Irresistible Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
A secret is not safe if the truth has a witness.
Her twisted lies will become a deadly obsession.
Deep Secrets. Dark Obsession. Deadly Seduction.
Sophie Hartley (Susan Sarandon) is convinced that she is being stalked. She becomes increasingly certain that her husband's (Sam Neill) beautiful co-worker, Mara (Emily Blunt), wants her children, her husband and her life. But no one believes Sophie. Forced to prove her sanity, Sophie grows increasingly paranoid - but is she imagining things? Sophie becomes completely caught up in her obsession, turning stalker herself - and makes a discovery more frightening than her worst fear.
| Susan Sarandon | Sophie |
| Sam Neill | Craig |
| Emily Blunt | Mara |
| Charles 'Bud' Tingwell | Sam |
| William McInnes | Jimmy |
| Georgie Parker | Jen |
| Terry Norris | Magistrate |
| Joanna Hunt-Prokhovnik | Elly |
| Lauren Mikkor | Ruby |
| Heather Mitchell | Rina |
| Jill Forster | Helen |
| Joelene Crnogorac | Anastasia |
| Geneviève Picot | Mara's Nurse |
| Carolyn Bock | Sophie's Nurse |
| Alethea McGrath | Maggie |
| Ann Turner |
5.70 out of 10 (1367 votes)
Visitor Reviews
pleasantly surprised
posted on 31 Mar 2009I was pleasantly surprised by "Irresistible", which turned out to be a deftly made thriller with just enough twists and turns to keep the viewer guessing. Some were a bit more predictable than others, and others really came from left field and will likely be the dividing point on this one, but it was a surprisingly enjoyable view. What seems to begin as a genre piece leaning heavily on the excellent 1940's films "Gaslight" really mentally becomes three different parallel story lines. The questions that stick in your mind throughout much of the film and offer those three simultaneous scenarios are due to a first rate performance by Susan Sarandon. A lesser actress would have been a complete embarrassment in this film, but her no holds barred presence builds up what could have been a little throwaway flick.
Two * may be one too many
posted on 20 Jan 2009I 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?
A Predictable Suspense with a Too-Old Susan
posted on 06 Jan 2009Emily Blunt makes a good showing this predictable suspense made out of Australia. Susan Sarandon plays a 40-something wife of an architect and mother of 2 small children. Plagued by artist's block, obsessed with owls and haunted by missing toys, dresses and photos, this scatter-brained artist is convinced that her husband's co-worker has the make on him. Or does he? Two hours later, you'll know the truth. My suggestion? Fast-forward to midway. You'll figure it out.Soundtrack is annoying. The beginning sounds like there is moaning through out the house; and it's not the scary kind of moaning. The cinematography was good; direction good; production good; acting good; Susan's casting was just wrong. And screenplay was weak.
Too straightforward and too sketchy
posted on 29 Dec 2008This is a case where it's difficult to view and judge a film ahistorically, which is something I usually try to do. If it weren't for hundreds of other thrillers in the past 50 or 60 years and if it weren't for tens of other films exploring mental problems and breakdowns, Irresistible could have earned a higher score. It is well acted, and technical elements such as cinematography are handled very competently. The premise and themes of the film are somewhat interesting. But for any long-time cinema fan, we've seen material like this many times before, handled much better, with more suspense, more resonance and more surprise. Irresistible suffers from both being too straightforward and too sketchy.There are at least two twists to the film, but they are not very unexpected beyond the fact that the principal twist isn't set up very well. The set-up consists of only a brief, ambiguous conversation between the main character, Sophie Hartley (Susan Sarandon), and her father, Sam (Charles "Bud" Tingwell). It's ambiguous for a number of reasons, among them that there was a recent family tragedy, in the context of which Sophie repeatedly says, "I keep thinking about what happened"--as if something unusual, with an implied culpability, precipitated the family tragedy, but we never learn anything more about it. The other reason for the ambiguity (and I'm keeping this description somewhat ambiguous to avoid spoilers) is that in the twist set-up conversation, we don't know whom Sophie or Sam are referring to when they speak of a long ago event. Additionally, the entire conversation is severely out of place. It comes up and is resolved pretty nonchalantly, but for the conversation to not have taken place in these characters' histories long before when we're shown--if the event referenced was really that important to bring up now, but it had not been brought