Which ones didn't deserve it? - Nine Dead (2009) Discussion

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bluerisk 15 years ago

Most guilty: the bitch

Least guilty: the insurance guy. He had no choice since he was given certain paramaters (age, criminal records etc.), and a criminal record is a criminal record. He couldn't know that this record based on a made up case by this D.A. bitch.

If he wanted to pick some guy from the insurance with "guilt", than it had to be the CEO of the company, or at least a board member; one of the guys who make the calls.
Guilt always correspond with responsibilty, and who has the responsibilty?

Is like with war crimes and orders.
We have a German saying: "Mit dem Genralsrang endet der Gehorsam, und es beginnt die Verantwortung"

(With the rank of a general ends the obedience and the responsibility begins.)

The same goes for the CEOs.

The priest:

The confession is a really big deal, and only because it is a big deal, Christian confessed. If he had known that he couldn't trust on the Seal of the Confession, he would have never confessed.

The father of the boy could never expect that the priest would inform the policy. Even if he had, his testemony might have had no influence on the case. At least Christian couldn't have been jailed because the law respects the seal of confession. Maybe his son might have been released, but I'm quite sure that the D.A. bitch had taken care that no links would lead to her case.

The key player was the bitch.

Ich bin kein ausgeklügelt Buch, ich bin ein Mensch mit seinem Widerspruch.
Conrad Ferdinand Meyer

reply

[–] tdw_rockon 12 years ago

ya know, I actually liked the insurance guy, but the fact that he was the last motive to figure out is LUDACRIS. It should have been obvious especailly to him that his role was denying someone a lifesaving proceedure. People pay their insurance everymonth with the expectation that when the time comes they will be taken care of, but insurance companys find loopholes that cost people thier lives. That is motive enough, I personally wouldn't kill the guy, but I can see how he would make it onto the list. As soon as I heard his occupation I knew why he was there, same with the priest. Those two stood out like a beacon from the very begining.

she'll come back as fire, burn all the liars, leave a blanket of ash on the ground ~ Kurt Cobain

reply

[–] gabby_bm 12 years ago

Of course, you're presuming that it would have something to do with his occupation. For all we know, at least in the beginning, he might have hit the guy's dog with a car or spilled grape juice on the guy's carpet.

My "#3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it.

reply

[–] Philo89 12 years ago

But still - a bunch of people supposedly connected, and held by someone who obviously feels there was an injustice done. How does the insurance guy *not* immediately think "people turned down for life-saving drug trials"?

reply

[–] chrisclarkblog 15 years ago

What I found most ironic about the Asian lady's character is that even Melissa Joan Hart's character admitted that her choosing someone out of a line-up couldn't have led to a conviction. After all, she had been hit in the head and, thus, was not in the right frame of mind to accurately remember the events of the robbery. Also, like you said, the insurance guy was just following the rules of his business and, therefore, fell into the "Don't shoot the messenger" category of horror movie villains. I felt badly for both of them...not really anyone else, though.

My Reviews: www.watchingwithchris.blogspot.com

reply

[–] popthree 13 years ago

Funny thing is choosing a Asian lady for that role. It was a shot at how we make fun of Chinese, Japanese, etc people looking similar. A old Chinese women was a perfect cast to do this the other way around.

Check My Guitar Video here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXVYXprSS_c

reply

[–] drystyx 15 years ago

The point is that no one deserved it, or at least part of the point.

This film really has a lot, and I mean a LOT, of subplots and Psychology in it. This is as close to Hitchcock as anyone had come since Hitch himself.

The rottenest ones were easily the lawyer and the insurance guy. Okay, the pervert and the crime lord were, too, but that's no surprise.

Those of us who live non sheltered lives and who know what it is to be poor knew the insurance guy was the key from the very beginning, and when you look at the other characters, and the fact that they only had ten minutes at a time, and that is not a lot of time when even people who speak the same language speak in different ways, you realize that the characters either don't understand (one person), live confident lives with insurance (easily 4 of them and probably the drug lord for a fifth), or just don't care (the others).

The kidnapper could have taken nine other people had he gotten nine other bits of information, but he just happened to get the information to get these nine. Probably the big mouth was the poor kid who got it first, since he probably confessed about the confession, which led to most of the others getting taken.

But this is just one of the Psychological aspects of this film, which just demolishes SAW in this genre.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time
that's not funny!

reply

[–] Promontorium 13 years ago

You put the insurance man as worse than the rapist-murderer-pedophile?

Did you get in a car accident or something?

Your gauge is broken.

Not putting someone in an experimental program is just about the most neutral act I can imagine that actually involves doing something. The experiment might have helped him, or it might have killed him sooner. It was an experiment, not a miracle solution. Experiments aren't meant to be life savers, they are meant to establish whether or not something works. The insurance company would have been hired for the explicit purpose of getting the right kind of test subjects. If an experiment has bad variables, it's a bad experiment and the data could be tossed out.

