Número 9

Acker's visionary abilities battle with a sub-par script that flutters behind his exuberant imagination, and the result desperately cries out for a more uncompromising dramaturgist whose care would ensure more than just a fully rendered variation on the most recent Terminator. Stretching the original 11 minutes into an hour, not adding a drop of added value to the plot and hoping that "it will somehow carry itself" deserves a slap to the head. Giving these zipped-up bags a chance to show themselves properly on paper would be the most original cartoon far and wide. There is talent is evident here, though. (09.10.2009)

Once I had got comfortable in my seat (seat no. 8, and I ceremoniously sat my backpack on seat no. 9) I was swallowed up by the perfect atmosphere balancing between cyberpunk and the second world war. The war got to me already in that ten minute piece. A gang of numbered figures, each of who is something special (junky no. 8, bossy no. one, etc...), are fighting against machines of genius erm... Machines that have awakened after years of sleep. The atmosphere is (I know I’m repeating myself) perfect, the action full-on + there’s lots of it and the characters are nice. But there is something wrong too. Acker’s vision and theme require a more developed story. Pamela Pettler’s screenplay is literally shoddy and full of plot holes. Everything is explained somehow too briefly and the heroes keep on walking backward and forward staying in the same place. While there’s a whole empty world waiting to be explored. (11.09.2009)

Despite the perfect atmosphere, beautiful art aspects and great action, 9 is only about halfway there. Mainly due to a stereotypically constructed story, which also relies on a rather agitating and moralizing tone. One could deal with that if at least the handling had not been so wanting, and dramaturgy was also not done well. Even the characters are shallow and forgettable sketches voiced by stars. It's a bit of an issue when the screenwriter writes a weak Christian fairytale and the director tells the story as a raw apocalyptic horror. However, it is worth seeing for the bizarre world on the edge of World War I and cyberpunk... Especially if you like Bioshock or Fallout. :o) [70%] (07.09.2009)

Where Wall-E attempts to suggest a depressive post-apocalyptic atmosphere in the first half, 9 fully develops its vision of a world devastated by war and does not care about the moods of the child audience. The visual aspect is amazing and because it usually plays a significant role in my rating, I lean toward a five-star rating, even though I have a problem with the philosophical aspect of the film and consider its outcome unsatisfactory. Where, for example, Avatar has a philosophy that is too primitive, the philosophical dimension of 9 is possibly too complicated and uncertain. 9 depicts the adventures of nine extraordinary beings with a robotic foundation who look like rag dolls combined with the idea of artificial machines from the late 19th century. The retro-stylization, which seems to come from late Jules Verne novels, along with the gloomy visual aspect in shades of brown, is exceptional for an animated film made today and it boldly disrupts the idea of a positively inclined film that parents go to see with their young children. The heroes of the story face monstrous machines, from which hatred and dehumanized evil of technology are evident at first sight, escaping human hands. The creators of the film seem to work with the concerns of today's inhabitants of the developed world, to whom technology seemingly gets on their nerves and they dream of a return to a simple life in harmony with nature. The battle of the dolls with the devilish invention is full of adventurous action and unique effects. The idea that the story should be heading toward is somewhat lost under their fire, but it was still a strong experience for me. Overall impression: 90%. (02.05.2010)

The beginning held my attention... for about ten minutes. Then came – apologies to anyone who might be bothered or offended, but I really can't call it anything else – blatant American kitsch. And it didn't hold my attention, or even seem to deserve it. Maybe Shane Acker should have stuck with his 11-minute short from 2005, because he didn't give the world anything new by multiplying the time of the short by seven. Yes, the grim depiction of a post-apocalyptic world was very successful, perhaps I could call it the animated face of Orwell's 1984, but that's just a maybe and a happy accident. Someone wrote here about the gripping action, which I certainly didn't find gripping, rather it made me worry about whether I needed to paint my nails, which I also managed to do, and that just doesn't happen with good fantasy... It would have been a good movie if it could have held my attention. And it doesn’t help that it had been one of my most anticipated films of 2009. (31.01.2010)