User Reviews (78)

Add a Review

  • There is a certain concept that I love seeing within movies, when a group of people wake up in unfamiliar territory and have to participate in some dangerous activity such as a game.

    Obviously the SAW franchise comes under this category, the Cube movies and the brilliant Circle (2015) and The Human Race (2013).

    This is one of those and I was immediatly thrilled upon realising. I just love the idea I find it fascinating, how people react, the different personalities and the ruthlessness of people.

    House of 9 see's a group of people locked inside a house together unable to escape. Upon awaking the instructions are announced, only one can leave and they'll win five million pounds.

    Inevitably it doesn't take long before things to fall apart and the way it happens sadly could be better, but is still entertaining.

    This British made thriller stars Kelly Brook, Dennis Hopper and the last Doctor Who Peter Capaldi.

    Despite it's flaws I enjoyed this and was very impressed with the movies closing scene. Though it doesn't match the dizzying heights of the other examples of this concept it's still a passable movie.

    The Good:

    Great idea

    Fantastic finale

    The Bad:

    Questionable execution

    Hoppers accent is horrific

    Things I Learnt From This Movie:

    Guns in movies are magic and have unlimited ammo

    Kelly Brook can act without showing boobage
  • Okay folks, everyone first needs to calm down about this film. It's not that bad... How many posts accuse it of copying Saw & Saw II, well if any of you had taken a minute before you spew your complaints. THIS FILM WAS IN PRODUCTION IN October OF 2003!!!That means the script was written way before that, any of you know where Saw & Saw II were then? This goes for the critics reviewing the film too. Shame on you for not doing your job.

    As for ripping off Cube or My Little Eye, or even Battle Royale, and House On Haunted Hill, yes they are similar in theme, but does that mean the the filmmakers intentionally copied them! Half the films in Hollywood including many of the greatest have similar themes just different situations. Why don't you attack some of the 20, 30, 40, million dollar films that have all the money in the world to do what they want but just simply do remakes of old films and TV shows and rip off other films?

    This film, although not great, focuses on the human nature of this situation. The psychology. And I can't believe how many people do not get the fact that the characters in the house have been picked because THEY ARE STEREOTYPES! (There actually are those in the world you know?) Anyone see CRASH for God sakes? The guy who set this up picked them for that reason, so he would get his "SHOW". He knew what each one was capable of or wanted to push one to kill, like the Priest. The speech at the beginning even states that they were not so much chosen for who they are, but WHAT THEY ARE. That is so obvious. And he also states that they have NO CONNECTION, so stop trying to find one. Those of you complaining that they immediately accept that they have to kill each other, I don't know what film you are watching. The french guy tells them he thinks that is what the Watcher guy wants but they far from accept it at that point. And for them all going mad too quick. How do you know it's too quick, there is no time frame in the film, that is also why there are the montages that many of you seem to hate, to show time passing. If they showed the film in real time you would have all complained the film was too long...

    As for the acting I think besides Dennis Hopper you people are all out of your minds. These actors were really good, and if you want to blame someone for Dennis Hopper being bad, try blaming Dennis Hopper instead of the director. When was the last time he was good in anything? I know all the British have a problem with Kelly Brook, but it kind of stinks that you can't see it in you to admit that she was good.

    This film should not be labeled a Horror film because it obviously attracts a crowd that expects something else. Ashame, but I think it will do well in the US.

    The film had a great style, good acting, good music, and oh yea, all you who complained about the guy TRYING to act like a rapper, he is one! Asher D from the very successful So Solid Crew in the UK! It had a great ending. It does not rely on gore like Saw so maybe you can at least give it that, although there is some very graphic violence.

    If you are fans of the Saw films or Cube, etc... maybe you should just skip this film cause it obviously was not made for you.
  • If you want an idea of what House of 9 is like - just imagine Cube, mixed with a little bit of Saw and My Little Eye; sprinkled with a thick coating of horrid, forced British accents that couldn't sound more ridiculous if the Queen herself was putting her voice to every character. As if the mess you're no doubt imagining isn't already bad enough - you'd best find time to imagine that the script was written by a retard and a couple of monkeys; because I know one thing, if I was trapped in a house with a bunch of complete strangers; I'd try and get out. If that didn't work, I'd try again and if I was still unsuccessful, I'd try again. One thing I definitely wouldn't find myself doing is drawing straws as to who shares which room with who and bedding down for the night! The plot is one of the most simple and overused in cinema history (but more so nowadays due to the popularity of reality TV), in that it follows a bunch of strangers thrown into a situation together. We follow them as they try to work out what to do, and get to watch as the group develops. It really isn't as interesting as it sounds.

