Zombieland and 9

I got to go see Zombieland (rated R) last Friday (October 2) with an interesting group of people. The group I went with all dressed up like zombies or zombie hunters - which, lets face it, was awesome. I'm not in the zombie picture because I didn't dress up - I don't have any makeup at the moment, or clothes that I wouldn't mind tearing up, and I had to go pick up my boy from the airport since he had been out working all week.

Now, Zombieland was awesome. Had your classic zombie-movie elements, and was a little more gratuitous with the blood/gore than I generally enjoy, but ... it's a zombie movie. Of course there's going to be blood. What probably made it the most enjoyable for me was that, while it was a zombie flick, it was also very, very funny. I was laughing almost the entire time.

First: I loved the main character's "survival list" - because I swear that's something I will be doing if we ever face the zombie apocalypse. The little popups throughout the movie, reminders of various rules, were also great.

Second: I loved all the characters. I could empathise with geeky Columbus, beat-em-up Tallahassee was just awesome (and reminded me a little of "Shoot then ask" Jayne from Firefly, except with less guns), Wichita was hot, and Little Rock was cute in a "I'm older than I look" kind of way. I was so worried near the end that some of them were going to die and I was like "But, noooo! I like them too much!"

Third: The whole thing was just so absurd. Driving across the country to get to a theme park, massacring zombies all along the way? The basic plot makes no sense - but it was well done.

In all: 3.5 out of 4 stars due to some things being a little too cliche or gimmicky.

Now, I tried to not give away much plot on Zombieland, but there will be spoilers for 9 as I discuss it, so ... if you haven't seen it yet and are planning on seeing it, don't read anymore! My rating of 9 is 2.5 out of 4 stars.


The next day, (October 3) I went and saw 9 (rated PG13) with a small group of friends.

I liked 9, but wasn't overly impressed by it. I left the theater feeling a little let down and underwhelmed, after having heard so much good about the film.

I liked the characters, but couldn't really empathize with any of them. They all seemed very one-dimensional, which was perhaps on purpose, since they were all pieces of someone's soul.

On that note, it seemed that each of the characters embodied some specific part of their creators personality.

• 1 was Self-Preservation, and Preservation-of-Group. His main interest was keeping everybody (and himself) safe. Perhaps that aspect of the scientists personality was the first to go, so that he could complete the remaining 8.
• 2 was Innovation and Exploration. He was, at his center, Inquisitive.
• 3 and 4 were probably my favorites (tied with 6). They are twins and don't speak (3 has no mouth) but communicate with blinks and other visual cues. They are Scholarly. They spend most of their time in, what I think used to be, a library - cataloguing, memorizing, and learning.
• 5 was the Healer, Pacifist, and (according to Wikipedia) the Engineer. He was also the Student to 2. The main things we see from him is his Healer nature.
• 6 was my other favorite - the Artist. He rarely talks, but when he did it was important. I don't know why I liked him so much ... I think he reminded me a bit of myself.
• 7 was the Warrior. Bravery, a Fighting Spirit. She's also the only female in the group. I liked that she was included, and female, but it felt almost like a patronizing sort of thing. Also - the stitchpunks were given life from the scientist. Who was male. Where'd a female personality come from?
• 8 was most definitely the Bully. Perhaps he is supposed to protect the group, but he seems to be more a stereotypical more-brawn-than-brains-bully. He also has a drug problem.
• and, of course, titular 9. 9 is, of course, the Hero. He has aspects of all the other stitchpunks (bravery, curiosity, questioning), and seems to be the most fleshed out of all the characters. I didn't like him much, though.

Something that bothered me, a lot, was the ending. Now - I didn't mind the use of "alchemy" or "magic" in the movie (after all, it fits with Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and Niven/Lackey's law: "any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology"), it fit with the scene, and I was comfortable with the combination of "magic" and technology.

No, the part that bugged me was that the spirits of those who were lost (1, 2, 5, 6, and 8) were just released. They have a way of bringing the spirits back. They have bodies for 4 of the 5, and could easily get a holding body for 2, and yet .... they release the souls into the sky where they give birth to .... bacteria? amoebas? I know it was supposed to be a touching "farewell" scene, but I just kept thinking "No! You can save them! WTF are you doing!?"

Finally, I didn't feel like there was a plot so much as "Oh, here's some events I want to happen. Lets string them together!" Which I didn't enjoy very much.

So, 2.5/4 for 9 because of a lack of plot, character development, and a crappy ending.