up yet--there would have to be much more emotional baggage, which shouldn't make this scene so casual. In short, it plays like a contrived afterthought. It's there because writer/director Ann Turner must have felt the need for or must have been told that she needed more of a justification for her twist, so a severely underdeveloped backstory was inserted where she felt there was room for it, without trying to make it fit and flow with the story.That kind of vague sketchiness plagues the entire film. Much more strongly than it is a thriller, Irresistible is about Sophie's mental breakdown. Now, to an extent, Sophie's mental problems are supposed to be a red herring and we're supposed to be a bit skeptical about them. The interesting reason for this is that mental breakdowns aren't usually taken as mental breakdowns by the people who are having them. But there are also the more typical thriller reasons for it. However, whatever else may be occurring in the film, Sophie is undeniably having psychological problems.Things that should both help explain this central focus of the film and things that should be impacted by it remain far too sketchy. Here are a couple of the more important examples. Besides one of Sophie's daughters talking about her "spotty quoll" stuffed animal over and over (a quoll is a small Australian marsupial), her kids are never developed much beyond ornaments. We never get to learn much about Sophie's work--she's an illustrator and from what I can gather, she's also supposed to be writing the text of a children's book. Mention is made often enough that she's drawing or writing about some important past event, but we just do not know what; at the end, it seems like maybe it had to do with the twist, but this is not at all clear--it could be that she just changed the project halfway through.However, there would be another way to read (and to have played) the twist and many of the ambiguities--maybe we're supposed to believe that Sophie has been somewhat obsessed with the relevant event for many years. The problem is that that interpretation doesn't work given how Turner actually developed the film. Too many things make no sense if Sophie is supposed to be obsessed with the relevant event. There are too many things that she'd try to do that she isn't doing. Turner tries to play it both ways--probably to retain the twist aspect. She wants the relevant event to be unimportant enough that a lot of things are almost an afterthought and we have to reinterpret, but she also wants it to drive the story. Maybe it could work to have it both ways, but not in the way that Irresistible was written and directed.As it plays now, most of the thriller stuff seems very tacked on, as if in the hope of making a more commercial film. But Irresistible would have worked better if the focus had stayed on Sophie's psychological problems, without the stereotypical thriller accoutrements--especially near the ending. Much of the ambiguous stuff would have worked better if it had stayed ambiguous rather than having the twist recast the film so that pretty much everything that seems to be literally going on, everything that the characters think is going on, is all that really is going on.Turner dropped the ball on this one.
It's 'FATAL Attraction' but more. See it!
posted on 29 Dec 2008From the opening frames this film is gripping. The sense of unease and the suspense grow throughout the film to the final twist. And yet the viewer is never quite sure about what is going on. You just don't know if Sophie is imagining things or if they are real. It all takes place in such a real world, and the innocence and fun of Sophie's children somehow makes the darkness of the story worse. When Mara collects Sophie's children I was terrified. The acting is excellent, and all the characters are totally convincing, and, the story is tightly crafted. I was on the edge of my seat until the end. It's 'FATAL Attraction' but more. See it!
Just Plain Bad
posted on 24 Oct 2008I don't know why I watched more than 5 minutes of this movie. Well, yes I do. I was intrigued by the description that was written on the DVD jacket and, although I was thoroughly bored from the start, I wanted to see how "Sophie becomes completely caught up in her obsession, turning stalker herself - and makes a discovery more frightening than her worst fear." The description was misleading, but not as much as the title. I still don't know what "Irresistible" means relative the movie. Everything was bad about this movie. Susan Sarandon looked like she was straining to make her role believable. The plot was uninteresting and predictable. The "Twilight Zone" suspense and innuendo was annoying. If you are thinking about renting this movie, Don't! Find something else to do with your $4.99 and the 103 minutes of your life that could be wasted watching this film.