    Scriptwriter Philippe Vidal may think that he's the next Ingmar Bergman, but I can assure him that he's not. Aside from featuring no end of illogical instances, the characters hardly develop above what they are in the first place; and this isn't good considering that this is supposed to be a character orientated film. The plot is divided between two parts. Early on, we've got the introductions to the clichéd characters and some scenario building, and then after a very boring stretch that features two horrible songs; the film becomes what people turned up to see as the characters start killing one another. The second half of the movie is no doubt better than the first; but it's only the lesser of two evils, rather than being a great climax to the film. The cast list is unimpressive, with only two names standing out. 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. The other name belongs to Kelly Brook. I wasn't aware that British model was an actress...and it would seem that, actually, she isn't; despite appearing in the film. To be fair, this isn't all bad; as it's never boring for too long, and certain scenes are well implemented; but really, there's not enough here to warrant giving up ninety minutes of your time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    So people are kidnapped and awake in a large house. A voice tells them they have nothing in commun and that if they start killing each other,the only survivor will receive 5 million dollars.

    The problem here is that nothing really leads us to believe that the unseen person will keep his promesses and the people in the house are totally under written characters.

    After a little time trying to get out of the house,the people give up,eat the food(nobody seems to be really worried that it is poisoned)and take a little time to shout and argue.

    SPOILERS:

    Then after a long while comes the first death,an accidental one which reminded me of the film THE HOLE.

    Then a cop locks up a black man because he thinks he tried to steal his gun.The priest played by DENNIS HOPPER(who prays a lot and speaks biblical phrases during the film)releases him and the black guy strucks repeatedly the cop's head which ends in very bloody mess.

    Then the black man is found hanged.Did he commit suicide or was he murdered?(Even i don't know!)

    Then in the film's last 15 minutes,a lot of people start killing other people as if their lives depended on it. Was it because they really believed they could get 5 millions?Is it because it was too hot in the house?Was it because they wanted more food?

    The most likely reason is because the film had to end at the 90 minutes mark! The last rush to wrap up things is kind of surprising since other scenes before that were just fillers. People dancing to music.People thinking to slow piano music. A man putting lipstick on and kissing the mirror!(More than once!) People acting like if they were in a music video!!

    The ending is slightly original but far from worth sitting through all of this film. You could always fast forward on DVD to it or read it here:you see,only a girl survives. She's not really a bad person.Circonstances made her the sole survivor.A door opens,she picks up a bag(possibly full of money but it is never opened)and walks to another room where other people also have other bags which could mean that multiple games have been going on and that this game is continuing....
  • Nine strangers – a priest; a dancer; a designer; an aspirant rapper; a former tennis pro; a woman on probation; an unsuccessful composer and his wife; and a detective – are randomly abducted, drugged and locked in a house by a wealthy maniac. They are informed through a public address system that there are seventy-five cameras following them, and only one will survive and win US$ 5,000,000.00 to keep quiet. The psychological game begins, with fear and greed affecting the participants.

    "House of 9" is an opportunist story and rip-off of the storyline of 1997 "Cube" and using psychological elements of 2001 "Das Experiment". The story is also very similar to 2005 "Saws 2", but it is difficult to say which one is the rip-off of the other since they were released in the same year. Dennis Hopper, the famous name of the cast, never convinces as a priest, and it seems that time for his retirement has arrived. The unpredictable and surprising end saves this forgettable movie from a lower rating. My vote is six.

    Title (Brazil): "Aprisionados" ("Imprisoned")
  • 9 people in a sealed house. They are told only one of them would leave and he will be given 5 million dollars and then they are left to their own devices. You would expect some subtle psychological drama, but no. All the characters are archetypes, they behave programatically like little robots and after a while they only hurry up the pace since the movie's got to end at one point or another.

