Customer Reviews

Session 9

5 star:		(54)
4 star:		(27)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(11)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

OK, This movie has gotten an average of 4 stars. DON'T FALL FOR IT! This movie STINKS!!!!! I made the mistake of purchasing the DVD after constant raves by friends and the majority of Amazon reviews. I guess I was too lazy to go out and rent it..I could have saved 15 bucks! I was expecting something like "The Ring" or "The 6th Sense," but this movie is far from their league. I was expecting to get creeped out, but I spent most of my WASTED time WAITING for something to happen! I'm just surprised that I didn't fall asleep like some of the more right-on reviewers of this movie. You may not agree, but I do urge anyone to RENT before you decide to buy this one. HUGE disappointment!

Was REALLY disappointed in this film. Starts slowly, seems like a typical haunted-house set-up - old, disused, abandoned building where disturbing things happened once; whispers are whisped; noises are heard in the dark; people die. The end.

The part where Hank is collecting his stash was very well-done, but nothing else in the film WAS. And the ending just went on and on and on with the stereotypical slasher stuff, gratuitously violent and, worst of all, in my opinion, decent, sympathetic people die, leaving me sad, not scared. Whoever wrote the script did a poor job.

Do not waste your money/time on this poorly-done film.

BORING is more like it. A new entry in the recent trend toward more cerebral/psychological haunting movies that aim for something more than cheap, popcorn-spilling jolts, "Session 9" is blessed with a great concept but burdened by bland execution. This was a big waste of time. Not at one point was this movie scary, suspenseful, or creepy. This movie put me to sleep. It wasn't scary at all. I don't know why it is getting good reviews. It [is bad]! Horror movie that lets its location do all the work. It takes place in an old, abandoned asylum and wants you to be scared of all of its dark empty rooms and the medieval-style torture devices they contain. The victims of this race to see who freaks out last are a dislikeable hazmat crew with lots of personal issues. An attempt to shoehorn a supernatural mystery in to the movie doesn't cover for the characters' lack of substantive fear or despair. Features an over-the-top David Caruso performance that's entertaining for all the wrong reasons. Don't bother with this snoozer. There are so much better horror films out there than this. This is just pathetic.

It is horrible and it makes no sense at all. I feel depressed after watching it particularly wasting an hour on this film hoping there will be answers at the end but no!

From start to finish, I really could not stand this movie. It was amazingly predictable and the acting was horrible. I was never a big David Caruso fan before, but this movie made me like him that much less. A shoddy performance in a shoddy film to be sure.

This movie had a good idea and concept, but it didn't try hard enough. I don't get where the Blair Witch comparison comes in...maybe it was a marketing scheme.

All in all, a general waste of time. When the closing credits started to roll, I yearned to have the previous hour and a half of my life back.

This movie is really boring. It's not good on atmophere, it has lousy acting, and terrible script and well this movies reeks on all levels. It is almost as dumb as Jack-O. This is not worth seeing, buying, or renting. You'll be a better person for not seeing this movie. Trust me you're not missing anything. Go back to the slasher flicks, because they are even more interesting than this moad of ...! Even Faust is a better choice than this load of filth!

About ten minutes into Session 9, I was completely prepared to love this movie. The setting, an old, empty insane asylum with its own morgue and cemetary, was creepy as hell; and the premise about a cleanup crew hired to eliminate asbestos tiles and other toxic materials had real potential. Also, the characters and the acting were above average for a modern horror flick. For these reasons, I give the movie three stars.

The problem with this movie is, it never quite delivers on what the first few minutes promises you. This asylum offers a lot of scare potential that the movie doesn't take advantage of. And I really don't mind a scary movie starting slow, but Session 9 STAYS slow. It doesn't pick up the pace until the last fifteen minutes or so...and the ending, designed to be a shocking twist, just isn't.

So, bottom line: if you're a hardcore horror fan, check this one out. It might work better for you than it did for me. Other movie viewers should probably steer clear.

I watched Session 9 last night before I went to bed. It was around 11:30, and I didn't turn off the set until after 1:00.

Big mistake.

I went to sleep on edge, feeling really weird, like all the dark shadows contained some sort of...I don't know.

And that's just it: I don't know.

I don't now what the antagonist was in Session 9. I don't know what the point of the movie was. I don't know what to make of the ending. Was it supernatural, like The Shining? Or was it merely psychological, like any guy-under-pressure-kills-people movie?

I don't know.

The asylum was way beyond creepy. It, alone, deserves the three stars I gave this movie. But the plot is weak, and the wrap-up was even weaker. More spookiness could have been wrung out of this movie if the writer/director had utilized the setting more effectly and shown flashbacks to when the asylum was in full use. Or shown ghosts. Or shown things moving in the asylum that weren't human. Or something.

I can't recommend Session 9 -- although I wish I could. It's a great idea. But it was flawed in its execution.

This movie had potential. Still frames of the Danvers hospital will send a chill up your spine. However, the story just does not create any suspense.

The movie has the typical formula of 95% introduction, 5% climax and ending with no middle section. No gradual building of suspense that keeps you at the edge of your seat.

Nothing related to the story really happens in the first 95% of the movie, and then in the last 5%, a chain of events occurs. The only problem is that most viewers probably know exactly who is behind the chain of events the minute the first event happens. So there is no "whodunnit" supspense whatsoever (watch the deleted scenes and director's commentary and you will see this is the type of suspense he was going for). The only suspense is that you are waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for something to happen. Then it does and you know exactly who did it and why. It is like watching 3 hours of convenience store surveilence tape in anticipation of a robbery and then the thief walks in, waves to the camera, and takes off his mask.

The setting is awesome, the acting is pretty good, and the characters are likeable... but the story [stinks]!!!

Even though it is a suspense film (which are not believable to begin with, but that is the point), certain things do have to add up to for the film to have any credibility. One huge thing doesn't! Why doesn't Mike just take the tapes home instead wasting the whole work week listening to them, especially when they are trying to get the project done in one week! The movies does a pretty good job of depicting him as a bright, hard-working guy. So why, you ask, would he do something so stupid? Why? Because the sessions are creepy and the director wants to distract you from the fact that nothing is really happening. The result? The whole film seems contrived.

[weak].

The creepiest thing about this movie are the images of the asylum itself, however, the director fails to use the creepiness to it's full extent. Showing eerie rooms in wide angle, and blinding broad daylight hardly adds to the suspense. Take a few pages out of David Fincher's playbook, and get back to us.

This movie really is just weak. The acting is awful (Especially the young kid with the mullet), the direction is juvenile, the script is pretty bad, and the casting... well... it's no surprise that David Caruso is the "big named talent" for this piece of junk.

The worst part of this movie, is the extra footage, showing an interview with the writer-slash-director, who talks about "his creation" like he created the next "Citizen Kane". Talk about being pompous. This guy needs to get a clue. He is one inch away from directing "10-10-321" commericals (come to think of it, I can safely say, that at least would hold the audience attention more than this steaming pile of clap-trap!)

The big mystery previously left unanswered is this:

I gave it 2 stars, instead of 1, because I live close to Danvers, MA, where this film takes place. That's it folks. That's the reason. Locale.