House of 9 (2005)

the only reason i gave 5/10 is ... because the end saves a little bit the situation....the rest...how to describe, low budget = never mind when you have a good story and good actors. the idea of the film is not new, but i doesn't care, there was the possibility to make more out of this film, but this was really bad. bad actors, bad camera, bad effects, you see...as i say everything bad but not the end and the idea...if you have nothing else to watch at home then this film, then it is okay to look it, otherwise skip.greetings from cologne

A group of people -- nine to be exact -- are trapped in a house. They are given instructions over an intercom, basically telling them that the last one who lives will receive five million dollars. From there on out, the house gets dangerous: will we see the best or the worst of human nature? One could describe this movie as "Saw 2" meets "House on Haunted Hill", though that wouldn't really do this film justice. Others have compared it to "Battle Royale". Simply put, while the themes may overlap, this film is still unique in many ways. Which isn't always easy after a century of plots being used up.Dennis Hopper has a fairly large role, but mysteriously he appears as a priest. Also, he talks slow and awkward like he can't remember his lines. I didn't really think this captured his ability very well. As another reviewer said, "Dennis Hopper is ineffective as a priest. If you're going to have Hopper in your movie; make the most of it, don't give him a role like this." There seemed to be little concern among the housemates that the food was poisoned. Or the booze. It is mentioned once, but I believe this is after they've already been eating and drinking.The film has a weird soundtrack, which seems out of place (too pop rock for a horror film), and there's a strange hip-hop dance scene. I don't know what is up with that. But the film as a whole is good, and I have to say it has a great ending. I can't say what it is, of course, but if the film does not impress you, wait until the end because I think it really redeems itself of any flaws.

I caught this by chance flicking through the channels . Dennis Hopper ? He is a very underrated actor best known for playing bad guys . Likwise Peter Capaldi he has recently been picking up good parts in film and television recently . However I should have paid more attention to the supporting cast . Kelly Brook is someone best known for modeling while Susie Amy is best known for her role as Chardonnay in British trash classic FOOTBALLERS WIVES . No , actually she's known only as Chardonnay which gives a clue as to her talents and her non career The story starts with nine characters getting chloroformed and abducted by an unknown assailant . They wake up in a basement of a house where a transmitted voice tells them they're going to play a game where the last one alive will win $5 million and be given their freedom . Obviously the voice has seen both BIG BROTHER and SAW . Sadly the producers of HOUSE OF 9 have used BIG BROTHER as their main inspiration rather than SAW which means we're subjected to a bunch of whiny , unlikable foul mouthed non entities who deserve all that's coming to them There's little in the way of plot and little in the way of character development . The cast don't help themselves much either and even Hopper gives an unconvincing performance as an " Oirish " priest who can't even complete a sentence without breaking in to his natural American accent . Director Steve R Monroe seems more interested in to inserting a power ballad sequence than developing Phillipe Vidal's screenplay and the ending where Brook's character ( Who's miraciously survived electrocution ) wins the money only to find herself locked in another vault makes no sense whatsoever

big brother meets survivor as nine people are locked in a house and told only one will live to collect the five million dollar prize.This is a been there and done that in the extreme, with riffs from other better movies stolen. Whats worse then the fact that the film is so derivative is the fact that it changes the rules a couple of times. I hate when films do that since its a clear sign that the filmmakers were not clever enough to work out a clear plot. Clkealry they didn't trust themselves to come up with a fair way to the end. Flaws aside this is still watchable in an undemanding mood-though it is quite forgettable which is good since its not something you'll recommend 4 out of 10