|Page 1 of 5:||    |
|Index||45 reviews in total|
IRRESISTIBLE is a little film from Australia with big ideas and a
clumsy script. The story itself is good with enough variation from the
usual thriller scripts to make it enjoyable, but the writing borders on
improvisation and doesn't provide the motivation for the development of
the story to flow smoothly enough to maintain the credibility of the
Set in contemporary Melbourne, Australia, the story begins in media res with our heroine Sophie (Susan Sarandon), a successful illustrator, wife of an equally important architect (Sam Neill), and mother to two little girls, hearing noises and finding odd incidents. Recovering from the death of her beloved mother and caring for her grieving father (Charles 'Bud' Tingwell), Sophie's stress factor is further heightened by the fact that she has a block about the illustrations for a book whose deadline is nearing. Her husband is supportive and encourages her to get away from her problems by attending a party given by a new associate of his at the firm - the bright and beautiful Mara (Emily Blunt) - who just happens to be wearing the same new dress Sophie has purchased for the party. The two meet, dance together, drink together, but innuendos have started: party guests offer condolences for her mothers death but also suggest she join AA for her 'drinking problem'.
Sophie's mind continues to fragment as she imagines she is being stalked by Mara because of events that happen in her house, with her wardrobe, and with paranoia that her husband and Mara are having an affair. She decides to observe Mara closely, discovering facts that feed her paranoia, and is caught in Mara's house - and arrested. From there the story disintegrates into revelation of facts that border on melodrama with ill-defined motivations marring every scene. To reveal the ultimate nidus for the story's plot would rob the viewer of what little surprises there are here.
Ann Turner could have used a script doctor before shooting this film, as the story is fine: it is just clumsy and not finessed. But once again Susan Sarandon proves she is such a fine actress that she can pull off even a spotty script and create a credible character. Sam Neill and Emily Blunt likewise do the best with what they are given with lines and direction. This is not a bad movie at all, just one that needed a bit of surgery before placing it on the screen, and the film is well worth watching for Sarandon fans. She still is one of our finest actresses on the screen today. Grady Harp
This film explores the darkness that exists in families because of secrets. It has a slow burn, but a deeply satisfying one. I really liked the way the ending was structured - it surprised and intrigued me. A lot of women will love this film and will find it resonates with their own lives, the tensions within it, the darkness and the light. The performances of the children are wonderful. And so are the performances of the rest of the cast. I was especially drawn to the Susan Sarandon character and loved the strength she displayed. It's wonderful to see a great actress in such a strong, central role. It's a stunning movie.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
NO SPOILERS YET
Sophie (Sarandon) is a children's illustrator who is married to a,architect (Neil) and together they have 2 children - Elly 7/Ruby 10. The movie takes place in Australia where everyone speaks with an Aussie accent except Sarandon who's character moved to Aus. when she was 17 with her parents from NYC (Father is Aussie, Mother was a New Yorker.
Basically, they have a happy life together (although Sarandon's character is still sad about her Mother's passing) until Emily Blunt's character of Mara comes into the picture. She does Tech stuff at Sophie's husband's work and hosted a party that Sophie & her husband attended. To Sophie's surprise when she arrives, she is wearing the same dress as Mara. Mara and Sophie hit it off as Mara dances with her, drinks with her & pays her much attention. There is a flirty vibe going on initiated by Mara. Mara knows about Sophie's Mother dying & confided in her that she lost a dear friend, Kate, in a tragic fire in Kosovo when they were there doing work with the orphans. As the party winds down & Sophie gets ready to leave, another party goer confronts her with her supposed drinking problem. Apparently, there is a rumor that she drinks too much and her flirty, over the top behaviour at the party only drove that idea home. Sophie denies it and as she and her husband (Neil) leave, she notices Mara up on the balcony watching them. She finds her creepy.
As the movie goes on, things turn up missing in Sophie's home. There is also a mysterious blue car parked across the street that an elderly neighbor claims she saw Sophie getting out of. Sophie becomes paranoid that someone is stealing things from her home and sets her sights on Mara who shows up at her home one day for tea wearing a dress that Sophie had noticed was missing. Sophie goes as far as to break into Mara's home, gets caught and Mara and her husband (they have a daughter too) get a restraining order against her. This doesn't stop Sophie, who has now become obsessed with the idea that Mara is out to get her, from stalking her around the town. In all the craziness, Sophie drives her husband away as she accuses him of cheating on her with Mara.