It's a stunning movie.
posted on 12 Oct 2008This 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.
A muddled mess
posted on 26 Sep 2008It'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.
simply awful
posted on 20 Sep 2008Zero. But you have to give a movie here at least a one. Truly ghastly this one. And if Susan had her hand in this, it just shows how truly dopey Hollywood is, no matter how far from home. There is no way this movie was ever, ever, ever salvageable. How do things like this get made, or even the first five minutes. At least with the Titanic, plenty were saved. This one< not just the orchestra went down with the ship, the entire crew, even the cute little babies. And to think that I wound up watching this right after 29 Palms, mirror images of rot and wretchedness. If you want to see one of the worst movies ever made by a crew of decent actors, run, do not walk for this one. It is staggeringly boring.
Stolen Identity
posted on 13 Aug 2008In Australia, the artist Sophie (Susan Sarandon) has a happy marriage with her husband and designer Craig (Sam Neil) and they have two beautiful daughters, Elly and Ruby. Sophie is traumatized by the death of her mother, and under pressure to finish a work paid in advance in a tight schedule. Craig lost his keys and after meeting her husband's colleague Mara (Emily Blunt) in a party at her house, Sophie feels weird things happening at her own house, such as an attack of wasps, disappearance of her favorite dress, photos and toys, and she suspects that Mara is trying to get her husband and daughters for her. Sophie becomes paranoid and obsessed with this idea, and nobody believes on her. Craig actually believes Sophie is driving insane, and she stalks Mara, trying to prove she is right, disclosing deep secrets about Mara and her."Irresistible" is a dramatic thriller, sort of "Fatal Attraction" with two final twists. The story is good and it is amazing the number of viewers that has not understood the final twist. Susan Sarandon and Sam Neil are great actress and actor, but they are too old for their roles as parents of young daughters. Even Susan Sarandon (60) is too old to play the mother of Mara, the character of Emily Blunt (23), since she was supposed to be eighteen years older than her daughter. My recommendation is to pay attention on the story, especially on the last twist, and you will certainly enjoy this above average low-budget movie. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Identidade Roubada" ("Stolen Identity")
worst ever?
posted on 28 Jul 2008Was 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).
Very well crafted and unique film with a poor title
posted on 03 Apr 2008Despite what the previous reviewer said this is a very good film. The excellent globally known actors ( Sarandon and Neill ) portray their characters with subtle, very believable nuance and the virtual newcomer Emily Blunt plays off them like a seasoned vet. With great actors in place all you need is a good story to flesh out and this one hits the mark. Is Sarandon paranoid or is something or someone really unraveling her life, marriage and sense of what's real ? The trip to what happens is worth every second on screen and the ending not only has a twist but a second subtle and more mysterious twist right at the end that turns your first conclusions upside down. This film is well set up for a sequel (which I doubt will happen due to its release straight to video in the U.S>) but also stands very well on its own. Emily Blunt is a new actress with great talent and will surely become a big name once her work gets more exposure. The movie is well worth seeing if for nothing else than its very unique unresolved double twist ending.
Mediocre Mystery
posted on 10 Mar 2008"Irresistible" is a poorly thought out film. Susan Sarandon plays Sophie, who is an artist. She thinks her husband is having an affair with his secretary. When she thinks this, nobody believes her. This is basically "Fatal Attraction" again.The problem with the film is that there is no suspense at all. It shoots itself in the foot because of the predictability of the characters. The viewers will know nothing will happen to her. Sam Neill is good as usual, but he doesn't do much.In the trivia section of IMDb it says that she worked with the director for six months on the script to meet her specifications. I guess Susan supports movies with zero tension, no character development, and no sense of humor in the role. That means everybody else gets the short end of the stick. In the end: If you want a good Susan Sarandon film "White Palace" or "Light Sleeper" are better choices.