    They do spend about 10 minutes to break out of the house, I give you that. Why they would chose to pathetically wait for the end the rest of the movie is beyond me. At least half of the movie consists of women shouting incoherently and men fighting for idiotic reasons.

    However it is a better than a lot of other movies and it is worth a see, especially if you are a kid or you have tried to watch Das Experiment and stopped in the middle because you couldn't take it. Horror it is not, yet the end is funny and saves a lot of the movie.

    I kinda liked Dennis Hopper. Why does he play in movies like that lately? Ntz Ntz Ntz
  • Many people say that this film is like Saw, Cube and other reality TV shows, but I judge this film on its own merits.

    On the down sides, the plot is slow at times but not for long. These lulls give you time to mull over what has happened and how bonds are forming without affecting the plot lines progression. Then the scripting is weak, but maybe this was done deliberately so as not to over do the films dialogue. This has happened in some films that have left you with too much too process when you consider that the number of characters are enough to keep track off. The accents are awful. When are British film makers going to learn that not are English actor and actresses have to speak the Queens English or have a cockney accent? It became painful at times to listen to Kelly Brook deliver her lines with that accent. I know shes well spoken, but that could have been worked on I'm sure.

    On the plus sides however, there are no irrational reactions from any of the characters (even though the circumstances would have allowed for it). There was no annoying running around and screaming like in most teen slasher movies, but instead a calm acceptance of the circumstance that lay before the group. There was also no need for the killings to start straight away. In most films like this, someone dies whilst the introduction credits are still rolling but not in this one. Makes a refreshing change to see such reservation in the scripting as to hold the audience for a good while without having to resort pointless violence.

    For me, the most intriguing part of the film is to see how we as humans can resort back to our primal instincts without much effort. How we can turn on one another when personal survival take precedence. In a way they are forced to kill each other, but the speed at which they turn after the first dead is pretty much how I think it would happen. Great job with the accuracy in delivering how animalistic we still are.

    All in all, a good film that would have been much better with certain tweaks.

    I would if there will be a sequel?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Let me start by saying that this movie had great potential!! It sounded very similar to Saw II and even though the majority of the actors/actresses in the movie are not well known, the fact that Dennis Hopper's name appeared in the cast had to be a good sign... right??. Wrong!!

    Unfortunately it was one of his worst performances i've seen to date. I still can't comprehend why he would sign up for such a bad movie. The fact that he was made put on an Irish Priest's accent for the movie immediately ruined it for me. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against the Irish, I am Irish myself :), but it just goes against my grain when directors fail to realize that we don't all speak with the same stereotypical accent!! Anyway, this was the least of my concerns with the movie.

    The acting by all throughout was appalling. Also the fact that it took almost 1 hour for the movie to start was very irritating. It's classed as a Horror but i'm afraid to say it didn't provide a hint of the scare factor that we horror loving people expect. It didn't even have a scary soundtrack, or a given "jump" moment, which is key to all horror movies.

    The only redeeming factor of this movie is the end when you find out what happens to the winner. I would highly recommend that you avoid this movie unless you have an undying urge to lose 1.5hrs of your life :)
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The only reason I gave this movie a "1" is because zero is not available. This movie sucked so hard, I think I died a little inside when I watched it. It is awful and idiotic.

    The ridiculous and unrealistic behavior of the characters- ALL OF THEM- will have you cussing and throwing stuff at the TV. There is absolutely no character development, yet the movie tries (and fails) to draw on the characters' backgrounds, for supposed 'reasons' as to why they behave the way they do. Not that it matters, because you will despise all but one of them anyway- and the one you don't hate, you'll be indifferent to.

    An example of the moronic behavior (SPOILER!): one of the characters murders another, by beating him in the head with a pipe. Yet the other characters do nothing. They just stand there watching! And, they also completely ignore the murderer after he is done killing the guy, like nothing happened. Yet when the murderer himself ends up dead, they are suddenly out for blood, screaming and calling for the guy they think did it to be killed. Yeah, that makes so much sense.

    The guys who wrote and directed this should be blacklisted and banned from having anything to do with movies for the rest of their lives. They shouldn't even be allowed in the theatre as spectators, lest their overwhelming FAIL infect some innocent movie.

