This is a MUST see movie, don't let the title confuse you.
Added 8/26/2009
Honestly, I don't think I would have ever watched this film had I not known the writer/director, Jon Reiss (we went to Junior High and High School together if anyone cares). But I was pleasantly surprised! The story line is easy to follow and the scenes are just long enough to peak your interest. I found it to be quietly sinister, it sneaks up on you and won't let you off the sofa (futon in my case). The camera angles and the use of color and props make it very appealing. I won't spoil the movie for you, you have to see it to appreciate it. It is 90 minutes and nothing is wasted in this film. I would love to see what Jon does next, check out his other films on Amazon!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Passive Aggressive
Added 1/2/2007
-The house sitter from hell is pretty much what the movie is about and whiles that's not new territory it still works for the most part. Plus there is this whole aspect of the hunted becoming the hunter which I believe makes about the 6th time this year that I've seen a movie with that motif. The way the main character gets his revenge is a very clever one though and I guess if had to slowly kill someone I'd trap them in a box too and taunt them on a video camera. That whole video camera and being trapped in a box to me was far more interesting than anything in the movie. I wish the whole movie had being about that instead of the slow moving and sometimes disturbing story that we get here.
-The only reason I rented this movie was for the Aussie beauty Radha Mitchell, and I have to say I was little disappointed after seeing the movie. It's not that she's terrible in the movie, far from it. It's just that she pretty much gives a cameo performance. Her screen time is probably about five minutes total, and in the scenes that she's in she's either having sex with someone or doing something equally suggestive. I'm sure if you find her hot then you'll love her scenes in the movie, but for those of us that find her beautiful and share no naughty thought about her, it may require the use of the fast forwarding button. And according to Reiss the reason why her character had about three lines in the movie was because she was originally written as French character.
-Boyd Kestner who plays the domineering Zack Taylor, and he pretty much gives the best performance in the movie. He plays the a**hole that we all know that thinks he's the s**t and has a way to exert his authority on anyone. Even when he's weak and trapped in a box he still manages to scare and intimidate. This is the first with Kestner that I've seen and I really hope that the man catches a lucky break and does something that garners him more attention because he was amazing in this movie. Paul Hipp plays the dormant Robert very brilliantly and he does a great job of playing a man that spends the movie being told what to do. In the latter moments of the movie when he finally grows some testes and figures out how to stop Zack we get to see a much more lively version of him and Kipp plays that nicely as well.
-Like Michael Bay, Antoine Fuqua, Spike Jonze, and F Gary Gray, Director John Reiss also comes from the music video world but since a bulk of his videos have been banned on MTV I don't think they are ones that anyone has seen before. He has a very assured style of directing and never rushes things which is great, but a little speed wouldn't have hurt this movie. things that should have been done in two minutes went on for what felt like ten minutes. The movie is only about ninety minutes long, but it sure does feel longer. I wouldn't have minded if the slow moments had something interesting, but the ones we get here are filled with either sex scenes that make you fast forward the movie, or Robert moping around the house with a "woe is me" demeanor.
-The one thing about the movie, which was apparently a huge issue in the casting of the movie, is the whole "rape sequence". The clever thing that the Reiss does with the scene though is not show the thing but rather just suggest it, and show it start then cut away. That to me was greatly effective and even though we don't get to see anything it still left me in a bit of a sour mood. I didn't crack a smile or feel good about anything after that scene for about a good 30 minutes which is a great credit to Reiss. The scene is a turning point in the movie so it was a necessary one but at the same time a bit unnerving, which is why so many people turned down the role of Zack. I think there were better ways for him to have shown the whole dominance aspect, but what we have in the movie is fine. It makes the movie harder to enjoy, but it still works fine.
