एक राग गुड़िया जो एक पोस्टपॉकेलिप्टिक के भविष्य में जागती है, वह मानवता की मुक्ति की कुंजी रखती है.एक राग गुड़िया जो एक पोस्टपॉकेलिप्टिक के भविष्य में जागती है, वह मानवता की मुक्ति की कुंजी रखती है.एक राग गुड़िया जो एक पोस्टपॉकेलिप्टिक के भविष्य में जागती है, वह मानवता की मुक्ति की कुंजी रखती है.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- पुरस्कार
- 9 कुल नामांकन
Elijah Wood
- #9
- (वॉइस)
Jennifer Connelly
- #7
- (वॉइस)
Crispin Glover
- #6
- (वॉइस)
Christopher Plummer
- #1
- (वॉइस)
Martin Landau
- #2
- (वॉइस)
John C. Reilly
- #5
- (वॉइस)
Fred Tatasciore
- #8
- (वॉइस)
- …
Helen Wilson
- News Caster
- (वॉइस)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
9 is a rag-doll who wakes up after a war between humans and machines that has devastated the world and wiped out humanity.He later meets a group of surviving rag-dolls and he tries to convince them to save 2.9 and 5 go to save 2, but they accidentally awaken a machine known as Brain.After they escape the dreaded machine, Brain hatches a scheme to build machines and hunt down the remaining rag-doll survivors.
"9" is like a combination of "The Terminator", "War Of The Worlds", and "Wall-e".With the war, machines, and apocalypse, there's no way you can disagree with that.The PG-13 rating is most certainly deserved.Afterall, the imagery is a bit frightening and will have young kids begging for their parents to take them to see "Wall-e" so they can get all of the disturbing images out of their minds once and for all.As for the movie, I can't say that I was disappointed.With it's spectacular visuals, great action sequences, and convincing characters, "9" is a must-see for those who want to take a visually thrilling roller-coaster.Clocking in at a brief 79 minutes( 72 minutes if you take out the end credits), "9" will take your imagination and put it into a world that will make you want for a sequel.We all know what the title would be, so I don't need to go any further."9" deserves a 9.
"9" is like a combination of "The Terminator", "War Of The Worlds", and "Wall-e".With the war, machines, and apocalypse, there's no way you can disagree with that.The PG-13 rating is most certainly deserved.Afterall, the imagery is a bit frightening and will have young kids begging for their parents to take them to see "Wall-e" so they can get all of the disturbing images out of their minds once and for all.As for the movie, I can't say that I was disappointed.With it's spectacular visuals, great action sequences, and convincing characters, "9" is a must-see for those who want to take a visually thrilling roller-coaster.Clocking in at a brief 79 minutes( 72 minutes if you take out the end credits), "9" will take your imagination and put it into a world that will make you want for a sequel.We all know what the title would be, so I don't need to go any further."9" deserves a 9.
Much like Shane Acker's short (of the same name), this movie almost REQUIRES multiple viewings for the viewer to really soak everything in.
The first time I watched the film, my initial criticisms were "That was too short" and "There wasn't not enough emphasis on characters/story". However, after watching the movie a second time, I realized that I had missed a TON of information on my first round. Upon asking other friends what they thought about the movie the second time around, I discovered that they felt the same way.
The first time I watched the film, I felt like everything flew by. It was visual overload, and it just had bad pacing overall. However, on my second viewing of the movie, I noticed that things seemed to go by much, much slower. The pacing seemed better. I noticed character and plot subtleties that I simply did not catch the first time I watched it. I connected more with the stitchpunks, and I understood the story better. The visuals weren't just "Ohhh, pretty!" anymore, they had greater symbolism, and depth.
The movie is, indeed, about 20 minutes too short. Certain characters needed more screen time, and certain points in the plot needed more emphasis. HOWEVER, I found that I enjoyed the movie drastically more when I saw it a second time. I plan on seeing it a third time later this week.
This movie reveals new surprises every time you watch it. If you have seen it once already, and didn't think it was that great, I strongly suggest dropping the $8 and giving this movie a second chance. You may be surprised how much your opinion changes.
The first time I watched the film, my initial criticisms were "That was too short" and "There wasn't not enough emphasis on characters/story". However, after watching the movie a second time, I realized that I had missed a TON of information on my first round. Upon asking other friends what they thought about the movie the second time around, I discovered that they felt the same way.
The first time I watched the film, I felt like everything flew by. It was visual overload, and it just had bad pacing overall. However, on my second viewing of the movie, I noticed that things seemed to go by much, much slower. The pacing seemed better. I noticed character and plot subtleties that I simply did not catch the first time I watched it. I connected more with the stitchpunks, and I understood the story better. The visuals weren't just "Ohhh, pretty!" anymore, they had greater symbolism, and depth.
