I once had an argument with an art professor over the difference between an artist and an illustrator. He told me, for example, that Norman Rockwell was a brilliant illustrator . I insisted the man was an artist. (Oils and a canvas were involved, after all.) No, no, the prof replied; there was nothing to interpret in a Rockwell image, nothing left to the imagination. Hence the man was an illustrator. I didn’t get it.

But maybe I’m beginning to.

Director Shane Acker is obviously a brilliant animator. In his first feature film, he renders a magnificently detailed, horrifically ruined Earth (or someplace very much like it) in the aftermath of an apocalyptic war between man and machine. Apparently man has lost, but machines haven’t fared much better. Little remains intact.

Shortly before the annihilation, a scientist manages to create nine small sentient creatures, little more than rag dolls. He gives them life with the intent of preserving humanity’s legacy.

These nine creatures awaken in a strange, scorched world and must fend off the remaining machines that lurk with the intent of snuffing out any lingering traces of man. Acker’s story is about the last of these stitchedtogether beings, a gentle creature whose name is simply 9.

In terms of sheer visual impact, I believe “9” is a film of considerable achievement. The animated depiction of a world in ruins is nothing short of breathtaking.

Watching these small, peaceful creatures forge a pintsize environment to suit their own needs is also astounding. I suspect, had they spent much of the film building a brave new world amid the ruins, “9” might have been an easy classic. Switching media for a moment, “9” could have infused more the nobility of “Myst” than the nihilism of “Doom.”

But much too soon, these creatures are pushed into battle with the powerful machines. Too soon, the human traits of their predecessors pit them toward violence and survival. Too soon “9” becomes a cat-and-mouse game relying on many similar tales well-known in sci-fi lore. I’ve already heard phrases calling it “a Smurf snuff film,” “Terminator 9” and “Raggedy Andy versus Predator.”

In other words, there’s not much to interpret, nothing about these potentially ingenious little creatures left to the imagination. “9” is simply “Mad Max” played out in one-ninth scale, filled with anger and hostility. It’s a wonderful cinematic illustration, but is it art?

The film is a direct result of Shane Acker’s UCLA student project in 2005. That 11-minute animation won a host of prizes as well as an Academy Award nomination. Not bad for a college kid. It also brought Acker to the attention of people like Tim Burton, who insisted “9” could be a fulllength animated feature.

Ironically, Acker’s original film manages to capture the artistic flair that I found lacking in “9” (the major motion picture)—more a “Stranger in a Strange Land” concept, less nonstop, usagainstthem aggression. You can view it on YouTube by searching for Acker, 9, 2005. Without any dialogue, with little introduction to 9 or his species, we’re forced to intuit his existence and his potential.

The question: How to fill another hour? (Answer: Blow stuff up.) I suspect adolescent sci-fi and fantasy buffs—weaned on cinematic aggression—will eat it up and “9” will be a pretty decent hit. I’m not saying it doesn’t deserve credit . . . just a shame it didn’t reach deeper into this postapocalyptic future and devise a fanciful new beginning, rather than continue the old shootemup cinematic standby.

CG technology is its own new beginning; it deserves more than a regurgitation of antiquated plots to push forward and thrive.