The film opens like a gust of wind and rain pouring in through the windows, just that – you guessed it – it's not rain but blood. '9' has a decent premise, nothing that has not been done before in movies like 'Session 9 (2001)', that actually succeeds to intrigue.Yes, it's clichéd to the hilt, yes you can see the end coming from miles away; however by the time you reach there, so much is known to you about the characters that you don't seem to care; at least I (a B film crazy) wanted to know more.It's just that the grunge editing sacrifices the narrative outcome although not to the extent of pushing you away. Rather, it does the exact opposite. By not giving you everything despite of spelling it out for you is a tale bender that keeps tugging at your coat when you're sad – either that or it's my failure as a keen viewer. The former sounds much cooler.Plus it has Michael Biehn as the detective, still giving off those glimpses of Corporal Hicks and Lieutenant Hiram Coffey (his career highs). Still the unemotional, cool cat from the 80's, Biehn happens to be a favourite.Biehn, while offering jelly-beans to one of the characters: 'It's not the nicotine that I miss. It's for uh… keeping my hands and mouth busy, you know.'

Neither the director nor writer has any idea what they are doing in this dismal,draggy, soporific endless mess. Every cliché in horror filmdom is given a shot: empty creepy hospital, all night job, scratchy video security monitors, "it was all a dream," the psychiatrist friend " isn't really there," the focus character was sexually abused, bilious toxic green light, confusions,time leaps, comically awful dialog. This is the worst film I've seen in decades. What did they spend five million dollars on? Elwes and Bein walk through their parts. The film was so obviously made in Eastern Europe that I was taking bets with my wife, Czech or the Ukraine? Avoid this film!

Okay - to start: Carey Elwes is the man. I absolutely love him and he is the reason I watched this.This movie? Where to begin? The sets were good and the effects were good as well. The plot? I wasn't sure what was actually supposed to be going on through a lot of it. It was part mystery, part slasher, part psychological horror, part ghost story, part... get my drift? There was a whole lot going on here and it got pretty confusing.Also - what is up with the absolutely detestable characters in films like this? Was I supposed to like either of the lead couple? She was a shrieking harpy and I was frankly hoping someone would just put her out of her misery. The husband? Well, he was kind of a butt as well. I really didn't care for either of them - therefore I could have cared less if they were brutally slain. Kind of bad when these are the lead characters in a film.I wanted to like this film, I really did. Promise.But I didn't.

The cast was very good, the cinematography fine, its the movie itself which is just poorly edited and convoluted. I know this sort of thing is en-vogue these days but give me a stylish Argento over this sort of thing any day. The flashback sequences do little to make the films point or establish any coherency to the story and the surprise ending should really be no surprise no matter how improbable. Film is a form of communication and the end product fails miserably in communicating anything at all. Again, kudos to a fine cast in spite of the material. Sets, lighting, atmosphere, cinematography a movie that would have had everything going for it in more capable hands.