    Seriously, run from this movie. Run far and fast. And if you ever see the writer, director, or any of the actors in person, please tell them I hate them very much and want my 90 minutes back.
  • kickinghigh21 November 2005
    OK, here we go! This movie isn't worthy of academy awards for stellar acting and the plot is a little frivolous (a la most teenage-aimed horror movies) BUT the cast are likable and the acting is decent enough. Kelly Brook and Asher D both put in admirable performances and Dennis Hopper although a little disappointing for a actor of his calibre is more than adequate. The plot isn't great as i mentioned and can easily be scrutinised BUT if you take the film for what it is and with a pinch of salt, it really is quite enjoyable. The scenes in the house are quite stylish and although in places it is predictable it is by no means all the way through...which i found was quite refreshing as in my opinion horror movies generally are so blatantly obvious! To conclude, this is worth buying in my opinion! Give it a go!
  • syncomm8 August 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    Dennis Hopper brings a unique angle to every film he stars in, and this is no exception. His persona is a great fit! Some have bashed this film for poor acting on the part of the mostly green cast, but their fresh faces actually give the viewer a better personal connection with them. The writing is over the top. This is not an action flick, nor is it your average psychological thriller. It doesn't fit cleanly into the "horror" genre either. It's really about the beast in all of us, and what we get for our "reward". There are some tedious moments, cultural stereotypes, and bad editing. Without saying too much, the ending of this movie makes the entire thing "not suck". Watch it.
  • You know u watch this movie... And think.. what if i was the one there.. what if i was one of the 9 people. What would be the first thing i would do??? what would be the first thing i would think??? When would i actually accept the fact that there really is no way out.. but to kill everyone around me...

    Out of past experience i personally have never seen a movie like this. Its not your common big brother type of movie.. but more like a movie...where u just have to accept that sometimes.. g-d won't help u... not a cell phone.. nothing will...

    enjoy the movie.. and give it a chance.. its the ending that will get u...
  • Oh dear. House Of Nine, unfortunately, has Euro TV trash written all over it. The giveaway was, as always, that production companies from several countries have their finger in the pie, and the list of producers leads me to believe that oil money is involved at some point. Or perhaps sons of oil money who are a little bored with buying new cars and fancy turning their hand — that would be Daddy's oil money — to film financing. What with most of the world to sell it to, it will most certainly recoup its productions cost and then some. And most certainly some who see it will think it rather good. But it's not rather good. It's rather bad. I picked this up for £3 at my local Tesco seeing that Dennis Hopper starred in it. Well, he does star in it, but his involvement means only that he must have several pressing bills to pay. Another name which caught my eye was that of Peter Capaldi who does such a splendid turn in In The Thick Of It and its cinema offspring In The Loop. Capaldi, too, must have several pressing bills. Oh, and Kelly Brook can't act, or at least acts no better than most wannabes in a sixth-form production. Hopper's 'oirish accent' slips everywhere from Ulster to Killarney and occasionally even Boston, the mad Frenchman overacts so much he probably thought he was on double wages. Briefly, a disparate group of nine people, chosen at random, are locked in a smallish mansion after being kidnapped in London. None is very nice, except Kelly Brook and 'oirish' Father Michael Duffy (Hopper), and it takes less than 24 hours for the lot of them to crack up. The idea is that they should all kill each other, and the last man or woman left standing wins £5 million. Er, and that's it. No other explanation is given, least of all at the end (and the ending is something of a pseudo-significant cop-out) and along the way there is plenty of blood and mayhem. What there isn't, however, is any real sense of horror, any suspense or any slight reason to care what happens. As I say, Euro TV trash to the end. Having comprehensively dissed it, however, I would not discourage you from seeing it if it turns up on your TV channel one night and you have bugger all else to do. But neither would I encourage you. The thought which finally stays with me is: just what was Dennis Hopper doing getting involved in complete cobblers such as this? The pay cheque must have been worth it.
  • edarko19 July 2005
    Well this is something. I enjoyed every moment of this movie. It is very sad, that people accuse this kind of movie which has no big time advertisement of being a crap movie and a fact that there is no well known actors (except Hopper), that then acting is bad. Well we can't say that acting is the best but that is not the hole point. If we look today what kind of crap is Hollywood shooting with no new ideas and that is why they look back and remake classics, this movie really deserve to take a look at. For me the story was tense all the time and we can see what a man greed can do. Also the ending was amazing and open for sequel, i mean who would expect this kind of ending, it was great ending that could follow this movie story. I think ending couldn't be better. Let's get this straight... story is amazing, acting is average and the final product is well above today's average movies.
  • I'll get right to the point... The movie sucked. Bigtime. Not one of the actors made the movie watchable. Not even Dennis Hopper. At no point in this movie I felt like "ohh whats gonna happen now" or "ohh how exciting it is"... It was more like "only 45 minutes in to the movie...come ooon, FFW please". Every attempt from the director to make it exciting fails. Miserably. The only thing he makes u do is wonder how this movie even got past the cutting table.

