Spending the time and energy to create and release a non Pixar-ish animated movie these days is quite a gamble. Even with Tim Burton producing, a studio and a watching public, careful with their Saturday movie money, has to think, But are there cute bleeping robots? How about talking cars?
There are no earnest sanitation robots yearning for a significant other or arrogant young sport cars in “9″, directed by Shane Acker and including the voice talents of Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly, Crispin Glover, Christopher Plummer and Martin Landau. Instead we get hand made robots, clothed in burlap, each with a number on their backs, the last of which is number 9, voiced by Elijah Wood.
In 9, we get a concept Sci-Fi story about the state of the world after the human machine war puts an end to both troublemakers. In the dark ever after, all that remains is our burlap heroes and one last machine, hunting in the ruins for anything that moves. There is a difference between the last hunter and 9 and his brethren. They are all machines but the 9 act human.Why the 9 seem human and why they seem to be such separate individuals is eventually revealed. In the end though, the plan their maker had for the burlap bunch is unrevealed and the movie completely forgets to have a point to go with it’s risky post apocalyptic setting.
9 is well acted, beautifully animated and exciting, with creepy machine monsters and daring escapes and close calls. Why do the last machines that killed humankind want to hurt the 9? Are the 9 destined to somehow save the world and bring forth a bright new day where humans and machines can love each other again? The movie doesn’t really tell us. In fact, all the drama in 9 surrounds the mistake Elijah Wood’s character, number 9, makes when he accidently re-animates a master maker machine that seeks the 9 for something they possess. All of this drama surrounds a maguffan, or a kind of literary prop that everyone in the story really thinks is important but has no real meaning to the story at all. 9 creates a circular logic drama out of this object by messing with the object. If number 9 hadn’t have made his mistake with the object and used the device as it was intended from the get go it would have been useless. The object seems powerless without the mistake. If the object had a larger purpose or meaning, outside of the mistake, we are not informed.
So finally, I ask myself, what’s the point of making a movie that really needs to be smarter then the average animated movie, given it’s subject, only to allow such massive plot holes in the story? I was kind of insulted actually. The movie just ends out of the blue, with the sequel bait as blatantly obvious as I’ve ever seen.
Demographically speaking, there were alot of nerds in the theatre with me during 9 and you have to figure Tim Burton and Mr. Acker intended this film for a more mature and scrutinizing audience. In the end though, there might as well have been talking cars. 9 clothes itself in steampunky Sci-Fi-ness but falls way short of following through.
Shane Acker (director) / Shane Acker, Pamela Pettler (screenplay)
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)
Alan Oppenheimer … The Scientist (voice)
Tom Kane … Dictator (voice)
Just a guy in passionate pursuit of all things FI. Got news? endy (at) scificool.com 
The story is completely explained in this movie you need to pay attention and not be so blunt. The 9 act human b/c they are made up of the scientists soul and the machines want to eliminate them b/c of that and in the end it symbolizes that life restarts because 1,2,5,6,and 8 all are absorbed into the device then released making life possible again. All in all it was a terrific movie that couldn't really have a sequel.
Well obviously he wasn’t trying to give the movie away, hence the no spoiler alert, but you managed to give a big chunk of the movie away so what the heck.
The author of this article is 100% completely correct, there is wayyyyy to many holes in this plot. The scientist put his 9 parts of his soul in these ragdolls, why nine parts? no one knows because the movie doesn’t seem to mind not telling us, but only 5 parts are sacraficed into new life. So what does this mean for all the new life? I guess it means it will have only 5 parts of a human soul. Which without 9 seems like life wont have the “hope” characteristic of man.
So all in all there was amazing animation, but definitely lacks the storyline. To the author of this article, good job.
I saw a lot of Hitleresque and that era symbolism as well as the symbolism of the Russian Revolution in the movie. The grafitti made me think of the Russian Revolution. #1 had a sickle shape on the end of his staff. There were lots more images of sickles. There’s probably more, but I don’t know all the details and I only watched the movie once. I do, however, agree with the reviewer in that there are a lot of holes and yes he did not reveal the ending thankfully for those who still want to see it.
There is likely not going to be a sequel for this movie, and for that, I do believe the reviewer is terribly wrong.