Quite entertaining, not great - see why it went to video.
posted on 21 Feb 2008Rented this one because Susan Sarandon and Sam Neill were in the cast. Took a chance because could not see much else. The movie was reasonably entertaining but Sarandon who I almost always like did not seem at her best. A couple of times she was not convincing at all - most unlike her. Sam Neill had a pretty undemanding role as the husband and of course he did fine. Emily Blunt, with her scary eyes, may have been the most interesting and convincing as Neill's work mate and the "mystery woman". Part of the surprise ending was apparent well before the end so that took some of the suspense away but at the very end there clearly is in the "Fatal Attraction" style, a final surprise on top of the other surprises. Well my wife and I (in spite of watching the last 5 minutes twice) could not understand it so if anyone can really do a "spoiler" and let me know what the real "shocking revelation" was - we would love to know!!!
The ending
posted on 08 Jan 2008I just plain don't get the ending. I wish someone would write a spoiler and let us confused people know what you think. I watched the first 40 and the last 40 minutes of the movie and listened to the rest. I was so unhappy I didn't pay better attention now I am going out of my mind trying to figure it out. However, it was interesting enough to watch on TV. I disagree with it not being worth the time because it had its moments that pulled you back in.Like the party scene. I thought Mara was hitting on Susan and was going to use that to break up the marriage. But, I was wrong.This movie get an eight because I will watch anything with Susan Sarandon in it. Sam Neill is a favorite from long ago but his character was kind of not dynamic. I also thought the children were under-developed. The best character was the older lady who was the neighbor. She kept things together in the movie.
Psychological "thriller" doesn't...
posted on 25 Nov 2007...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.
Seriously - all the positive reviews here were written by the film makers
posted on 11 Nov 2007Sometimes 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.
emily blunt made this movie
posted on 09 Nov 2007I watched this in the cinemas, yes the movies last weekend, firstly because I love sarandon and think she is a magnificent actress and secondly because i though emily blunt was the second most memorable character in devil wears prada after meryl.Although there were plenty of scenes that never went anywhere and supposedly meaningful interpretative scenes, the whole movie was held together NOT by a good scriptwriter or director but by a stellar cast, in particular i would like to commend emily blunt for surprising me, I was worried for a while that I would find her performance unconvincing after knowing her as the funny girl from devil wears prada she quickly develops into a convincingly sweet girl with an evil twist, in my opinion she alone in the final scene is worth the money I paid, she gave the movie the unsettling feeling at the finale with her cold as steel eyes....more importantly she made us believe that this could indeed be a REAL person (although definitely NOT a real story) and made the best of a movie with plenty of loopholes..
Intriguing, but one too many twists
posted on 12 Oct 2007Susan Sarandon goes "slumming" in Australia and comes up with a pretty nifty thriller, IRRESISTIBLE. She plays a mom and wife and professional artist who begins to imagine things. She hears voices after her mother dies. Doors open and close of their own accord. Family photos disappear. An elderly neighbor swears someone dressed like Sarandon has been going in and out of her house! Changing the locks doesn't appear to help, and hubby Sam Neill is less than sympathetic. The solution comes at us unexpectedly, but then the writer or director decides to take it for one more turn -- at which point I was crying, "Enough!" It comes to A LIFETIME-type conclusion. Sarandon makes the film. Without her edgy performance as the aging, distraught mother, IRRESISTIBLE would be absolutely nothing. Neil is just window dressing.
- 1
- 2
Surprisingly superb
posted on 04 May 2009I watched this low budget Australian movie just because of Emily Blunt but in the end it turned out to be a great film. Blunt, Neill and Sarandon all play their roles excellently and it's a shame that this movie is not available for wider audience. Unpredictable plot without cheap Hollywood tricks and scenes makes this film a hidden gem. All actors do they work really well and you can't just shut down in the end, because it's so surprising. This thriller is really thrilling and doesn't use any of clichés which are so common for this genre. Instead of it Irresistible uses original approaches and is full of beautiful images and realistic behavior of main characters. It's certainly worth-seeing.