    Without spoiling anything for u thats gonna see it anyway, just be prepared for bad acting, bad story and bad script. The ending was...well...you will just have to see it or read some spoilers somewhere. I might even go so far to say that the Swedish edition of Big Brother made this look really bad.

    This gets 1 star only because that is the lowest vote i can give. If there had been a cross or a skull I'd put that instead.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It is painfully obvious that this is an attempt to create a cube movie. The writers did their homework on movies like the for-mentioned cube, my little eye and basically every other movie that has a bunch of people in a confined space together. This European attempt to add yet another flick to this sub genre falls short on almost every level.

    Like I said before in other reviews one of the basics to get any viewer involved is to flesh the characters given in the movie. If they stand shallow no one cares who dies and who lives. If you secretly try to rip other movies off at least try to keep either the gore or the excitement of the originals on par or top it in the gore department. If you don't you will get the equivalent of a tasteless fast food treat; it fills but it is nothing special.

    Spoilers ahead:

    This movie starts promising though, while following the beaten track of the in this case 9 strangers put together the makers produce a classy setting. A cemented shut building with only 1 door. This setting is made very well, shot on location in Romania it provides stylish furniture, marble floors.. all black and white. The first few moments after the unseen watcher has delivered his message "9 go in one comes out with 5 million dollars" are the best of the film. The victims try franticly to escape which gives the movie its few engaging moments. However after 15 minutes they give up and the makers have got some padding to do. This amounts in nothing happening the next hour or so and then the makers suddenly realize there are still around 8 people left that have to go..this proves to be a bit steep in the remaining 24 minutes or so. Especially since there are no traps inside the location but only the uninteresting people to work with.

    The premise is good, people cant get out except if they kill the others but since the moron level is so high you couldn't care less after watching people rap(not kidding.. it is the token black guy in a training suit and gold chains), dance, drink and eat for an hour. The ending is nice ish but predictable.

    They should have credited the accent of poor Dennis Hopper as an extra, it comes and goes and provides the only source of entertainment for most of the movie.

    Skippable fare.
  • The start of the movie was nice, at least the soundtrack was. A moment later I thought I was watching a parody on some other movie. Not only the actors can't act, but the movie is full of shot/scene mistakes. If you have seen SAW, then please, do not watch this movie at all, cause it makes you wonder if you will ever be enjoying a film with a similar script again. The appearance of Kelly Brook, for me was the only reason to watch the movie till the end. The only more known actor you'll meet is Dennis Hopper. He's the only one of the complete crew who takes his job seriously. Let's hope the next two movies directed by Steve R. Monroe (to be released this year) will make it up to this one.
  • I can't even begin to describe how bad this movie is. Even Dennis Hopper sucks here.

    The writing is full of clichés and lacks any good or solid storyline, the direction is sloppy and amateur, the acting (by ALL actors) is simply crappy, they look like it's their first time in front of the camera (for some of them this is probably true, for some I hope it will also be the last), the camera work is over-dramatic and very non-original. The stereotypes are unsurprisingly boring (a clothing designer? he's gay! a black young man? he's a rapper! a french man? he's arrogant! how original!), the music is bombastic and inappropriate, and worst of all - nothing here is scary, frightening or even thrilling. Hell, nothing here is even INTERESTING.

