MovieChat Forums > Nine Dead (2009) Discussion > 7 too many people in that room(spoilers)

7 too many people in that room(spoilers)

posted 13 years ago by hb2322
22 replies | jump to latest

Alrighty...so I just watched this lousy film on Netflix, and it was a joke!!!

there were 7 too many people in that room.

Kelley and Christian should have been the ONLY ones in that room, and it should have been a 10-20 minute long movie. they are the ONLY ones responsible for the kid going to prison. lets look at everyones relationship to Wade:

1)Leon-the guy sold a gun to Christian. He had no impact whatsoever for Wade going to prison. they never even had contact before.

2)Father Francis-he heard a confession from Christian saying he robbed the store. by Cannon law, he could not provide the truth...its one of the many stipulations that every religion has

3)Sully- He lent Christian $5000 for drugs....again, this had no impact on Wade going to prison, let alone trial.

4)Eddie-The guy denied Wade health insurance. the insurance company had stipulations for who it could provide the drug too, and prior convicts was not someone they could provide it to. regardless of moral decisions for Eddie, you do what the boss tells you...

5)The Chinese woman- she wrongly identified the robber...this is what the jury is for. not her fault the other 12 people who were actually making the decision gave a guilty verdict

6)Coogan-the guy gave Wade AIDS. he wouldn't have gotten aids and died had he not been wrongly convicted.

7)Jackson- from my understanding, he had no idea the evidence he was putting into storage had been tampered with by Kelley

8)Christian- he robbed a store and got away with it. he could have turned himself in and this would have been avoided. He should have been in the room.

and 9)Kelly- she falsified evidense to put Wade at the scene of the crime and never told anyone.

In short, as I stated already, Kelly and Christian should have been the only ones in the room. Maybe just Kelley. she took an oath as a lawyer to uphold the law and constitution.

I'm in awe I actually watched this whole movie.....it was upsetting.

Dont get me started on the ending....any decent CSI could figure out that she killed the last 2. I hope they make a sequel called One Dead....10 minutes long, just Kelley in the room and her grown up child in the mask..."you are responsible for my daddy(dean jackson) being killed."

AHHHHH

[–] xenatikkanen-1 13 years ago

"4)Eddie-The guy denied Wade health insurance. the insurance company had stipulations for who it could provide the drug too, and prior convicts was not someone they could provide it to. regardless of moral decisions for Eddie, you do what the boss tells you..."

If you remember Drag Me to Hell, it isn't a good idea to turn down poor people. They will curse you.

[–] rutica 13 years ago

i agree with you about Kelly deserving to be in the room. But I think Coogan deserved to be in that room more than Christian.

Regarding Christian, you wrote: "he could have turned himself in and this would have been avoided." Sure, if Christian was a noble guy, he would have turned himself in, but if he was a noble guy, he wouldn't have robbed a store in the first place. He was probably relieved that someone else took the blame. But the fact is that Christian didn't purposefully go after Wade.

The only two people who *purposefully* went after Wade was the lawyer and the rapist. That is why i think they are the only two who deserved to be there.

[–] nbkennd 13 years ago

yeah just watched this film enjoyed it somewhat but me and my mate came to the exact same conclusion. Kelly and coogan are the only 2 who deserved to be in the room. And even then IMO only coogan deserved to die. Kelly imprisonment maybe not life but a long time.

Maybe from wades dads perspective i can see why he would want kelly dead though.

[–] WhoAteMyCookie 13 years ago

I agree but I think the dad was thinking along the lines of those who created a chain of events that led to his death:
(Sorry cannot remember names)
The guy who robbed the place, well that is self explanatory
The black guy, it was his willingness to sell the gun: it did not prevent a crime it maybe in his mind encouraged it.
The guy who owned the strip club/loaned money, he was the motivation for the robbery. His refusal to lend him the money for drug dealing could have prevented the need for a robbery.
The Asian woman, mistaken identity but her mistake led to the judgement of guilt
The attorney, she lied and manipulated the case. The case win was more than the conviction of an innocent person.
The molestor/rapist, if he was not in prison he would not have met the man and got AIDS/HIV
The police officer, while I think he was completely innocent and duped by the attorney, the dad had no way of knowing that he was duped. In his eyes he helped manipulate evidence.
The insurance guy, if he would have put him in the trial his son may be alive or have had a better chance of survival.
The Priest did not break his privilage to speak out thus allowing a wrongful conviction to stand.

Saying all this, I disagree that they all should have died for the chain of events but what I find fascinating is HOW did the father know it was the guy who robbed the store that bought the gun from the black guy, that confessed to the priest, the officer who allegedly manipulated evidence, the loan shark that lent the money? I understand knowing the Asian woman who identified him, the molestor, the insurance guy, and attorney but the rest I cannot figure out how he connected them all???? How did he connect the priest, the priest would not break his silence with group, surely he did not confess to the dad. The black guy was not going to confess, the loan shark was from Vegas so how was that connction made, and if the wrong person was ID'ed for the crime how did he know and the police not know it was the guy he killed 1st?

