Best movie of this year hands down!

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

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?

"Irresistible" (not!) plays like a cross between a poor copy of such early 1990s thrillers as "Single White Female" and "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle" and a made-for-TV family drama. It is directed flatly and without any sense of style (save for some ineffectual dream sequences), and for the story it has to tell, it really should have been about 30 minutes long. I mean, how many scenes do we need of Susan Sarandon losing something from her house, thick-headed husband Sam Neill telling her she's imagining it all, while we are certain that Emily Blunt is responsible? It's hard to believe that this dreary, endless time-waster attracted three actors of this caliber. At least the absolutely stunning Blunt went on to bigger and better things. *1/2 out of 4.

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.

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.