Review: 9

9 is the kind of film that you watch the trailer and feel a sense of anticipation over whether the movie itself can live up. Smarter viewers may have had the foresight to realize that the chances of this movie being as cool as the trailer were very slim. The main problem with 9 is that it ends up being what essentially amounts to a more drawn out version of the trailer. Things happen fast in this movie... really fast. From the opening moments where main character 9 awakens to a very post apocalyptic world, the plot moves at a bullet's pace. One moment he's becoming self-aware and the next he's meeting another sack-goggle-man. Then a mysterious cat robot is attacking and stealing a mysterious rune found by 9 in the first few moments of the film. All of this transpires in the first ten to fifteen minutes, and while it is very cool to watch, the movie starts to feel like all flash and no substance. This is not to say that 9 doesn't attempt to inject moments of exposition though. Instead the movie does try admirably to introduce the world and the little mechanical characters within. The only problem here is that when this movie slows down, it doesn't do a good job of informing us while not simultaneously boring us half to death.

9 relies far too heavily on the draw of its art style and quirky look of its characters. Passed the fact that they are cool looking sack robots that run around fighting with exacto knives and have staffs that have gears attached for style, there's not much presented in this movie to make it all seem intriguing. For instance there's a sack-pope leading a highly insular group by staying secret... but outside of the fact that he's wearing a cool pope-hat and a cape, the character is sadly one dimensional. He's afraid of the outside world and he's awfully close-minded. That's it. Even main character 9 is little more than the eager minded new guy who asks dangerous and controversial questions. The most interesting character in the film that did not feel shoe horned into some cliche archetype was voiced by John C. Reilly. Number 5 plays slightly naive, but overall is the only character going through a believable set of emotions and reactions that don't play specifically to his strictly defined character description.

Characters come and go in this movie so quickly and events transpire likewise. It's hard to stop and care about what you're seeing passed the occasional "oh man, that was cool looking". In the end the movie basically follows a predictable throughline which will have you more or less guessing the sequence of events. 'Blunt' is the best word I can think to describe 9. If it isn't set out right in front of you in plain terms, then there is no use thinking about it further than that. To its credit, the movie does try to end on a slightly ambiguous, interpretable note that leaves the viewer the task of deciding what is going to happen next. The biggest problem here is that in a movie where everything has been spoon fed with a pat on the head, the audience doesn't really care to engage themselves enough to meet this haphazard attempt at mystery halfway.

9 is based on director Shane Acker's short film of the same name. I think this is probably the main reason the feature length version falls so short. As a brief and silent vignette, the style of the movie and the pacing of the events works insanely well. It's evocative, it makes you think, and you don't have to sit through cliched dialogue coming from predictably defined characters. Obviously stretching the movie to fit a feature length, the short story had to be padded and expanded in multiple areas. Unfortunately for as cool and edgy as the film ends up being, the heart and soul of the source material was never meant to be spread so thin.

In the end, 9 is one of those films you try so hard to love but it never pays you back. If you still feel an irrepressible need to go out and check this movie out, I'd suggest waiting until it's either free on cable or available to rent. At best a diversion, at worst boring; 9 is another product of ambitious scope and a lack of execution.

Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

DISCLAIMER: There are spoilers about the movie and the book in here that also may allude to some of the events of the final book. If you don't want to have even a hint of what's going to happen in the final book, you could probably read the first and last paragraphs and be satisfied.

If there were ever a series short of Lord of the Rings that desperately needed an extended edition when it hit DVD, it would be Harry Potter. Having already started to noticeably chafe under the time constraints of the last two installments, Half-Blood Prince feels like its fingers are brushing greatness and just missing by that much. It's a real shame because this movie more than many of the others before it treads new ground. For once the romantic interactions with the young cast feel real and genuine, unlike the stilted and forced scenes in Goblet of Fire's Triwizard Ball scenes. Unfortunately, these scenes are too few and far between in the course of this overstuffed movie.

Anyone who has read the books knows that Half-Blood Prince deals with a lot plot lines running almost on opposite ends of the spectrum from each other. The movie adaptation attempts to find the most common threads between the important elements and weave them into a nearly three hour movie. To some degrees the formula works, and when it does the movie fires in a way that its predecessors only hinted at. Sadly, for as much as it really clicks, the movie also fizzles at times as certain story beats just aren't played as dramatically as they should have been. For one, the eponymous 'Half-Blood Prince'; an element that by all rights should be front and center, meanders lifelessly in the peripheral of the film. By its portrayal here, one unfamiliar with the books or simply inattentive could not be blamed for wondering why the movie is titled such. Harry's scholastic success of direct consequence to the 'Prince' present in the novel is almost completely gone from the film. Much of the impact, especially that in the final moments of the film, is drained from the cinematic interpretation because of this omission. Besides the oversight of attention to the film's title, the movie never has enough time to explore any of the interesting things happening in its story. The book was bolstered handsomely by the budding relationship between Harry and Dumbledore as they struggled to crack the mystery of Voldemort's ultimate plans, and this was a thread that displayed prominently in the book serving as its spine. Besides the final half an hour of the movie and some early dialogue between the characters, you never get the impression of the respect and admiration the two share in the book.