    They should show this movie at film schools to tech you how NOT to make a film.

    oh but the editing is quite alright.
  • bplus12312 March 2008
    I've been looking for another movie like 'Cube'. It was a great psycho-thriller. Somehow Cube got off the path and the sequels led you to ultimately a dead end. I hope there is a sequel to 'House of 9'. I want to get my questions answered. Something that wasn't done in any of the 'Cube' movies. Now if they attempt to do the same thing then there is no need for a sequel. Just leave it as is and be done with it.I gave it a seven because there were no questions answered in this first film. I still think this is a movie that anyone would enjoys horror or thrillers would really get into. BUT there's needs to be a sequel or else it would be really disappointing!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "House of 9 Idiots". There; I have just renamed the movie, and will refer to it this way from this point onwards.

    Nine imbeciles are randomly picked, kidnapped, and then locked up in a large sealed house. The objective: the last male or female imbecile standing gets 5 million dollars. Sounds intriguing? Don't be fooled. Run. Run from this garbage.

    I've never considered Dennis Hopper a particularly good actor. He is passable when playing bad guys – which is the only use I see for him - so for somebody to so blatantly miscast him as an Irish priest was clearly asking for trouble. I have rarely seen or heard such unconvincing prayers – and there are at least a dozen of them. The less said about his corny on-and-off quasi-Irish accent, the better. So bemused was I whenever Hopper was trying to be all preachy and nice, that I was convinced (until his killing) that he was the man behind the game, or at least working for the people who orchestrated it all. What else was I supposed to think: that he is an IRISH PRIEST? I couldn't do that. What shall I compare it to… It would be like casting Roger Moore as Kublai Khan. No, I take that back, Moore would struggle less in that part.

    The rest of the casting isn't much better. We have an actress playing a former tennis star; she is neither athletic not strong, lacks discipline, and nothing she does or says even hints at the possibility that she could have ever done any sports, let alone professionally. The stereotypical angry black man – a rapper, no less - is a walking cliché, far too predictable with his violent outbursts and hippity-hoppity posturing hence boring/corny in all of his actions and utterances.

    Yet there is one actor/character who trumps them all. Nobody can touch Francis, played by the stupidly named Hippolyte Girardot (I didn't make that name up). It's hard to say who was worse: the fictional character Francis or the totally talent-free French actor with the silly name who played him with such clueless gusto. The two go hand-in-hand; they are a perfect match - like conjoined twins - and cannot be separated nor analyzed one at a time. For all practical purposed, Francis IS Hippolyte and Hippolyte is Francis. They are one. One big roll of French crap.

    His wimpy high-pitched voice, his dorky mannerisms, his goofy line-delivery, his nerdy motions, his stupid face, and his over-acting non-skills sink whatever little there is left in HO9I by the time of the "grand finale"; though in his defense, there is very little left to spoil by the time he gets to "shine". To add insult to the bad-casting injury, the part of Francis itself had been written using the collective brain-power of a family of trailer-park amoebas. Francis is shot in the stomach – point blank – and yet he SINGS, he DANCES, he RUNS, he JUMPS, and he kills people. The bullet injury actually gives him more energy, rather than drain energy from him. (Bullet wounds aren't what they used to be; perhaps humans are developing immunity against them – at least in pitiful thrillers written for the true hapless retards out there, the dumb shmucks that actually enjoyed this piece of celluloid litter.)

    Predictably, the "slightly electrocuted" vegetarian goodie-two-shoes brunette survives the second attack by Francis/Hippolyte, inadvertently killing him. Not on purpose! I must make that absolutely clear. She is a vegetarian hence a goody hence she cannot harm any living creature except through an accident.

    What happens after that, in the final scene, has to be seen to be believed. To merely write it down here would not only spoil your "fun" but would do injustice to the hilarity of the scene in question: it's a visual experience, sort of like 30s slapstick. It's the most belly-achingly funny twist ending in the history of all moronic twist endings. I can complain on and on how this HO9I rubbish bored me to tears with its ridiculous dialog, implausible characterization, and very little happening in the first hour, but what I cannot moan about is that the ending left me cold: I laughed very hard indeed, and for that I thank the movie. It wasn't much of a redemption, because I still consider HO9I to be generously awarded with the 1/10 (far too high, really, insulting other 1/10 movies some of which happen to be ten times better). The laugh was elicited unintentionally, but a laugh is a laugh, and that's all that counts.

