An all-star cast including Melissa Joan Hart (Sabrina: The Teenage Witch), John Terry (TV?s Lost, 24) and James C. Victor (TV's 24) triggers top-notch suspense in this gruesome tale of a masked gunman on the prowl. With ho... more »ods over their heads, nine handcuffed strangers are about to learn their kidnapper?s game. They must work together to answer one question: Why have they been targeted? One of them will die every 10 minutes unless they can strip away each other?s secrets to solve this dangerous, twisted puzzle that could leave NINE DEAD.« less
"A masked maniac locks nine strangers in a room together and reveals that he will kill one of them every ten minutes until they can figure out the factor that connects them all. As the clock starts to tick, the desperate prisoners scramble to solve the malevolent mystery in time to save their own lives. The acting, sets and story are quite average. Yes the movie is a lot like the idea of Saw. Actually not that bad, but not that good either."
Suspenseful - But Completely Unoriginal
Compay | New Orleans, LA | 03/25/2010
(3 out of 5 stars)
"The best part about Nine Dead is that it keeps you in suspense. The downside? It's been done before in the 2007 film Fermat's Room.
The story is centered around nine strangers who have been kidnapped and handcuffed in a room. Every 10 minutes, their kidnapper will kill one of them, until they realize what they all have in common. Their situation is also complicated by the fact that one of the nine strangers doesn't speak English.
The biggest problem I have with the film is that the film's concept has already been tackled by several movies, including La Habitación de Fermat. In Fermat's Room, four strangers are trapped in a shrinking room that will crush them to death, unless they can discover what they all have in common.
The majority of the cast has worked primarily in television, and there's nothing particularly special about the cinematography. While the film was suspenseful, the film's open-ended conclusion will disappoint many viewers. Not to mention that it was virtually impossible for the kidnapper to know how many of the strangers were connected. Even though I'm straight, I thought the director's choice of which character just so happened to be a pedophile was an unnecessary stereotype and in awful taste.
Overall, the movie is worth a buck to watch through Redbox. But considering it's light on originality, I'd consider giving it a rent before deciding to buy the DVD."
Do not buy this
Eric Matz | 03/17/2010
(2 out of 5 stars)
"Save your money. Go get Netflix. This movie is available there as a Watch Instantly title. It's worth watching, but be prepared for a colossal disappointment in the abrupt ending."
Where the eff was the ending?
Brian M. Marousek | Maryland | 05/31/2010
(2 out of 5 stars)
"Ok, film makers, I know you read these reviews:
Where was the ending? That was lame as hell.
The movie was good but you ruined it with no ending.
How can I recommend a movie to anyone when it just ends?
Weak as hell. You should be ashamed.
Would have been a solid three stars (and a recommendation) with an ending."
Oh I remember her from my childhood - "Clarissa Explains it
Negative Comments | Columbus, OH | 05/25/2010
(2 out of 5 stars)
"I'll get to that in a moment.
For about as many unwanted Saw sequels we've had, it feels like we have about twice as many clones. Surprisingly, this one was executed in a way I haven't seen done prior, but it all ultimately goes back to putting strangers in a room.
**Rant about Melissa Joan Hart's acting**
Despite what I said in my other reviews where I might've mentioned that someone might've been the worst actor I've ever seen, Melissa Joan Hart in this movie takes the cake. I don't know if she's just not good in portraying the emotion of fear, but her acting singlehandedly kept me intrigued and glued. It was a guilty pleasure, very rarely do I get to see someone perform so badly at their craft. Her facial expressions were RIDICULOUS. She gestures and contorts her eyes, mouth, and particularly her EYEBROWS in unnecessary, cartoon-like ways. She puts the wrong emphasis on the words she's speaking, and delivers every line 'Nickelodeon style,' as if she's "giving it her all" on each line so you don't miss anything. Complete overacting, no nuance or subtlety. I haven't seen her in other movies, so I won't flat out say she's the worst actor ever, but this was the worst PERFORMANCE I've seen.
**Problems with the movie**
The story within the story was actually pretty decent and competently written, but the movie itself reeks of amateurishness. No wonder the writer of the script has this movie as his only credit for work he's done. I'm going to bookmark his IMDb page and periodically check to see if he does anything else, I'd surprised if he does. The story of how they were all connected to each other and how it relates to the masked kidnapper was intricately woven. That part was fine, it was the dialogue and the acting that killed this movie.
Here's the most infuriating thing- So the kidnapper comes in every 10 minutes to kill someone if they haven't figured out why each of them are being held captive right? Well, every time he comes in and chooses the person to kill, he gives them one last chance to explain why they're there, and if they get it right, he'd let them all go. All that these characters did was just try to reason by saying things like, "we need more time to figure it out." Don't you think you'd be speaking a hundred miles per hour on all the atrocities you might've done in your life and hope you guess right??? I'm sure anyone can imagine if they were in such a situation, you'd be nervously stumbling and stammering over words, but to not even so much as venture a GUESS is ridiculous. And yes, I realize the rules the kidnapper layed out was that each victim, upon their turn, had to not only guess why he or she was there, but why *everyone else was there as well. I have two counters to this:
1) When your life is on the line, and you think you have something to offer the killer as to what he's looking for, are you going to play by the rules? So what that you didn't meet the second qualification of knowing why the others were there, would you not tell this guy what "evil" things you think YOU might've done and hope you guess right? Clearly EACH person had a good idea of why they themselves were there, it was clear through the dialogue.
2) Even if you don't agree with my opinion above, then how about when there came a time in the movie where the characters more or less had the whole damn chain of events of the puzzle solved, with just a few missing pieces (at that point they still didn't figure out how the medical dude fit into the story). So they have 90% of it figured out, the killer comes in, and not ONE PERSON EVEN TRIES TO SELL HIM ON THEIR THEORY. The idiot cop just said something about, "we have most of it figured out, we need more time." WHY DON'T YOU TELL HIM WHAT YOU KNOW SO FAR YOU MORONIC IMBECILE. What, do you think he's going to prematurely kill you if you get the story wrong? And going even deeper into my abyss of madness (i.e., logic), I could sort of even understand why the other people who's turn hadn't come yet wouldn't say anything, so as to not bring attention to themselves by offering the solution (and potentially getting it wrong, and yeah, maybe being killed for it), But, if it's YOUR turn to die, and the killer is in your face, giving you one last guess to solve the puzzle, WHY WOULD YOU NOT TELL HIM WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW SO FAR??????????? Patrick Wehe Mahoney is probably the dumbest person on the planet. He's the writer..
Another stupid part:
Melissa Joan Hart said something about how a jury wouldn't rely on the testimony of a "60 year old woman." OMG, 60!! She's practically a dinosaur right? There's no way a 60 year old can remember something. Right...is this writer like 15 years old? Only young, dumb kids would think 60 is "senile and old.""