(\___/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[–] zak6009 13 years ago

If you remember Drag Me to Hell, it isn't a good idea to turn down poor people. They will curse you.

Or Saw 6. Which was surprisingly good. In fact that entire movie revolves around a health insurance agent who turned down a lot of people resulting in their deaths.

[–] BrazilDandyDude 12 years ago

Christian got away from the robbery and couldn´t even know an innocent was taking his place; Jackson didn´t even know Kelley was messing the proof; Blaming Leon is the same as blaming the gun manufacturer; Sully is as guild as a bank or as the coin mint; Father Francis is forbidden by law to revel the crime; Eddie was forbidden by his boss to give the insurance, it was not his decision to make; Chan is an elderly woman, just was assalted and was not able to separete an ocidental person from another, of course a judge would take her as serious as child. Only Kelley and Coogan are guilty.

[–] VivienCastro 11 years ago

I already gave my response about why I think they are all guilty (except for the cop), but I just wanted to reply to you about Chan since everyone seems very sympathetic towards her - she is an elderly lady, doesn't speak the language, was a victim...

However, to accuse a person when you are uncertain is a horrible thing to do. Of course that alone shouldn't get him convicted, but from her part only, what she did was wrong. I can't imagine pointing out someone for a crime if I am not absolutely sure, and she clearly wasn't. She may be confused and foreign and old and just got beaten, but she knew what she was doing. Unless you are 100% sure, it's better to let a robber go then to accuse an innocent person and think the law will sort it out. That is messed up.

[–] starcraftbw88 12 years ago

Coogan deserved to be there too, but yeah. They stretched a bit there with the plot.

[–] ScorpionTDC 12 years ago

Coogan deserved to be in there too, MUCH more than Christian (who didn't intentionally screw the son over)
From most to least:

1. Kelley (Coogan is a FAR WORSE person, but Kelley was directly involved in screwing the son over)
2. Coogan
3. Christian
4. Sully
5. Father Francis (Though putting him there is BS)
6. Leon (Selling a gun... Seriously?)
7. Eddie
8. Mrs. Chan (The most innocent and kind of the bunch, but Jackson had the least to do with the son's death)
9. Jackson

Death Awaits you (Horror forum)
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Death_Awaits/index/

[–] Wolfenstein33 11 years ago

I thought it was implied that Wade got AIDS because Coogan raped him? He definitely deserved to be there as much as Kelly, and I'd say he deserved to be there more than Christian since he was only indirectly involved and wasn't intentionally screwing Wade over.

I agree that this film was pretty bad. It had an interesting premise though.

[–] MadRotaryOne_DDCgod 11 years ago

the only person that deserves to be in there really is
the priest, since he knew that someone was innocent, or
at least someone else was guilty, and should have gone
to the police, then kelly might not have even gotten that
far on the case to screw over the other guy,

and don't give me the crap about religion and the priest
isn't allowed to tell, cause that is bull****. no religion
tells people to not tell the truth. all that confession
crap is something the catholics made up along time ago to
sell people forgiveness, so that the good get rich,
all corrupt crap.

but as far as the movie goes, that did all deserve to be in
there as far as they all did something wrong, as far as the
dad was concerned, and he was running the show, so saying
that they shouldn't have written it like that would be like
taking the "Saw" movies and throwing them all away. you cant
go and change what a crazy person should or shouldn't do.

http://www.facebook.com/mike.d.keith?ref=profile

[–] VivienCastro 11 years ago

I am ok with the priest not being able to tell - although he should have told them right away in the room after Christian died. Otherwise the whole confession thing would lose it's meaning. Same with lawyer confidentiality.

However, he is in a position of "moral responsibility" and he could have fought for Wayne even without revealing Christian. He could have told the police and the media that he got a confession (but claim not to know the persons name/stress his vows). Of course that wouldn't necessarily free Wayne but it could have ensured some sort of support from the people who will believe the priest. He should have tried to do all that he could for Wayne apart from giving Christian's name.

[–] MadRotaryOne_DDCgod 11 years ago

It has been too long since I watched this movie, so I don't remember which
character the priest had heard the confession from, let alone what the
priest even looks like. But you say that Cristian was the person who confessed
to the priest? Anyway I remember the movie enough to know that I was yelling
at the screen at these idiots, esp the priest. If you are a priest and are
all devout, that's fine, but if you are basically responsible for 8 other
people's lives who are in eminent danger, and can can those lives, then I
would have given away any confession that might keep them from dying, I think
God would give him a free pass on that. And another thing, a lawyer that knew
something and didn't speak up because he was afraid of losing his law licence,
I am pretty sure that he would also be over looked and given a pass since the
whole under duress thing, lol

[–] VivienCastro 11 years ago

He definitely should have told them there, especially since the guy who confessed died first anyway (I don't even think the priest remembered him until later, so it wasn't an issue while he was still alive). It was totally dumb for him not to.

I just mean when the guy initially confessed, I can understand why he didn't notify the cops and turned him in to release the innocent guy. But he could have still tried to help without revealing Christian's identity.

[–] MadRotaryOne_DDCgod 11 years ago

right, you go to the cops and say, "look, I am got a confession yesterday
from a man claiming he commented this crime, I cannot tell you his name,
but it proves so and so is innocent, I just thought you should know."

