Review of Session 9 (2001) by Erik J — 01 Jan 2013

Though Session 9 is undoubtedly a well-intentioned film, it suffers from not being fully thought through, which will probably leave most movie-watchers, except die-hard thriller fans, wanting. It begins by introducing us to Gordon (Peter Mullan) and Phil (David Caruso) who together manage a struggling asbestos abatement company. Faced with the possibility of closing, the otherwise normally diligent Gordon offers to complete the daunting, nearly impossible task of removing all the asbestos in a century-old, closed insane asylum in one-week to close a deal. The work will be great but the rewards well worth it, he assures himself. They bring on regulars Hank (Josh Lucas) and Mike (Stephen Gevendon), as well as Gordon's nephew (Brendan Sexton III) to complete the job with the hope of finding a few other workers later on if necessary. Tensions are high amongst the group due to a variety of personal problems, but as work begins and continues, odd things happen. Eventually, all hell breaks loose.

Like I said, Session 9 is well-intentioned. It does not rely on the standard hat tricks of the genre to bring scares - there's very little blood and not many bumps in the night. Director/writer Anderson does a good job using light and darkness to get reactions from the audience. The fact he could use natural light also aids in giving the film a very real feeling. His choice of using what was new camera technology at the time was well done and should be commended.

However, for its merits, the film simply cannot overcome some deep flaws. First, the writing, which started so strong, collapses in on itself. The first scenes are so well-written that Gordon, Phil and even the asylum seem like old friends. The writing remains somewhat strong in the scenes where the group must interact but then it jumps off a cliff. Suddenly, characters are jilted and lose any sort of realism (save Sexton, who does some awesome freak outs). Sure, it's partially because things are falling apart around them, but I found them less and less believable as time went on.

One major problem for me was Fleming's accent. I'm not opposed to films having a variety of accents, but every time his came out (particularly when angry), it tore the scene apart. When Gordon gets into a heated argument with Phil, he switches back and forth between accents and suddenly, tension gone. I probably would have laughed out loud if I was Caruso.

Another major problem for me was whether or not Anderson meant for us to believe the asylum was a character. It's heavily implied by the film's tag line and even in the opening scenes, that the asylum is evil. But I never thought it was the asylum that was doing anything. In fact, Anderson completely defeats this premise with two major plot holes in which activity happens outside of the asylum.

Without ruining too much of the ending, for those who argue about what's really going on at the end - my two cents: the two major theories are both wrong. Listen to the tape and think about where things happened and it's obvious that neither of those theories could be correct. Something more sinister that is not connected to the asylum directly is going on.

Overall, I think the film was probably innovative in its day and can be appreciated for some good cinematography but suffers from two many fixable problems to be worth much beyond two stars. I strongly believe Anderson had to finish this quickly and that's where the issues began, but overall, it's a disappointment that could have been much stronger.