There is a twist that many will see coming a mile away given a conversation out of no where between 2 main characters to set up the twist BUT there is a double twist at the end that leaves the movie flawed IMO b/c, although entertaining, the movie just doesn't live up to what it could have been. Without the final twist, everything makes sense but the last curve ball makes one question previous motives and leaves open answered questions that never get answered. I think that the movie was more into the big twist at the end than actually realizing that the twist leaves many things up in the air.. and I don't like that.
7/10 only b/c the movie was entertaining, kept me guessing at the beginning and the actor was really good especially from Blunt who did a great job of coming across as normal, then broken, then crazy. It IS very flawed though.. a lot of plot holes.
MAJOR SPOILERS NOW . . .
Kate is, in actuality, Sophie's daughter and Mara assumed her identity (they were both orphans as kids) - I get that. However..many questions about motive and actions come into play.
IF Mara wanted to get a mother and a family, why did she spend a good portion of the film trying to destroy and then kill Sophie? If the movie had left it at Mara felt rejected b/c she was the daughter it would have all made sense but they did not.
Also.. one has to wonder.. she tried to kill Sophie with fire, did she kill Kate?
Here is my conclusion since the movie is a mess in that sense - Mara did NOT kill Kate. If she had killed Kate to assume her identity, then again, she wouldn't have been so enraged at Sophie and tried to kill her if she wanted to come to town and pretend to be her daughter and get the love she wanted.
I think that Kate died in a tragic fire and Mara lost her best friend. She took that anger out on Sophie who had abandoned Kate and wanted to ruin her life. She tried to kill her with fire to try and make her feel the pain that Kate had felt. In the end, Sophie mistakenly assumed that Mara was her daughter and Mara couldn't resist the chance to have a real family - she found it Irresistible.
The Dear Mara letter from the adoption agency I think was real and it was her real Mother rejecting her which possible was the catalyst that set Mara off.. that combined with Kate's death.
The family photos she stole and labeled as her family was Mara holding Kate to her 'we share everything' comment. She wanted her family, she wanted her sisters to be her sisters.. she just wanted Sophie, the woman who had rejected Kate, to not be part of the equation.
Is this accurate? Who knows.. the movie ends with the big twist that Kate is the daughter and Mara is an imposter and then nothing.. and it makes one question the motives and actions of Mara and Kate's horrible fate. There are no answers in the actual movie unfortunately..
This is a great film! Susan Sarandon is at her very best in a stunning
and captivating performance. It is without a doubt, her most
accomplished role since Dead Man Walking, and certainly at least equal
to her award winning role in Thelma and Louise. Sam Neill and Emily
Blunt both deliver extraordinary, mesmerising performances. Neill
captures the sympathetic, but increasingly frustrated husband, whose
motives you are never quite sure about, as he appears supportive and
loving, but can he be trusted? Emily Blunt keeps you guessing and
manipulates the audience with her superb performance.
The script and direction are both tight, flow well and create a wonderfully suspenseful, and tense mood throughout. The psychological drama which unfolds is both subtle and yet emotional and incredibly moving as the main character confronts the very past she has spent her life trying to suppress. The themes of this film of loss, trust, and redemption are universal themes which will speak to a range of viewers; you cannot help but be moved by its emotional power.
The ending is a wonderful double twist which is simply brilliant, original - and chilling. I would highly recommend it to anyone who wants to see a first rate, highly intelligent, psychological thriller. It is a truly haunting journey watching this excellent movie.
I noticed this listed in the TV section of the Sunday newspaper, and
with its stars, and 2006 release date, assumed I'd missed it last year
when it must have played theaters here, and I was out of the country
for an extended period.
I also glanced at a few of this site's first few comments, and just encountered some highly-enthusiastic ones. Didn't have time to look at others, and then tonight tuned it in.
What a piece of nonsense - and I wish I had read some of the later comments. Can see why it went "straight to video." And as I read some of the later comments here during the earlier part of the flick, I must admit, though, I got somewhat fascinated by its awfulness.
Some movies are so "bad," they're almost fascinatingly "good." This wasn't one. The word DULL describes every aspect of the movie: the writing; the acting; the dimension (i.e. lack thereof) of the characters.
The little girls were cute and totally "cardboard" additions to the cast. Sam Neill looked like he needed a gallon of coffee, strong enough to provide a caffeine high, with a half-bottle of uppers dissolved in the brew. Susan Sarandon has proved herself a real pro at schlepping around in some of her past performances, but positively outdid herself here. The new, young ingénue, whom others here have praised, was only a bit less wooden than Sam, and did her share of schlepping as well.
I really had trouble even relating (much less caring) as to just what in the hell Susan was doing in her work. As an architect, it would seem that Sam, with his level of energy, would probably take a year to design a chicken coop.