There is absolutely no reason to blame him. I wouldn't blame the insurance company at all, and I wouldn't blame the people who designed the experiment, because no matter how narrow minded you are, or the characters were in this film, the purpose of experimenting new drugs is to eventually be able to help people. If you blame someone for not picking you, then you might as well blame all of humanity for not inventing miracle solutions to all of humanity's problems, because now you're working in the realm of imagination and blaming circumstance on single individuals, which is simply insane.

reply

[–] therefdotcom 12 years ago

"The point is that no one deserved it, or at least part of the point. "

no one? the pedo that infected the guy's son with AIDS did not deserve it? the chick that manipulated evidence to frame an innocent gay did not deserve it? the insurance guy that tricked the guy out of medi-care did not deserve it? are you kidding me?

"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh

reply

[–] mark-hansen11 12 years ago

I think you missed something about the insurance guy. He didn't cheat anyone out of anything.

And to everyone else (spoiler): most people seem to think Jackson (the cop) and Eddie (insurance guy) didn't deserve to be there. Well, they weren't shot by the kidnapper. It was Kelley (lawyer) who shot them.

reply

[–] Ceceliazero 15 years ago

The Pedophile was the only one that deserved it.

Everyone else - even the crazy lawyer lady - had minimal contribution to his son's death. In fact with who he did pick, I"m surprised we didn't get a juror, or a warden, or something else.

Not to mention, he wasn't even at his own son's trial! How good of a father can he be if he wasn't there for him when he needed him most?

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LocalDoctor 15 years ago

I agree with the general consensus.

The only ones truly responsible is Kelley and Coogan. Christian could be said to share responsibility since he allowed Wade to go to jail, but Leon and Sully? At best, they are only remotely responsible; certainly not enough that they should be killed for it. I guess the priest is also responsible, but it's difficult to say how much since he is bound to remain silent.

Jackson, on the other hand, was tricked by Kelley, so he shouldn't be in this at all. Eddie? It's ludicrous that he is considered at all. It was his company's policy to not allowed people with criminal convictions; he had nothing to do with it and was merely a worker.

Hell, out of all the people, Eddie is probably the only person who didn't do anything wrong at all, nonetheless something relating to Wade.

---
Pleased to meet you.

reply

[–] sehnsuchtsoul 15 years ago

Sully is the reason the whole thing happened.
Lets look at the time line...
Sully loans Christian a high interest loan he can't possably legally pay back.
Christian robs the store ultimatly leading to anothers conviction by faulty i.d. (Chang) and evidence tampering (Jackson and Kelley). Wade goes to jail and gets aids... the timeline oughta end there but that's just my opinion.
So it seems the real Villians here are Greed & Desperation.

Movies I've seen, updated as I remember or find them.
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=11874566

reply

[–] johnnysure1 14 years ago

The lawyer who framed Chip is clearly guilty. If the dad found out she was banging a cop and that the evidence was switched, it is reasonable to see how he would have guessed what happened. He couldn;t know about the cop's guilt for sure, so that was probbaly a bit of a guess on his part.

Christian is clearly guilty. He robbed the store and let someone else burn for it.

How the killer knew that Christian confessed this sin to a priest who wouldn;t tell about it is beyond me (unless that priest was more loose-lipped than he'd like to admit!)

The Asian lady falsely identified someone in a court of law. If someone did that to my son, I'd probably be pretty angry at her, too.

Nobody inspires hatred more than soulless insurance people, even if this one turned out to be a pretty nice guy. I can;t fault the father for going after him.

I'm curious how he found out exactly who gave his son AIDS, but that person certainly had it coming.

The guy who sold Chip the gun and the guy who Chip owed $ to are a bit tangential. However, they were also criminal scumbags, so the father probably transferred more blame on to them than was necessary. It's always easy to blame a criminal. Also, they brought the criminal element ionto these events.

I can honestly see him going after all of these people. (I just can;t buy that he figured out what all of them had done!)

reply

[–] jmorrow888 14 years ago

I don't see how the cop could be blamed at all. The D.A. had access to evidence pertaining to her case. She didn't have to be banging some cop to switch evidence. I don't get questioning whether he knew about either because she would have no reason to tell him what she was up to, in fact it would an unnecessary risk on her part to do so.

reply

[–] daisygirlie 14 years ago

"How the killer knew that Christian confessed this sin to a priest who wouldn't tell about it is beyond me (unless that priest was more loose-lipped than he'd like to admit!)"

That was *the* one sticking point for me. How the heck would the father even know WHICH priest took confession from Christian (unless he followed Christian around) is what I'd like to know?!?

That priest wasn't ready to say boo - he only did it, finally, because he hoped it would save the others' lives. I mean jeez, as soon as he broke the sanctity of the confessional, he threw himself in front of the insurance guy because he felt so bad.

This is most likely because of the sanctity of the confessional and even though he was visibly tortured by the fact that he knew what he did (once he heard Christian getting stuck saying the Hail Mary). Although it could save the others' lives it meant that because of The Canon Law of the Catholic church, at least in his eyes, he was now going to hell for having broken the most sacred vow of priesthood in the Catholic religion.

