IMDb > House of 9 (2005) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
House of 9
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
House of 9 More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]
Index 78 reviews in total 

61 out of 86 people found the following review useful:

Filmed in 2003! Where was Saw & Saw II back then?

Author: wexler274 from United States
13 February 2006

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

54 out of 79 people found the following review useful:

My Little Eye Saw Cube already

Author: The_Void from Beverley Hills, England
19 February 2006

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

25 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

The End Saves This Rip-off of The "Cube"

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
1 November 2006

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")

Was the above review useful to you?

30 out of 48 people found the following review useful:

A touch of Das Experiment and a bit of The Cube, the rest is crap

Author: siderite from Romania
3 October 2005

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

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 45 people found the following review useful:

9 strangers, 1 house, 1 winner... the one makes it out alive!!

Author: from Ireland
17 November 2006

*** This review may contain 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 :)

Was the above review useful to you?

34 out of 61 people found the following review useful:

Big Brother just got nasty!

Author: cutthroatjake from United Kingdom
5 June 2005

Imagine the game show 'Big Brother'. Now in this version the contestants are kidnapped off the street, and not only are they playing for $5mill, they are playing for their lives!

If you liked the TV show you'll probably like this. It's not a great film but I enjoyed it. I thought generally the characters were fairly well rounded and believable, except for Dennis Hopper. :( His accent was awful and his acting just as bad. I'm actually a fan of his, but recently every time I see a film he is in I'm disappointed. (Lets hope 'Land of the Dead' is an exception)

The first act started well although I thought some of the camera work was overly arty. Some silly camera angles and close ups. By the third act the pace seemed to change and it felt rushed. In my opinion the Big Brother character should have had more of a role. There should have been tasks given out without them knowing, maybe thinking it was a way out, rather than just leaving the people to their own demise.

In conclusion, I think it's worth a look but I would wait for it on TV or rent the video.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Would have been a great film if the script was better.

Author: Dewgle from United Kingdom
2 January 2007

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?

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

looks like an improvised experimental film!(MANY SPOILERS!!!)

Author: wildpeace10 from Canada
23 January 2007

*** This review may contain 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.


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....

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

"Forgive them, oh Lord, for they know not what drivel they write and direct…"

Author: fedor8 from Serbia
1 January 2013

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

This movie is so bad, it is physically painful

Author: ShadowOrSmoke from United States
16 September 2007

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history