Shane Acker's Animated Film is Original and An Exercise in Oddity But A Little Unsatisfying....

Based on the award-winning short film by Shane Acker, the CGI-animated full-length feature film “9” intends to expand on its myth and story. Acker himself takes the helm as director in this film co-produced by Tim Burton along with Timur Bekmambetov (Wanted). When I first saw the trailer for “9”, I was blown away. I tempered my expectations when I went into the theater and did watch the film with an open mind. The film is a visually stunning piece with superb set designs and fluid animation whose style may have been inspired by traditional stop-motion animation.
 

In unknown time and place, a curious doll-like creature with the number “9” (Elijah Wood) on its back awakens to find his supposed creator (voiced by Alan Oppenheimer) dead. “9“ has awakened in a barren world, this world is now a wasteland, destroyed by war; a war waged between humans and machines. “9” discovers that he is not alone, stumbling across a similar creature called “2” (Martin Landau) who also gets kidnapped by a mechanical monster. “9” then discovers that he is a “stitch punk” and there are more of his kind being led by “1” (Christopher Plummer). “9” sets out to rescue “2” but instead awakens an evil with the use of a talisman that may doom them all. It is now up to “9” and his brethren to try to discover the truth behind their creation…
.

“9” is the last created “stitch punk” and he is the final piece of the puzzle in the “9” mythos. These creatures are miniature creations that resemble a sack held together by either leather strings, metal snaps, buttons, zippers, or shoe strings. They have camera-like eyes and instant access to their innards. The characters in “9” are well thought out, # 1 is the supposed leader and the cautious kind--whose sensibilities are all about preservation. # 2 is the explorer and the inventor. # 3 and 4 are twins who are also mute, they keep the history of mankind. # 5 (John C. Reilly) is a healer and a skilled mechanic. # 6 (Crispin Glover) has near-psychic abilities who channels his visions through drawings. # 7 (Jennifer Connelly) is a warrior and # 8 is the bodyguard of # 1, strong and fierce, yet innocent in a way. # 9 is the curious, selfless protagonist of the film. There is something relevant in the number “9”, one can say that they are different “characters” or potentials of mankind. Acker definitely intended the film to revolve around the creatures in creating this world so full of obstacles that this miniaturized creatures can take advantage of with their size. Acker’s keenness and passion for his creations are the film’s highlights; the film is a stunning work of visual marvel and storytelling. It is a grand display of idiosyncrasy.
 

The world that the “stitch punks” live in is pretty barren with nothing else left living. While the characters can indeed be enthralling, Acker does lose his way a little in the film’s direction. When you think about the plot in “9”; it makes very little sense. I found it hard to believe that ‘stitch punks’ #’s 1-8 never had the chance to try and figure out their reasons of being. # 7 also points out that there is a battle but none were visible (in the 1st act) save for one mechanical beast; which was by the way dispatched so easily up until the ‘awakening’ was brought into bear. I also found it hard to believe that there are no other surviving ‘organisms’; war is indeed horror but insects would always survive. Details were left out, giving the viewer several plot gaps to fill in.
 

The ‘stitch punks’ characterization seem to be presented as they know what to do, but they don’t know what and why they are there for. I found hard to buy the fact that these creatures were designed as the ‘hope for the future’ when they obviously were just contented to exist until events triggered by “9” managed to set things in motion. Time (and the passage of) needed to be more specific in the film to give the film’s plot needed credibility. It leaves a lot of questions unanswered such as; why did it take so long for “9” to awaken come along? How did the professor survive all those years? How many years have passed? The film’s final act attempts to explain everything that also gives a sense of the mystical but it doesn’t match its past groundwork. If they were meant to reignite the earth, then other things that you factor in such as the actions of the ‘mechanical monster-maker’ would serve no purpose (can't discuss this without really spoiling the movie). The film is all about belief, philosophy and destiny with no viable application or expediency.
 

The animation-work in “9” is nicely executed. The colors, set designs are no means something really groundbreaking but I did appreciate its style. It does convey a mood that matches the film’s tone. The film is also quite action-packed that action lovers will no doubt be entertained. The designs of the mechanical beasts were good, they mimic things that can be just freaky. The world of “9” is meticulously crafted. The film is a sci-fi mystery until things start to get moving, and the film becomes an actioner with plenty of swift although a bit repetitive movements. “7’s” moves become redundant after awhile.
 

“9” isn’t exactly a bad film but the film does feel too short and would benefited to be much longer. Acker’s storytelling had a lot of things going for it, but it just curiously stopped short in its execution and never realizes its journey. The ‘stitch punks’ were involved in a mystery that had some compelling things going for it but they just weren’t allowed to move around the depths of its core. Acker does rely too much on theatrics and never allows the viewer for a ‘nesting‘ stage to augment the wonder. The film is an average CGI-generated flick that may please those who like special-effects blockbusters but will turn off those who look for an intricate storyline. I appreciate brainless entertainment, but “9”pretends to have something deeper and ends up not fulfilling its promise. But “9” has its originality and vision. It is conscious that it is mighty eccentric and interesting; too bad the resolution is unsatisfying. 
 

Recommended with Caution, RENT IT first [3 Stars= Good/mixed bag]

Here's the actual short film:




Here's the trailer: