Judging from your description of the characters, it doesn't sound very deep or difficult to glean at all. It is important to remember that most characters in movies tend to embody a single dominant characteristic. That makes them easier to understand. If the movie is about creating the perfect doll, then it stands to reason that the first would be the worst and the best would be the most recent. A guy wearing a key who happens to be "the key" to the plot isn't very subtle. The Matrix Reloaded did it too. If anything, it is the opposite of deep. And as for having one female, are you sure that isn't just another example of a common movie conceit?
Book me today! I also review weddings, funerals and bar mitzvahs.
Honestly, if just ten more minutes were spent between 2 and 9 at the beginning, that probably would have saved the movie. 2 is this focal point for most of the movie but the viewer doesn't really care about him that much because we saw him for such a short amount of time. Plus, what you said about there being no exposition. Acker could have added another fifteen minutes and it still would have been the shortest major movie released in ten years.
And if I claim to be a wise man, well, it surely means that I don't know.Leave a Comment:
This film is not for the shallow.
I guess the best way to start this review would be to list its ups and downs.
Pros:
Cons:
The lack of story exposition is the main reason why the film received lukewarm reviews by critics. The director Shane Acker has stated that each of the 9 dolls represent one quality of human nature, with 1 being the most flawed and 9 being the closest to perfection. There is no 10th stitchpunk because there is no such thing as a 10/10 perfect human. 7 was female because everybody has a little bit of the opposite gender inside them, which is what unites both genders as human. 6's key around his neck is symbolic because he is the key to showing 9 the way to finding answers. This is all very, very deep, but since none of it is verbally touched upon in the film, a layman viewer has no way of appreciating the hidden symbolism. Then again, that kind of stuff is somewhat hard to convincingly express in a movie without seeming Anvilicious, so you have to credit Acker for throwing in all that stuff in the first place.
Many of the initial character descriptions that were written before the film had details that were never able to be touched on in the film due to the tight length. For example, 9 was originally described as wanting to discover the meaning of life. If this was explored in the film, a clear Aesop would be established.
The film was too short for my liking. I could sit through 2½ hours of this! According to an interview, Shane Acker thinks that movies these days are too long. But for a film with this much depth, an hour and 12 minutes is rather insufficient. I think 90 minutes would have been better. There would be more time for plot exhibition and screentime for 2, 6 and 8.
7.9/10