The movie does have plot holes that you can argue with as being huge in the construction of the directors true meaning, but I speculate as to whether these ‘plot holes’ would have been recognized had the movie not provided so much reflection that – because of its very nature – we needed to.
I way be sounding redundant now, but this movie is very clever and although not entirely original, does pose some common questions and theories on the basic structure of our world through some Ancient Greek symbolism and general knowledge of our world today.
9 is a movie of hope, not death or decay. Add in some great voice acting and wonderfully gothic animation and this short film achieves what was likely its purpose in the first place, to draw in watchers and to learn from it – which we all seem to be doing now discussing it!
The point of the movie is allegorical. We have given so much of ourselves up to the control of technology that the missing part in all of it is the humanness or the soul element. of our actions. Think about the way in which we communicate, play, work, exercise, eat, etc. Technology has become a surrogate for living. Everything seems to happen in the ether nowadays rather than in real time and in real face to face. So, yes the whole point in the movie about a machine that steals your soul is not without meaning. If we want to take it further, we can even argue that the movie makers’ message wasn’t as simple as all technology is bad – kind of like in Terminator – but rather, let’s be careful of how we use technology because it could rob us of our souls. Case in point is the Hitleresque sequences in the movie. They represent just that; the use of technology without regard for humanity’s sake.
I do agree that Terminator is an effective comparison to this movie.
And the 9 rag dolls, in all their allegorical significance, do represent hope for human kind.
The scientist is most definitely a portrayal of Albert Einstein.
And simply in the colour of the flags alone, there is a Nazi, or even tyrannical regime feel to the power that likely caused this worldwide genocide.
I think for the most part we’re all just arguing the same point, on different pages. The argument here is not the meaning behind the movie. The message is clearly made across about how technology, put to bad use can surely backfire, causing an end to all of humanity. Nothing new, but how the problem is solved is very original.
However though, I think the word “Hitleresque” is inappropriate. Maybe you can use that word for the mass killing of mankind, but you have to remember Hitler used very primitive ways to kill people. That’s a far cry from technology causing mass genocide. A more appropriate example would be the atom bomb, the most technologically advanced weapon at the time, that killed hundred of thousands of innocent, and not innocent, people. Or even Eisenhower’s farewell speech that warned us of the military industrial complex bringing an end to man.
Also, on another note, the scientist in this movie reminds me of Albert Einstein. In how Einstein said, “The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking… the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.”
Im sorry for spoiler, and ya there is holes in the movie but i still think its a good movie and spreads a basic idea of everything but there really is no reason for making it 9 i think its just that with more it would become hard to keep track of all of them and as for the 5 souls being released could mean that life will return but not as it once was because look were we ended up :/
I agree with the reviewer that the basic premise of this movie had too many gaps and made little sense. After watching both the feature film and the original short it seems to me that the feature film suffered from a classic sequel problem. The deeper you dig into a fantasy world and try to explain why everything is happening, the more you open it up to inconsistencies.
The “device”, as it is used in the short, makes sense and is effective even though what it really is and why it exists is never explained. When the feature film tries to explain the device it disappoints.
OK, was it just me? I saw a religious tone. The scientist was God, breathing life into the dolls. Creating them in his own image–giving them a part of himself. And then there was a resurrection of the five–cummon, the crosses, and the rising into the heavens….
Think about this, all of you “amazing” thinkers out there. What if this movie dosen´t symbolize anything, but is only a movie. Do you always need to be a plot or a symbolisme behind everything? Can you not tell a story for entertaining? I believe so. The only one creating a symbol in this movie is all of you. As Mark Twain so nicely put it in Huckleberry Finn “persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted, persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished, and persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot”
But even though he wrote this in his book, which book has been analyzed more?
I thought the movie was well-managed. I am an older movie-goer, and I saw through the ‘massive holes in the plot’ and filled it in with my imagination, causing no great harm.
All of the key elements were there, and it acted as a fairly interesting cautionary tale on technology merely being means to our end.
To compare this to Cars is like comparing the Sound of Music to Harold & Maude. Apples and Oranges.
There can be no sequel…or at least there should be no sequel. That would defeat the purpose of the entire piece.