And the ending's "big twist" (after a previous twist), was slightly confusing, too brief and undramatic, and by then, who in the hell would care anyway?
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Sometimes when you're watching a really great movie, you wonder "Wow,
Hollywood producers are just sooo good, I wonder if any of them have
ever just totally f--ked anything up so badly that they got fired?"
And that's why this movie was made. The REAL secret ending isn't that BS about the mother/ daughter/friend. Its that some stud.io boss was looking for an excuse to fire his daughter's husband that he had to hire to make up for the time he drove over his daughter's dog when she was 9.
Its pointless to say this movie is horrible. Its beyond that. No one could genuinely write a positive review of this movie.
I DID watch this movie to the end. You expect that after all this chaos and confusion, you trust the film maker - and some seasoned actors - to have a trick up their sleeve.
Although, Sam Neill should have taught us all a lesson after "Bicentennial Man" -- which, incidentally, is the film that beats out Irresistible for WORST picture of all time. What is it about this guy? He should fire his agent. OOOPS...he did that after Bicentennial Man. I mean come ON... WTF? was this guy watching too much 'ENTOURAGE' and decided to hire his best friend from high school as his agent? Great, except that his best friend must have been the weed dealer from the back alley.
perhaps the weirdest aspect of this movie is that AFTER the whole incident with Susan breaking in to the house and getting the RO, her husband STILL trusts his secretary Mara to PICK UP HIS KIDS?? I mean - - huh?? HUH??
and then after that Mara is dancing with the three kids in the kitchen and she starts stomping on the floor vent... oh, and then of course she gets a molotov cocktail to go in to the basement and what? burn her 'mother' to death with the kids still dancing upstairs?? I mean please, Susan, Sam, explain to me what the f--k you were smoking when you read this script, because I got to get me some o;' that! Aussies grow the goood stuff, apparently.
So, was Mara trying to GET a mother, or kill a mother? the whole thing goes back and forth and its just a mess.
If you ever need to get even with someone, go out and rent them Bicentennial Man, Irresistible, and for good measure, get The Boss's Daughter with Ashton... thats the only other movie that comes to mind that sucks THIS bad.
Was it the worst movie ever? No. Was it below mediocre? Yes. Surprisingly poor development for a reputable cast. I don't blame the actors, but rather the writer, director and editor. timing was off, story development was poor and unimaginative. I kept expecting it to go somewhere other than the obvious. It didn't. The ending was amateur at best. Don't rent it. Wait until it comes on the Sunday morning showcase on public TV when the weather forbids you from going outside, there are no children's shows or Gilligan's's island reruns on to compete for your attention, and you've already vacuumed 4 times. While it wasn't so offensively horrible like the other reviewer insinuated, there are definitely better things to do with your time (counting spots in the carpet, memorizing the different Chinese dynasties, talking to an imaginary friend).
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
It's one of those movies where it ends and you look at your spouse and say, "huh?" There's all this owl imagery and an implied dark secret. But by the time we get to it, after what seems like hours of moody music and implied threat, you don't really care. And then it turns out the secret you thought you revealed hasn't truly been revealed. Sam Neil is all whiny and nondescript. Susan Sarandon is annoyingly fidgety, which I suppose is meant to be acting, after all it's always worked for Meryl Streep. The movie is also padded with numerous scenes that make no sense; you think they're leading to something and they're not. There is a reason this movie went straight to video.
Irresistible is a stunning, tense drama with a great cast. Susan Sarandon is brilliant as a working mother of two - we're never quite sure if she is going mad or just overwrought due to deadlines she can't meet. Sam Neill gives a wonderful performance as her husband trying to be supportive but not quite sure how to handle the situation. UK newcomer Emily Blunt is great as Sam Neill's beautifully seductive co-worker. Irresistible is an intelligent and captivating drama - the directing is superb and the performances are strong. It held me at the edge of my seat. This is another impressive film to come from Australia. I highly recommend this excellent film!
Dreadful mess of a film. Lousy, mixed up plot, poor direction, strange choice of location, indeed a complete balls up of a film. Why Sarandon, an otherwise decent actress chose the script I can't imagine. Besides that, Sarandon is too old. Sam Neil is wooden, something which does work to his advantage in previous outings but not here. Emily Blunt is best as she is creepy, I suspect in reality too... The worst aspect of this film is it's sheer verbosity; with the dialogue stripped down 80% it would have been less risible. The locations were largely unsuitable, reminding me of Ramsey street; although with some variation and careful camera work their mundane nature could have added some desperately needed tension. The director isn't one I've heard of, hardly surprisingly; I'd suggest they turn to making washing powder commercials.
|Page 1 of 5:||    |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|