The movie is, indeed, about 20 minutes too short. Certain characters needed more screen time, and certain points in the plot needed more emphasis. HOWEVER, I found that I enjoyed the movie drastically more when I saw it a second time. I plan on seeing it a third time later this week.
This movie reveals new surprises every time you watch it. If you have seen it once already, and didn't think it was that great, I strongly suggest dropping the $8 and giving this movie a second chance. You may be surprised how much your opinion changes.
9 is better than average... but only barely.
The movie is carried by a unique visual style and a great sense of "place." The sack-men (and woman) are refreshingly odd and fun to watch. The post-apocalyptic city is consistently beautiful and dangerous. Desolate without feeling dull.
Unfortunately, the story and characters ARE dull. Not crushingly so... but enough to frustrate. Frequent, obvious plot holes and violations of established world-rules pulled me out of the movie over and over again. Tired clichés abound. I wasn't able to shake the feeling that I'd seen and heard this all before.
And that's a shame because there's a lot of potential here. If only the writer had taken more chances. Why not challenge the audience and defy expectations? Why make a movie that's too scary for kids but too simplistic for adults? Who is expected to enjoy it?
I would watch another Shane Acker movie if one is made (hopefully after he's picked a target audience). But 9 is not a classic.
... that said, it's probably worth watching on the big screen just for the sights and sounds.
The movie is carried by a unique visual style and a great sense of "place." The sack-men (and woman) are refreshingly odd and fun to watch. The post-apocalyptic city is consistently beautiful and dangerous. Desolate without feeling dull.
Unfortunately, the story and characters ARE dull. Not crushingly so... but enough to frustrate. Frequent, obvious plot holes and violations of established world-rules pulled me out of the movie over and over again. Tired clichés abound. I wasn't able to shake the feeling that I'd seen and heard this all before.
And that's a shame because there's a lot of potential here. If only the writer had taken more chances. Why not challenge the audience and defy expectations? Why make a movie that's too scary for kids but too simplistic for adults? Who is expected to enjoy it?
I would watch another Shane Acker movie if one is made (hopefully after he's picked a target audience). But 9 is not a classic.
... that said, it's probably worth watching on the big screen just for the sights and sounds.
I was quite taken with '9', a movie I saw without reading the reviews here (which is not the usual sequence of things for me). I'm glad I didn't read the reviews this time, though, because too many of them seemed to me to be off point.
This is quite a didactic film with a decided moral and spiritual flavor from the opening scene to the beautifully crafted ending. It uses archetypes and plot lines that are more or less predictable and common. But it combines those elements with -- as most of the reviewers here have agreed -- wonderful visuals to create a sweeping story that is at least wonderful and borders on the magnificent. I was enchanted with the rag-doll characters from very early on and frankly don't get it when reviewers here say they couldn't identify with these touchingly and endearingly humanoid creatures. So much more empathetic than, say, Wall-E, of which it is only vaguely reminiscent.
The spiritual message in this movie is deeply interwoven and -- perhaps because it resonates with my own spiritual path -- I found it quite well done and sufficiently subtle that remarks to the contrary here seemed to me to derive more from disagreement with the spiritual philosophy than with its presence as a major component of the story.
I highly recommend this movie. It is entertaining and enlightening. The only thing that kept it from earning a very-hard-to-garner 10 from me was the overuse of violence in the late-middle portion when the denouement should be closer to the surface.
This is quite a didactic film with a decided moral and spiritual flavor from the opening scene to the beautifully crafted ending. It uses archetypes and plot lines that are more or less predictable and common. But it combines those elements with -- as most of the reviewers here have agreed -- wonderful visuals to create a sweeping story that is at least wonderful and borders on the magnificent. I was enchanted with the rag-doll characters from very early on and frankly don't get it when reviewers here say they couldn't identify with these touchingly and endearingly humanoid creatures. So much more empathetic than, say, Wall-E, of which it is only vaguely reminiscent.
The spiritual message in this movie is deeply interwoven and -- perhaps because it resonates with my own spiritual path -- I found it quite well done and sufficiently subtle that remarks to the contrary here seemed to me to derive more from disagreement with the spiritual philosophy than with its presence as a major component of the story.
I highly recommend this movie. It is entertaining and enlightening. The only thing that kept it from earning a very-hard-to-garner 10 from me was the overuse of violence in the late-middle portion when the denouement should be closer to the surface.
The first time I heard about 9 and found out that Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov were co-producing it, I was absolutely on board to see it. Anything that the guy who directed such quirky masterpieces as Beetlejuice, Batman, Mars Attacks!, Ed Wood, and Sleepy Hollow got behind had to be worthy of my time. And then you add the genius of Russian director Timur Bekmambetov to the mix and to me it was a no brainer. I was going to see this movie. Burton AND the guy that has brought us such visually complex and action-packed fare as Wanted, Night Watch, and Day Watch supporting a movie? It had to be good.