If anything the defensive lawyers could have also been told this
same thing, it would have been used to shed doubt on his case,
which is proven to get people off, just a little doubt in a
jurors mind can go a long way. Just look at OJ simpson!!
plus the fact that a random priest would have no reason to make
something like that up,

[–] ScorpionTDC 11 years ago

Dumb or not. Catholics (and Catholic Priests) take confession incredibly seriously, and revealing another person's confession is pretty much among the absolute worst sins you can commit. I could explain why in detail if needed, but I really do get why he wouldn't tell.

Death Awaits you (Horror forum)
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Death_Awaits/index/

[–] VivienCastro 11 years ago

I agree with the concept of confession, and I don't believe he should have pointed out the culprit to the cops by any means. Now, him not helping the group after the guy was already dead, and would suffer no consequences, that is something I have more difficulty understanding. Although, a part of me does understand it in some way that isn't even clear to me, because I get that he took his vows to be absolute. It is a different morality then mine, and it can be admirable in its way.

What I do resent the priest for is that once he knew an innocent man was convicted, he didn't come forth and fight for him, without revealing the actual person who did it - and he would be protected from having to help find the criminal anyway. Of course, it would not be enough to set the innocent guy free, but he could tell his story to the media, organize the religious community to help him in some ways once he is out (collect the money for HIV treatment?), and just overall support him and help his reputation.

As a priest and person who hears the confessions, he has some moral duty, and he could have done something without breaking his vows, which is why I can understand why he was in that room (although it's harder to understand how the father knew any of this, but fine).

[–] ScorpionTDC 11 years ago

Because it still violates the seal of confession (It seems kinda odd to me too, but it's really THAT serious to them)

I think part of it is because I'm not sure how much they're allowed to do in response to stuff they hear in confession (If they can act on it or not) I know there's a really, really strict set of guidelines, and IDK how specific they are.

I understand why he's in there. Seal of Confession isn't really gonna be much of an excuse to a deranged maniac trying to have people responsible for his son's death killed. Leon and Jackson were probably least logical to me (The first because... he sells guns to people and the second because... KELLY somehow manipulated into doing something totally against his will)

Death Awaits you (Horror forum)
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Death_Awaits/index/

[–] VivienCastro 11 years ago

Leon is, like Sully, there because of the logic that people like him make the world a more dangerous place and cause *beep* like this to happen. His individual responsibility is small and connection to crime utterly indirect, but on a bigger scale, he is one of the bad ones in the father's eyes.

Jackson is completely innocent, however here it makes sense that the father would not know that (despite him being clearly omniscient when it comes to the priest), since he had no clue just how deep Kelly's guilt went. Jackson was the cop that got his son convicted, and his son was innocent, so it seemed that he submitted false evidence or didn't care enough.

I see your point about the priest and the potential restrictions due to his vows. I also felt pretty bad for Sully, who on top of being relatively innocent also managed to be the most entertaining one in the room.

[–] ScorpionTDC 11 years ago

Makes sense I guess. Still, their actual connection is borderline non-existent. But yeah, not good people.

I guess that makes sense, though it definitely still sucks for the innocent person put there. But really, the only ones who TRULY deserved to be there were Kelly (I "liked" her as a character, but awful person), Coogan (UGGGGGGGGH), and to a lesser extent Christian (Unlike the first two, he wasn't a flat out horrible person that went out of his way to ruin an innocent's life. That said, what he did was still horrible) Most of them make sense friom that PoV though.

Turns out they can't even say if the person WENT to confession, so yeah. Definitely vows. I feel more confused about the fact that the father somehow knew. Unless he watched the confession somehow, it isn't possible. And yeah, Sully was entertaining enough from memory. It's been awhile though The only ones I really couldn't stand were Leon (for being so stupid) and Coogan (Do I need to even explain?)

Death Awaits you (Horror forum)
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Death_Awaits/index/

[–] VivienCastro 11 years ago

This isn't all about direct guilt. Kelly and the rapist are the only directly guilty ones, as well as Christian who let an innocent man serve for his crime. Actually, the father didn't even know just how far Kelly went, so in his eyes both her and the cop did a bad job.

But he was also trying to make a statement against two kinds of people who make these things happen and passively make the world worse. Criminals, like Leon and Sully, who create aggression and enable *beep* to happen because they don't care, and people in positions of some kind of power who are mindless slaves to some system of rules they don't even question, although they know lives are at stake (like the insurance guy and the priest, but from the fathers perspective also Kelly and the cop).

It is about no one taking responsibility for what they do and cause, or fail to do. People who's job is to serve justice, "god", victims who are ready to point fingers and ignore the doubt, small criminals who don't give a *beep* , people who hold others lives in their hands and see them only as numbers and names... all of these people didn't care about an actual life, and there are tons of people like that. He wanted them to think, perceive the greatness of the trivial *beep* they do daily and automatically.

The only innocent person there was the cop, whose only guilt was perhaps not guarding the evidence a bit better, but no one can really blame him. The father of course did not know that.