Six

First off, before I even get into the movie, I just want to say that everyone writing such scathing reviews against this movie need to stop. They're rating this movie based on what they wanted to see in it, and not what the director intended, which is as foolish as one can be. If your only gripe is that "it's like Saw without the gore", then you need to open your eyes.

Anyway, onto the movie. In a word: great. The reason stated above for why people think it's so bad is actually what makes the movie so good. It provides suspense, drama, and tough moral decisions without the senseless and excessive blood and guts. It's a little confusing at first, and if you don't pay attention you may find yourself lost later in the movie, so for that I take one star off of the rating. It also has one or two minor plot flaws, so for that I take off one more star; but on that detail, I dare you to show me just ONE movie that does not have even a single hole in the plot. You can't do it.

All in all, this was an outstanding movie, given that it doesn't have any big names in the acting, producing, or directing and it definitely deserves a lot of attention. The plot is absorbing, the characters are interesting, and the moral of the story really makes you think. I give it 8 out of 10, and would daresay that this is a "must-watch" movie, especially if you're bored on a weekend night and feel like watching something you haven't seen before.

"When you have seen the things that I have seen you begin to live by your own rules." After a group of six strangers wake up in the same room they start to wonder how they got there. When the man that brought them there begins to force them to use a die to decide the fate of each other the group looks for a way to fight back. I have said before that Hollywood is out of ideas. Once one movie hits big the rips-offs begin coming from everywhere. This one is in the vein of the "Saw" franchise. A man forces a group of strangers to face their flaws in order to change things. This one does not have any of the gore that "Saw" did but it does have the same idea. The people that are playing the "game" are not innocents and are forced to choose between who they want to be and who they were. While this is not a bad movie at all it is about the 100th version of "Saw" that I have seen so this is really nothing new. I will say that in it's own way it is entertaining and if you like these type of movies it's worth a watch. Overall, another "Saw" rip-off that is better then most. I give it a B.

I'm sensing a theme among negative reviews: that this is a SAW rip-off without the gore. As much of a sweeping statement that is, and how little credit it gives to this movie, I can see where they're coming from. I was always fascinated by the small amount of psychological horror in the SAW franchise, but felt like it was too much of a gorefest to truly be able to appreciate it.

On the other hand, "Die" takes all of the elements I had wished to see in SAW and uses them full-force: there's the murky morality, the inescapable desperation, choices that don't feel like choices. "Die" is violent, but it is subtly so, and focuses a lot more on the characters and what they're going through. I found it incredibly intriguing and entertaining. The acting was good, the cinematography well-done--overall, I was impressed.

Those of you giving this a 1 rating need to explain why it's worse than "Manos, the hands of Fate." Those giving it a 10 star need to explain why it's better than "Shawshank Redemption." The cast is good. The plot sufficiently convoluted. I recently watched "Rampart" and I considered that a grand waste of time. At least "Die" was compelling.

I have said that movie reviews often say more about the reviewer than the movie. Gunot213 says "I've never given a film 1/10 before..." but his only other review is of "Halloween" to which he gives a 1 star. Get a clue before you give a review.

This is no "Saw" clone any more than "Saw" drew from other sources. If any comparisons are made to "Saw" it should be that the "teacher" wants his "students" to succeed in "Die." It makes "Saw" hypocritical by comparison.

"Die" is watchable, not totally predictable, imperfect in some ways, but has proper production values, cinematography, acting and plot. Anyone giving this film 1-2 stars should be subjected to perpetually watching the Justin Bieber movie until a proper review is given.

Six strangers awake in a cell in an underground facility. In flashbacks, their lives are exposed and in common, they are destroyed by their acts. Mark Murdock (Elias Koteas) is a nihilist detective that does not have any hope in his career. Lisa Meridian (Emily Hampshire) is an addicted gambler that has destroyed her marriage. Robert Moretti (Fabio Fulco) is a self-destructive millionaire that tried to commit suicide. Melody Chambers (Katie Boland) is a young prostitute addicted in drugs. Zach Emmett (Karl Pruner) is a psychiatrist that has been suffering for two years for a fatal wrong prescription to a patient. Diane Robinson (Patricia McKenzie) is a nurse that lost her two year-old child and tried to commit suicide.

Soon they learn that they have been abducted by the disturbed Jacob Odessa (John Pyper-Ferguson), who saw his father committing suicide when he was a boy. Jacob forces each prisoner to toss a dice in a deadly game of Russian roulette against another participant in a sort of trial. The survivors would have a chance to reborn in a new existence.

"Die" is a movie with a promising beginning, beautiful cinematography, intriguing atmosphere and awful storyline with a rip-off of "Cube" and "Saw" and overrated reviews. Despite the good performances, the explanation for the sick game of the deranged Jacob Odessa is brainless and ridiculous. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Jogos Suicidas" ("Suicide Games")