And it was. Director Shane Acker borrows maybe a little more than he should have visually from other such apocalyptic films like Terminator and even Wall-E, but it doesn't end up hurting the film by any means. The scenery and landscapes of the film are beautifully crafted and set everything up for a certain feeling of loneliness and hopelessness. It's more graphic and suspenseful than any children's or youth feature you would take your kids to, so definitely don't let the fact that this is animated fool you. This is not for the little ones.
The voice actors all put their best foot forward and deliver. You've got Elijah Wood as 9, once again convincingly leading a group of survivors in what seems to be an unwinnable war against a much larger foe than they could be expected to defeat. You've got Christopher Plummer playing 1 as an interesting paranoid "keeper of the secrets" which reminded me of the Dr. Zaius character in the original Planet of the Apes films, if you've seen any of those. Legendary actor Martin Landau plays 2, who is a scientist and fixes 9. Then there's Jennifer Connelly, who plays the strong-willed and rebellious 7 who has left the core group of "stitchpunks" to get away from under all of 1's rules. Last but not least, you've got Crispin Glover playing the slightly obsessed and seemingly crazy 6 who has been drawing strange symbols since the big war between the humans and machines.
The film had an interesting plot that got a bit more complex in the end. Part of the complexity had a spiritual vibe to it that I didn't necessarily care for. It just seemed almost out of place and like the director was stretching for something that would make the film more "sophisticated." I was not disappointed in the movie by any means. It was a visually striking piece of film. It was action-packed and fun without dumbing down the story or sacrificing it. If you're into sci-fi, apocalyptic thrillers, and animation I would highly recommend this.
And it was. Director Shane Acker borrows maybe a little more than he should have visually from other such apocalyptic films like Terminator and even Wall-E, but it doesn't end up hurting the film by any means. The scenery and landscapes of the film are beautifully crafted and set everything up for a certain feeling of loneliness and hopelessness. It's more graphic and suspenseful than any children's or youth feature you would take your kids to, so definitely don't let the fact that this is animated fool you. This is not for the little ones.
The voice actors all put their best foot forward and deliver. You've got Elijah Wood as 9, once again convincingly leading a group of survivors in what seems to be an unwinnable war against a much larger foe than they could be expected to defeat. You've got Christopher Plummer playing 1 as an interesting paranoid "keeper of the secrets" which reminded me of the Dr. Zaius character in the original Planet of the Apes films, if you've seen any of those. Legendary actor Martin Landau plays 2, who is a scientist and fixes 9. Then there's Jennifer Connelly, who plays the strong-willed and rebellious 7 who has left the core group of "stitchpunks" to get away from under all of 1's rules. Last but not least, you've got Crispin Glover playing the slightly obsessed and seemingly crazy 6 who has been drawing strange symbols since the big war between the humans and machines.
The film had an interesting plot that got a bit more complex in the end. Part of the complexity had a spiritual vibe to it that I didn't necessarily care for. It just seemed almost out of place and like the director was stretching for something that would make the film more "sophisticated." I was not disappointed in the movie by any means. It was a visually striking piece of film. It was action-packed and fun without dumbing down the story or sacrificing it. If you're into sci-fi, apocalyptic thrillers, and animation I would highly recommend this.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाShane Acker first made 9 (2009) as a ten minute short film while he was still at UCLA. It was nominated for Best Animated Short at the Oscars, and although it didn't win, Acker was offered the chance to expand it into a feature film. It follows the same basic plot, but more characters have been added, they have the ability to talk now, and the reason for the world's destruction is explained in more detail.
- गूफ़Once 2 places the voice box into 9, the zipper remains open. However, in the next shot, 9's zipper is closed. The following shot has the zipper open again. 9 is later shown zipping his zipper closed.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटSome of the end credits emerge from 9's talisman.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनIn the Russian dubbed version, the dolls represent the people in the Scientist's life instead of the American version where they represent his personality. 1 being the dictator, 2 being his lab assistant, 3 and 4 being the Scientist's twin children, 5 being the field doctor who saved the Scientist's life during the rise of the robots, 6 being the engineer who activated the robot, 7 being the Scientist's wife, 8 being the Chancellor's bodyguard, and 9 representing the Scientist himself.
- साउंडट्रैकOver the Rainbow
Written by Harold Arlen and E.Y. Harburg
Performed by Judy Garland
Courtesy of Geffen Records
Under license from Universal Music Enterprises
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $3,00,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $3,17,49,894
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $1,07,40,446
- 13 सित॰ 2009
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $4,84,28,063
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 19 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.85 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें