Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

by Willie Krischke – October 28, 2009

“9″ began life as an award-winning short film in 2005.  It probably should’ve stayed that way. Instead, it feels like a good short film stretched like an old rubber band so that it could be released in theaters and make more money.   Someday we need to stop and ask ourselves why films have to be 70-150 minutes long in order to be considered “feature-length,”  but perhaps today is not that day.

“9″ takes place in a gorgeously visualized, post-apocalyptic world, where the only survivors are 8 inches tall and seem to be made of burlap and clock parts.  The film has a lot of fun with the dilemmas of living in a world that’s 20 sizes too big – a lot of its best bits reminded me of “The Littles” and “The Borrowers,” books I read as a kid. Director Shane Acker clearly loves following these creatures around and seeing how they survive in a pretty terrifying world.  And who can blame him.  It’s pretty fun.

But eventually it becomes necessary to impose a plot structure upon Acker’s beloved creatures, and that’s when the problems start.   Whoever is responsible for the script wrote it in about five minutes, borrowing liberally from the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones, and any other post-apocalyptic and/or adventure movie that was handy.  The main character is called 9, and guess what, there are 8 others, each with a big number on its back, and more caricature than personality.  There’s a glowing talisman, and a gibberish-spouting prophet, and an evil cat-monster.    People need to be rescued, the source needs to be returned to, authoritarian leaders must be defied, etc.   None of it feels at all fresh or original, which is disconcerting, because everything looks so fresh and original.

I guess “9″ is a kids’ movie, and really, kids probably won’t care about hackneyed plot structure, cardboard characters, etc.   I wouldn’t take little children to see “9,” unless they’re exceptionally brave – it’s likely to give them terrible nightmares about cat-monsters– but older kids might enjoy it.   It’s a great-looking movie, but in a year filled with great-looking kid’s movies, it comes up short.

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Movies buy credibility with violence. How seriously a movie treats its violence will tell you how seriously its makers want you to take that movie. If only the bad guys get hurt, that’s Disney territory. If only the guys with guns get hurt, even amongst chase scenes and gun fights that surely ought to be causing serious collateral damage, that’s a summer action flick. And hurting innocent people and hurting them graphically, violently, onscreen? Well, now you’re in “Hotel Rwanda” or “Schindler’s List” territory.

That’s where “Blood Diamond” starts; within the first five minutes are some the most graphically violent, disturbing moments I’ve seen in a movie lately. Coupled with the opening map (thanks, wasn’t sure where Sierra Leone was) and bits of background given before the action starts that make sure you know this is a movie about REAL things happening in the world today, this is a movie that demands — loudly — to be taken seriously.

The problem is, it’s just not that serious a movie. We’re introduced to Danny Archer, and he’s a good deal more Danny Ocean than Oskar Schindler. And we are whisked along on an adventure story – complete with a McGuffin, a romantic interest, a sinister Colonel, and plenty of chase and fight scenes. And, really, as an adventure film, a sort of “Indiana Jones and the Pink Diamond,” it’s not that bad a flick. It’s just – well, that’s not the movie we were told (by the movie) that we would be watching.

But that’s the movie we get. Leonardo DiCaprio is a diamond smuggler, Jennifer Connelly (in the smartest, sexiest role I’ve ever seen her play) is a journalist doing a story on smuggling, and Djimon Honsou is an African with a diamond worth smuggling. They take turns using each other to get what they want and/or advance the plot. DiCaprio is decent in the amoral, “I don’t stick my neck out for anybody” role, and you get the feeling that if his luck holds, he might end up owning a cafe in Morocco in a few years. Connelly shows she can do more than look sad, but the real heart and soul is Djimon Honsou. He plays a normal guy just trying to raise a family and live quietly in a war-torn, corrupt, violent country. He is stoic, determined, and strong, but constantly swimming against the tide. Sort of an African Denzel Washington. Because he is so stoic, and because he wants little to do with Archer or any of the whites, there are only a handful of scenes that really belong to him. But the ones that do are far and away the most captivating, exciting and touching. Hounsu’s performance grounds the movie and gives it heart; without it, this would just be a story of white peoples’ adventure in Africa.

I come away from the movie feeling a bit of whiplash, between the cartoon violence of adventure movies (Leonardo sneaking up behind a guard and killing him before anyone notices) and the disturbing, realistic violence of “issues” movies (watching a young, blindfolded boy being ordered to pull the trigger on the gun he’s holding, killing the handcuffed man in front of him.)

But I want you to watch this movie, because I want you to think about traumatized families the next time you walk past the jewelry store in the mall. Diamonds are forever, so the story goes, but so is amputation. Edward Zwick, the director, is trying to straddle two worlds – he’s trying to make an “issues” movie that will sell, and he’s trying to make an action flick that will educate moviegoers about important current issues. This hybridization ends up being the major weakness of the movie, but I can respect the effort. It’s not a great movie, and in the end, it’s not an important movie either. But maybe it’s one you should see anyway.

Recommended

• if you can’t be bothered to read a book (or a newspaper article) about what’s going on in the world
• if you still have a crush on Leo
• if you’re looking for a decently made action flick with a social conscience (could be a good date compromise.)

Not Recommended

• if you’re squeamish about violence (you could just skip the first five minutes, though)
• if you’re sick and tired of movies that preach
• if you’re only interested in Oscar winners