Un muñeco de trapo que se despierta en un futuro post-apocalíptico tiene la clave para salvar a la humanidad.Un muñeco de trapo que se despierta en un futuro post-apocalíptico tiene la clave para salvar a la humanidad.Un muñeco de trapo que se despierta en un futuro post-apocalíptico tiene la clave para salvar a la humanidad.
- Premios
- 9 nominaciones en total
Elijah Wood
- #9
- (voz)
Jennifer Connelly
- #7
- (voz)
Crispin Glover
- #6
- (voz)
Martin Landau
- #2
- (voz)
John C. Reilly
- #5
- (voz)
Fred Tatasciore
- #8
- (voz)
- …
‘Snow White’ Stars Test Their Wits
Argumento
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesShane Acker first made Número 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.
- PifiasOnce 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.
- Créditos adicionalesSome of the end credits emerge from 9's talisman.
- Versiones alternativasIn 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.
- Banda sonoraOver the Rainbow
Written by Harold Arlen and E.Y. Harburg
Performed by Judy Garland
Courtesy of Geffen Records
Under license from Universal Music Enterprises
Reseña destacada
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 $8 and giving this movie a second chance. You may be surprised how much your opinion changes.
- anna_desu
- 13 sept 2009
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is 9?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- 30.000.000 US$ (estimación)
- Recaudación en Estados Unidos y Canadá
- 31.749.894 US$
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- 10.740.446 US$
- 13 sept 2009
- Recaudación en todo el mundo
- 48.428.063 US$
- Duración1 hora 19 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta
Principal laguna de datos
What was the official certification given to Número 9 (2009) in India?
Responde