Session 9 had a ton of potential, but in the end it left me feeling let down, slightly cheated.
It seems like someone visited the asylum and was so taken with the look and feel of the building and decided to write a movie around it. If this were the case, they did a damn good job, but they ran out of steam before they ran out of film. There is the "big payoff" at the very end that does more to dissapoint than anything else.
**SPOILERS AHEAD**
People have been talking a lot about psychological horror in this thread, like fear is something you should have to think about rather than a gutteral, instinctual reaction. There wasn't much to think about in this movie. It was heading in one direction the entire time. From the get go, the person you first think is to blame... the one they lead you to think is responsible, is the one covered in blood at the end. Sure, they attempt to mislead you once or twice to think that David Caruso's character is the killer, but it seems like they wrote that in as more of an afterthought, like they didn't want to just HAND you the killer on a silver platter. The only "psychological" aspect is the implied split-personality disorder that Gordon apparently picks up when he enters the asylum. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a bad-ass premise, but they didn't work it hard enough to make the pay-off worthwhile.
**END SPOLIERS **
My final thoughts:
It was a decent movie. Great cinematography and a very good attempt at good, old fashioned, Hitchcock style terror. I just don't think it's worth all the praise that some people give it... nor do I think it was as bad as wallytuggs says... not that his opinion holds much merit anyways.
Adios,
Steve