Everyone else had committed a crime or misdeed of some kind, no matter what level. The priest was *bound* by the sanctity of the confessional to not reveal what he knew - unless the kid's father assumed he'd break down and say something - which then made him no longer without error - just like the rest of the people there.

Perhaps I'm over-thinking the whole thing, but that's where my brain is stuck, lol!

Being happy is like peeing yourself, everyone sees it - but only you feel the warmth!

reply

[–] alexandrajade 14 years ago

I'm curious how he found out exactly who gave his son AIDS, but that person certainly had it coming.

No AIDS before prison -----> raped by Coogan in prison -----> AIDS. Unless you think he got raped over and over and over and over again while in prison.

reply

[–] egoangel18 14 years ago

they blame the insurance guy in Saw 6.

i hope you choke on your bacardi & coke!
*Team Landa*

reply

[–] mark-hansen11 12 years ago

The kidnapper had every intention of letting people go if they found out why they were there.

If only Kelley and Coogan had been there, they'd never find out. The general consensus seems to be that Jackson and Eddie were the most innocent in the case, and these just happens to be the two the kidnapper didn't kill (besides Kelley who got away). Coincidence? Doubtful.

reply

[–] lostandconfusedsickness 14 years ago

I kinda agree with the insurance guy being innocent, but if you recall he forged documents for his brother in law, for I believe the same medication. Now I don't believe that means he should of been in the room, but he wasn't the most innocent.

The DA is the only one at fault. Sully might of given the other guy motive to rob the store and thus put it all into action, but had she done her job properly and not been so determined to win the case, that it meant the wrong guy went to jail, none of this would of happened.

reply

[–] drystyx 14 years ago

You can tell who the blue blood rich kids are in here, because they all take up for the insurance guy, who was the most evil out of them all. Sure, the actor did a great job of doing his slimy sell, but only the most naive of bubble boys would buy into that.

Insurance punks are ALWAYS denying claims and benefits to those who have no inside help with the courts and with those in power. They are the rottenest creeps around. It's guys like that who make the other low lifes capable of doing what they do.

This insurance guy was like the evil Fred March character in HOMBRE, the evil Van Heflin character in GUNMAN'S WALK, and other evil characters who somehow snake oil their way into acceptance by people.

No, the rich kids will buy into the Insurance man's false feelings, but no one else will. If I was glad to see anyone killed, it was that son of a b..h.

The cop and priest were clearly the most innocent among the group. Putting a scared lady immigrant in there took away any sympathy I had for the killer. At the same time, I could believe his motivation. This was a story that no one can deny was full of three dimensional motivated characters.

Lets not bicker about who killed whom

reply

[–] alecdeal 14 years ago

I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on how insurance companies work, but I'm pretty confident in saying that there are guidelines to go by, and saying that does not make me a "blue blood rich kid." You can get all emotional about how only rich people can get the benefits they need, but if you see a file on someone that was convicted and all that, what are you gonna do? You don't have time to think about this person's life story. If you're instructed to not give approval to that, then you're not gonna approve it. I really don't understand people saying the insurance guy was the most evil. Really? If he felt like he should approve him, then how many other people would he feel like he needs to approve? Answer: Almost everybody! Which I don't think the company would be too happy about.

The most evil was obviously the lawyer. If I need to explain why, then you may need to watch the movie again. Or at least the last fifteen minutes.

reply

[–] portablefernie 13 years ago

The guy, the insurance guy, would be innocent one might think, but he was willing to break the company rules when they affected his family, but not when they affected others. He got what he deserved. In the eyes of the shooter once you were a part of the chain you were equally as guilty as the guy who raped his son, the crooked DA, and the real robber. I think the shooter was quite ethical. Didnt tortured people was ready to pay for his crimes. You remove any of those people, the kid's death never happens. They all had a key roll. Believe it or not, the least guilty is the black guy (he killed his brother in "questionable" self-defense but that wasnt part of the chain). Cause, guns are so easy to get in this country that the real robber couldve gotten another gun quite easily. The rest are guilty as hell.. doesnt matter who is more guilty... they all doomed that kid the momement they entered that kid's life. and back to the insurance guy, you cant get away with doing bad things just because "your job" tells you to do em. You are responsible. You can always quit your job and get another one.. freaking nazis hanged for just "doing their jobs" not nearly enough, but some did.

reply

[–] yankerix_claesos 10 years ago

You are a crazy nutjob.

reply

[–] MariaWB 14 years ago

I really felt the insurrance guy was not at all to blame - like he said, his name and signature was on the bottom of ALL letters sent out at that time. It might not even have been him who made the decision as to whether or not this guys son got in or not.

The asian lady as well, she had very little blame. Eyewitnesses pointing out the wrong person happens a lot more than people think. And once they chose someone, that person actually replaces the person they really saw in their head and they'll never recognise the truly guilty person even if they are put face to face and someone says 'This is the guilty one, you got it wrong'.

The cop that slept with the main guilty person, the DA, he had no real blame either. He did his job, trusting the evidence as it was presented to him.

----------

~Maria

I've got soul, but I'm not a soldier
- The Killers

reply