The Couchpotatoes Okay first of all let me tell this. The reviewers that think this is one of the worst movie they ever saw must not have watched a lot of movies in their sorry life. I am the first to admit Irresistible is not a masterpiece but saying it's the worst is just ridiculous. The story is watchable even though you kind of see it coming from miles away. But it still remains a movie that keeps you entertained for an evening. Susan Sarandon en Emily Blunt are good actresses and in this movie they are as well. So for all the haters just watch some more movies, I'm sure you will watch thousands of worse movies then this one. I'm glad I watched this one. I probably won't watch it again but does it really matter?

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.

pearlyvictoria I 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.

caa821 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?