    HO9I is hands down the most shoddily put-together crap-fest I have seen this year, and trust me there were many others. The acting, the dialog, the cretinous plot-twists, the absurd characterization, and by far the dumbest ending of them all: it's all here. The horrible music interludes and ludicrous deaths/murders round off the rest of the nonsense.

    If you are expecting something like the "Cube" or even "House on Haunted Hill", forget it. A certain Philippe Vidal, who is responsible for this amazingly daft script, has only this pile of amoeba-manure to his credit; nothing before or since this flop. (Check his bio.) Which brings me to the one redeeming value of HO9I: it cut short a writing career that shouldn't have ever started in the first place. As for the blundering director, Stevie Monroe, he stems from a movie clan; yet another silver-spoon-fed incompetent fool who had a movie career handed to him on a plate thanks to the high corruption i.e. nepotism in the sinking world of increasingly dumbed-down and low-quality cinema. His resume is a what-is-what of TV fluff and big-screen garbage, though even he might be ashamed by this pathetic crap. Nepotism is a disease, like a zombie virus outbreak that spreads exponentially until nothing and nobody can stop it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    At first, the movie had strange resemblance to movie "House on Haunted Hill" (1999) where 6 individuals voluntarily entered a historical mansion for a tour, then they learned that whoever would "survive the night" in that mansion, would be paid $1 Million. In that movie, they all fought against each other, just like in "House of 9". Throughout the movie "House of 9", the story was easy to follow, and kept my interest, in spite of the gory scenes. However I was puzzled at the END of "House of 9" where it showed no closure, only a scene where the lone survivor "Lea" was provided that bulky duffle-bag, only to be lead into that other room with 8 others (totally different strangers) holding same type of duffle-bags. I mean, are there plans for a sequel to this movie, perhaps?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The whole movie feels like a well produced made-for-TV show. Usually these types of movies either have a lot of shocking images Saw, Saw II) or a good story/execution (the cube) but this movie has neither. It really feels like a movie length episode of the Twilight Zone.

    It could do with a bit more sexy scenes (especially for Kelly Brook) or gore and slightly less stereotype (angry black man having issue with asshole white male, lush rich (or ex-rich in this case) girl, Sexy and innocent girl follows old wise guy, junkie 1st to freak out....) In the end it just make me want to go back and watch The Cube or Saw just to appreciate how good they really are.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The plot to House of 9 is uncomplicated and straightforward. Nine complete strangers are abducted and taken to a house. Their kidnapper wants this varied group to play a game for his amusement. Think of it as a life-or-death game of reality television. The last person alive wins $5 million dollars.

    There appears to be a recent trend with this kind of horror/thriller movie that seem to have gotten a big boost form the movie Saw. House of 9 shares some common themes with Saw of being trapped against your will and at the mercy of an unknown, unseen madman, but nowhere near as good or interesting (not that Saw was very good itself). The biggest problem with House of 9 is the utter predictability of the whole situation. For example, how could anyone not spot the game's "winner" five minutes into the movie? Where's the suspense in that?

    The acting is another weak aspect of House of 9. While there were one or two decent performances (Morven Christie being the highlight for me), most of the cast seems to be in over their heads. The bad acting extends to the one "name" in the film, Dennis Hopper. His "accent on – accent off" priest is very convincing. I've never been one to kneel before the Dennis Hopper altar and I'm not about to start after having seen House of 9.

    I don't mean to imply that it's all bad. There are a few moments and set-pieces throughout the film that I actually enjoyed. But whatever enjoyment I derived from these moments was off-set completely by the twist in the finale of House of 9 and the beyond ridiculous ending. It stretches believability to the breaking point.
  • mvossie21 August 2005
    i don't want to spoil this movie so i wont go into detail in the beginning i thought what a strange and pity full movie but wow i was proved wrong...a very nice and unexpected ending as well, 2 thumbs up for this one. as always Dennis hopper played great again, a small role and using a typical English accent. the strength of the movie lays in the unexpected events that follow. Funny that someone who found this movie not great told us that he hated the french guy...just a typical example of good acting (he played an obnoxious guy) OK you love or hate this movie..i loved it cause when there is good acting and a surprising unexpected plot 9 out of 10 times it is a great movie (and let me tell you..i saw a lot!!) along with saw one of the best movies this year
An error has occured. Please try again.