once some expository dialogue is thrown in to make sure anyone who sees the film gets it.

You say the conflict between the characters is ignored, I say the tension is palpable throughout and plays a clear narrative role in justifying the actions of every single character in the film, turning what could have been a very flimsy expansion of an 11 minute short into something worthy of praise.

You say the animation is inconsistent, I say this film is the proof that CGI animation can achieve the same level of artistry as more traditional animated mediums for everything that happens in the film felt real and authentic to the world that Acker was trying to create.

Potato, tomato.

Posted by: Robert at September 9, 2009 5:43 PM

It's "The Fellowship of the Ring" for rag dolls?

I'd like to see someone do a combo "Nine / 9" short. You know it will show up on YouTube at some point. "Be Italian, Nove!"

Posted by: BWeaves at September 9, 2009 6:02 PM

I paid two dollars in parking not to see this last night. The free screening reached capacity a few people in front of me.

I guess I'll wait for the Daniel Day-Lewis Nine.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at September 9, 2009 6:55 PM

I'm sad to hear this, I wanted this to be great. The sad thing is, I'd still rather see a disappointment like this than any other of the new releases this week.

Posted by: George at September 9, 2009 7:37 PM

Indifferent about the movie, but loved the page quote. There was a girl in my class called Caroline when "Roses" was released. She used to go ever-so-slightly mental whenever someone so much as hummed the opening chords.

Posted by: Shay at September 9, 2009 8:50 PM

I think I'll still see it, mostly because those first few glimpses were compelling, but I think I can read between the lines to say that I'll probably end up liking it quite a bit, whereas my guy will not.

Posted by: replica at September 9, 2009 10:12 PM

Still looking for your special one? Want to find a good looking and quality soulmate but not sure if they are true and serious? Well, join ___SeekRichBeauty.com___ to find more than 1200,000 quality verified members and have fun! Totally free go join, why not try now?

Posted by: bewbiegirl at September 9, 2009 11:49 PM

Saw this the night before it came out on a free pre-screening pass that I picked up at work. I've never felt more ambivalent about a movie in my life. The visuals told more of a story than the actual story and dialogue did.

The arche-types that they set up were old and predictable. The church has its head in the sand? Industrialism without a concience will kill us all? Mankind will die on the altar of progress, only to rise again from the ashes renewed by hope and faith in the common good?

Yet, while the message is a familiar tune and a cover of better works at best, the visuals are simply second to none and kept me interested even when the plot had given up the ghost.

Fail or sail, you'll see more from Shane Acker in the future. This movie will make him marketable on the strength of the imagery alone.

Posted by: Roaddog at September 10, 2009 3:23 AM

As they say in Bonn: Nein.

Posted by: grumpiestoldman at September 10, 2009 9:28 AM

I was really looking forward to this, particularly since a family member is involved. Visually it is a rich and well wrought world and I agree it shows that CGI can be used for good, not just evil. Earlier in the process, the filmakers were telling more of the story through the action and the characters--less through literal telling (flashbacks) of what went down. As a result, the Chase-Lunge-Fall repitition grew tiresome, but there are moments of such charm, I still walked away feeling entertained and wanting more of certain parts of it--like of the library with 3 and 4. I want to see all of their collections!

Posted by: bluefalseindigo at September 10, 2009 10:53 AM

As they say in Bonn: Nein.

Posted by: grumpiestoldman at September 10, 2009 9:28 AM
--------------------------------------------------
Ha, now you're all crawling out and acknowledging German heritage.

But I'm really sad. I wanted this to be breathtakingly awesome. DVD, I guess.

Posted by: The Gemeinderat at September 10, 2009 8:41 PM

I loved it. As a 19th-century historian, I'm a huge fan of the steampunk aesthetic, and between that and the alternate history timeline (sometime in the 1930s fascism in fact triumphs, just at the right time to indulge a high-modernist faith in science), I was hooked. No, the dolls are not "fleshed out" in terms of their characterization--but that drawback paled for me in contrast with the incredible richness and beauty of the world that Acker created, astounding mixtures of old (beam engines, wrecked cathedrals) and new (self-starting enclosed projector boxes, self-replicating machinery).

Posted by: Jamie at September 12, 2009 7:39 PM

This film lacks some kind of depth. They gave them mouths but they don't use them in any meaningful way. The characters all move like they're pulling their poses from stock animations.
My GF didn't get why I wanted to see Cloudy instead of this. Having seen both I stand by my decision. CLoudy isn't arty, but it's got enthusiasm!

Posted by: Sunsneezer at September 26, 2009 12:43 PM

Ok Guys, maybe animation and characters and the message this movie was supposed to deliver to viewers was great, but i cant get one thing. Why the fuck did 9 put that little energy source inside that robot machine??? That kicked shit out of me while i was cramping from a nervous diarrhea. And then all he says is ' I am sorry'. WTF dude, u just made the most stupid thing on earth and became a reason for a death of someone u were struggling to rescue?!! And the dancing scene after bombing the place, cant u just wait guys before fucking dance. Make sure everything is right first! Ohh, i hated it cuz i became a pshyco after watching it!

Posted by: Nazar at November 7, 2009 10:54 AM

Ok Guys, maybe animation and characters and the message this movie was supposed to deliver to viewers was great, but i cant get one thing. Why the fuck did 9 put that little energy source inside that robot machine??? That kicked shit out of me while i was cramping from a nervous diarrhea. And then all he says is ' I am sorry'. WTF dude, u just made the most stupid thing on earth and became a reason for a death of someone u were struggling to rescue?!! And the dancing scene after bombing the place, cant u just wait guys before fucking dance. Make sure everything is right first! Ohh, i hated it cuz i became a pshyco after watching it!

Posted by: Nazar at November 7, 2009 10:55 AM





Post a comment

 (required)

 (required)


Preview of your comment: