Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Beulah Bram A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Doug8910 As some time, a film that attempts Hitchcockian suspense will succeed. Beyond the shadow of any doubt, this is not that film. This film doesn't contain the shadow of any suspense.I must confess that the film actually did create some suspense for me...About 45 minutes in, there was a sense of tension about how much longer the film would need to be endured. This is suspense, and film making, of the worst kind.The script is banal. The gaps in the plot are insurmountable. In an apparent effort to create suspense that doesn't exist in the plot, the film is mind-numbingly, slowly-paced and imbued with overacting. As a result of the poor script and misguided performances, the film appears almost like a highly financed high school production. This film is a testament to the conclusion that, when given a horrible script, even great actors can appear inept.SPOILER ALERT!!! This film is based on the premise that Mara (Emily Blunt) is exacting vengeance on her birth mother (Sophie-Susan Sarandon), who gave her up at birth, by seducing her mother's husband, Craig (Sam Neill), and taking over her mother's family. This could be a warped, but intriguing, plot. However, it depends on our being convinced that there is a smoldering desire building between Mara and Craig, and that Mara is carefully tending that fire. That element is virtually absent in the film. Until Mara embraces Craig in his office after his architectural design is accepted by a client, there is little evidence that Mara is attempting to seduce Craig. Even during this embrace, and the subsequent "intimacy" between Mara and Craig, the passion is vacuous.The denouement is simply inane. While hospitalized after attempting to incinerate Sophie in the basement of her own home, and suffering burns herself, Mara is shown creating a scrapbook of her life. This scene shows Mara becoming tearful as she looks at a photograph or another girl who resided in the same orphanage as she had, even though we haven't heard about this young woman previously in the film. (Is this supposed to mean something to us?). Even more inexplicably, Mara is shown pasting, next to her own photo, a photograph of Sophie which lovingly bears the word "Mother." Are we really expected to believe this? IMDb indicates that Susan Sarandon collaborated on the script for six months, with the writer/director Ann Turner, before it reached her standard. Another few years might have helped.

MBunge There are two things that will be clear to you after watching this film.1. Writer/Director Ann Turner can't recognize a good story when it's staring her in the face.2. Susan Sarandon has a tremendous rack.Sophie (Susan Sarandon) is an American expatriate who was brought to Australia by her father when she was just a teenager. Now fully into her middle ages, Sophie is an artist and book illustrator. She's married to Craig (Sam Neill), a successful architect, and has two lovely young daughters named Elly (Joanna Hunt-Prokhovnik) and Ruby (Lauren Mikkor). Sophie's mother recently passed away and she's also struggling with a new project, drawing a memory of sorrow and pain from her past for a new book featuring the work of many artists. Already emotionally unsettled, Sophie notices things going missing and other strange things happening in her home. Eventually, she begins to suspect that Mara (Emily Blunt), the new IT person at Craig's office, is breaking into her home and playing some sort of sinister game with Sophie's family. Now, you may think an IT person who looks like Emily Blunt is more unrealistic than a flying car named Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, but that's not the silliest thing you'll see in this film.As Sophie becomes more and more paranoid, she starts following Mara around. She even sneaks into Mara's home and gets caught. That leads to a restraining order against Sophie as even her husband thinks she's losing her marbles. Sophie's behavior becomes more erratic and more extreme, until she's only allowed to have supervised visits with Ruby and Elly. T hen there's a scene where Sophie's dark and painful memory is revealed and that's when the movie gets a lobotomy. After that scene, there's no more mystery or suspense of tension in the story. You know exactly what's going to happen and how the movie is going to end (Hint, Mara is playing a sinister game). There's a fight in a basement that's straight out of Melrose Place. There's a climax that makes no sense, a heartfelt reunion after that which actually makes negative sense and then a twist ending that is laughably stupid.It's too bad this film finishes so poorly, because the first half of it or so verges on being genuinely engrossing. When the story really seems to be about a woman who is emotionally breaking down, haunted by something from her past and losing her grip under the stress of remembering it, Irresistible is fairly good. As Sophie starts to unravel, Sarandon gives us a feminine version of what Michael Douglas did in Falling Down. She shows us a normal woman slowly crumbling under pressure. And if all of her fears and suspicions had turned out to just be in Sophie's head, this might have turned out to be a very good movie. Instead it degenerates into a below average, "woman in peril" Lifetime flick. If Mara's sinister game had just been a figment of Sophie's imagination, then none of Sophie's paranoid observations need to make any sense. But when those suspicions are confirmed, you can't help but recognize that a bunch of stuff that happens in the story is impossible and/or ridiculous.Even as the film heads south, though, Sarandon's bosom remains spectacular. I t may remain covered for the entire movie, but there are still some scenes where her breasts almost qualify as supporting characters. This may be the best performance by clothed boobs in cinematic history. They are that damn impressive.Irresistible is more frustrating than your run of the mill bad movie. It teases you for quite a while with the suggestion you're going to watch something worthwhile, and then smashes those hopes like a hot girl crushing a nerd's dreams on prom night. If Sarandon had actually unleashed her blouse puppies, that might have been forgivable. She didn't, though, so it's not.

MrGKB ...but can't be faulted for trying hard. Too hard, unfortunately. Writer/director Ann Turner strives to build tension, but loses focus as the script distracts the audience with too much belaboring of incidents to maintain any real dramatic momentum. It's also difficult to accept sexagenarian Susan Sarandon as a woman in her early forties. Yes, she's always held her age well, but c'mon. Still, fans of her work will enjoy what she gives them here, even as they groan at times. Sam Neill does his dutiful best as the husband bewildered by his wife's odd behavior, but his character comes totally unraveled in a third act seduction. Speaking of which, although decently filmed in the beautiful environs of Melbourne, Australia, "Irresistible" descends into formulaic schlock in its final act, and loses whatever good will the audience had for it at that point. The twist ending only makes you wonder how clever little Mara (played with all the appropriate do-ability necessary by tyro starlet, Emily "The Devil Wears Prada" Blunt) got the job with the hubby's firm in the first place, and the too-long-by-half second twist ending is out of place. Regrettably mistitled, "Irresistible" simply isn't.

bobcolganrac I liked this movie for several reasons; it's got its flaws, but it's also got some redeeming qualities. The premise is good. The plot unwinds in enough fits and starts to actually seem as if some of this could be happening---it keeps the viewer uncertain as to where it's going. It also fails to adequately provide the interstices where something has happened, it's not well explained how it happened, and we are asked to accept that it has been a natural progression. This unfortunately fails to win the viewers' affection. An example of this is where the children are suddenly withdrawn and in fear of Sarandon's mother character --- yet nothing in the script has fully prepared us to believe that the parental bonds have suffered that greatly especially when the relationship previously has been shown strong. What the filmmakers are trying to do is obvious: they want to unsettle the audience, to get them out of familiar territory, and stretching the normal boundaries in relationship, in time, in space is an effective way of doing this. It just has to be done with a little more credibility and all would be fine. I suspect that some of the seams are showing as result of editing and failing to include continuity for proper pacing. We see the breakdown of the protagonist---we are not sure if her delusions are causing, or caused by events. What we don't get is the flow from certitude to shaken state, leaving us not sure whether we're buying into it or not. There are also a few incidents that could have been altered to be a little less far-fetched---(floor grate scene). Overall I did like the movie, I just felt it needed some polishing. O'Neil's role is one of the loving husband and protective father . . . somewhere he is also simply a man, and it doesn't feel right when he's going through a seduction. I found it unreasonable: his character had too much to lose, and too much was hinted at as to why he would fall for this but not detail enough, again, to allow me to believe that he would maritally stray. As mysteries go, this one is only needing some editorial work, and a bit of scriptural add-in to be a much better movie. Still, I liked it, and I liked the final Du Maurier-esquire twist. That I did like.