Ron's Quidditch exploits only get a few minutes of screen time which is understandable. Less forgivable is the fact that after the one scene, we never even hear mention of his further successes that more or less defined Ron for me in the novel. I was also a bit disappointed with the fact that Alan Rickman opted to play Severus Snape a little less ambiguous than I felt he should have been. In the book version, you never really have an idea of what he's up to. Meanwhile from the early moments of the film while he takes the Unbreakable Vow, Rickman plays a not-too-subtle hesitance on his face which gives away his true motives to anyone looking close enough to notice.

Finally we have the issue of characterization; in this case most importantly of our main hero Harry Potter. In the book version of Half-Blood Prince the reader really feels the pressures dumped on Harry to not only solve a mystery that is WAY beyond his abilities at his age, but how in over his head he is when you consider that he now knows that he is the only one who can topple the nefarious Dark Lord. The success in the writing is that Harry also realizes this very thing and it builds his character. He takes on much more responsibility and grows more mature for it, if not in skill than in understanding. When the final moments of the book transpire, we actually believe him when he states he's not coming back to Hogwarts and that he fully intends to finish the work he and Dumbledore began. It's a shame that Daniel Radcliffe's Harry never conveys the fact that his life is fundamentally changing in ways it never has in years passed in the film. For all the strife and frustration Radcliffe is capable of emoting, it still feels like the film Harry Potter is simply reacting to the things happening to him instead of really experiencing them. It's hard to know if this fault comes down to Radcliffe or if the confines of the movie and its limits prevented him from really exploring the real alterations ravaging his character. Whenever he acknowledges the prophecy, you don't get the sense that this is a seventeen year old boy who somehow must figure out how to kill the most powerful evil in his world or how he's dealing with it.

Finally, I would like to mention my displeasure with the last act of the film. In the book, we are treated to an emotionally exhausting scene in which Dumbledore suffers greatly to retrieve what Harry and he believe is a Horcrux. This of course leaves the Professor near death with fatigue and when Harry returns them to Hogsmeade we are jolted by the appearance of the Dark Mark above Hogwarts and the success of Draco's mission. From here we get a much more intense encounter than that in the movie in which a helpless (petrified) Harry must watch Draco disarm a weakened Dumbledore and a seemingly heartless Snape kill him without a second thought. From here is described a magnificent battle between the Death Eaters and the Order of the Phoenix wherein the castle is torn apart. This is a crucial scene to the book and the overarching story because innocence is truly lost. Hogwarts for six books had been the safe zone of the story in which nothing disastrous could happen, and in one chapter it becomes as dangerous if not moreso than anywhere else in the wizarding world. It's jarring and it makes the reader feel the desperation and hopelessness of Harry as he chases Snape and is overpowered easily as an afterthought. In the film the whole scene plays much different. Besides Harry and a random guard-wizard, it would seem that no one in the castle had any idea that anything horrible had happened inside. In fact, the Death Eaters simply vandalize the castle before leaving and lighting Hagrid's hut on fire. There's no menace, there's no feeling of hopelessness, and the movie ends on a note of anticipation for the next installment instead of the emotionally spent and lost one of the novel. Sure, the book ended with Harry's vow to finish everything and not return to school, but there was a sense of finality to the proceedings because everything was different now. As far as the movie is concerned, this was just one more unfortunate incident in a line of incidents. I couldn't help but feel cheated by these moments I had so anticipated since first reading the book.

While this review went to great lengths to detail what I had issue with in this movie, I would be lying if I didn't outright say this is probably the second best HP film in the series. By at least having brushes with some real character moments and just glancing some of the epic moments from the book, this film does wonders in building suspense for the final confrontation awaiting in the final two movies. Unfortunately instead of wondering how this fairly average boy is going to ever stop all these bad things, the audience is left certain of his success just lacking the way it all will transpire. Overall I would suggest see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, but if you feel intrigued at all by the events on screen head out immediately and pick up the book. You won't be disappointed either way.