-It has its problems but overall it's a pretty decent flick. If you're a die hard Radha Mitchell fan then I won't recommend it because she's barely in it. However If you're in the mood however for a tale of dominance and revenge then this maybe your ticket.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Peculiar amalgam of other films
Added 1/18/2004
The first half of this film actually works well because the dynamics of the two couples portrayed are sizzling, punchy, and smart. One of them is a yuppie duo made up of a photographer obsessed with somewhat creepy subjects, and his wife who's equally compulsive in her behavior about trying to become pregnant. These two obvious uptighters are paired off against a couple who are the obvious opposite--wild with enormous libidos, selfish, and inconsiderate. It's when the film progresses to the dynamics of the two men alone that it encounters serious problems. The interaction here is much too forced, contrived; there's a lot of treading water here, but the water is pseudo-water and the treading is thrashing about without a reason. After all, why thrash around in water that's not even water? Without giving away the plot points here, it's just not credible that the dominant one of this male pair would continue to accept the ministrations of the other man after a major problem arises. In addition, the dominant guy's treatment of the other man is much too crudely handled. This obvious lack of credibility ruins the entire second half of the film whose ending would otherwise be very creepy. But because the events leading up to it really don't work, the ending suffers considerably. We just don't buy it. Had the filmmaker thought through the interaction of the two men more carefully and plotted the film in this middle section more believably, this would have been a significantly stronger piece of work. As it is, it is a muddle whose three stars are for the strong first half and some definite creepiness in the ending section. In addition, any title that requires serious cogitation to understand (after which it is STILL not understood) is perhaps somewhat suspect.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Unexpected, twisted little gem
Added 8/11/2003
Full disclosure: I rented this film because a former boyfriend of mine was the director of photography and I was curious to see what he'd been up to. For a low-budget film, it is gorgeously filmed (good job, Matt Faw!) and well acted. Given the title and the word "erotic" on the cover, I was expecting the plot to evolve into a kinky threesome, but instead its twistedness takes a whole different route. It starts out normally enough: a couple who's stressed out from trying to get pregnant takes a vacation and allows another couple they don't really know to house-sit. When they get back, the house-sitters won't leave. The mind-games quickly escalate and eventually turn violent and unexpectedly (but very inventively) sadistic. Not a date movie, but definitely worth watching if you like odd, twisted, offbeat films. (And the director's commentary only added to my appreciation of the cast and crew's achievement.)
3 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
Cleopatra needs to go back to 1st husband
Added 12/8/2002
I'm not going to tell you how the movie ended like the previous poster had, thank you very much. If you like diabolical movies, then add this to your list of ones to watch. It's predictable in a many ways with a sick surprising ending. I wasn't enjoying it much and not too enthuses about this cuz it's not my type of movie and i would not watch it again due to the nature of the subject matter which is twisted. My question is 'who is the 2nd husband of cleopatra?' which is what i was trying to figure out during the whole movie.
1 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
This is a MUST see movie, don't let the title confuse you.
Added 8/26/2009
Honestly, I don't think I would have ever watched this film had I not known the writer/director, Jon Reiss (we went to Junior High and High School together if anyone cares). But I was pleasantly surprised! The story line is easy to follow and the scenes are just long enough to peak your interest. I found it to be quietly sinister, it sneaks up on you and won't let you off the sofa (futon in my case). The camera angles and the use of color and props make it very appealing. I won't spoil the movie for you, you have to see it to appreciate it. It is 90 minutes and nothing is wasted in this film. I would love to see what Jon does next, check out his other films on Amazon!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Passive Aggressive
Added 1/2/2007
-The house sitter from hell is pretty much what the movie is about and whiles that's not new territory it still works for the most part. Plus there is this whole aspect of the hunted becoming the hunter which I believe makes about the 6th time this year that I've seen a movie with that motif. The way the main character gets his revenge is a very clever one though and I guess if had to slowly kill someone I'd trap them in a box too and taunt them on a video camera. That whole video camera and being trapped in a box to me was far more interesting than anything in the movie. I wish the whole movie had being about that instead of the slow moving and sometimes disturbing story that we get here.
-The only reason I rented this movie was for the Aussie beauty Radha Mitchell, and I have to say I was little disappointed after seeing the movie. It's not that she's terrible in the movie, far from it. It's just that she pretty much gives a cameo performance. Her screen time is probably about five minutes total, and in the scenes that she's in she's either having sex with someone or doing something equally suggestive. I'm sure if you find her hot then you'll love her scenes in the movie, but for those of us that find her beautiful and share no naughty thought about her, it may require the use of the fast forwarding button. And according to Reiss the reason why her character had about three lines in the movie was because she was originally written as French character.
-Boyd Kestner who plays the domineering Zack Taylor, and he pretty much gives the best performance in the movie. He plays the a**hole that we all know that thinks he's the s**t and has a way to exert his authority on anyone. Even when he's weak and trapped in a box he still manages to scare and intimidate. This is the first with Kestner that I've seen and I really hope that the man catches a lucky break and does something that garners him more attention because he was amazing in this movie. Paul Hipp plays the dormant Robert very brilliantly and he does a great job of playing a man that spends the movie being told what to do. In the latter moments of the movie when he finally grows some testes and figures out how to stop Zack we get to see a much more lively version of him and Kipp plays that nicely as well.
-Like Michael Bay, Antoine Fuqua, Spike Jonze, and F Gary Gray, Director John Reiss also comes from the music video world but since a bulk of his videos have been banned on MTV I don't think they are ones that anyone has seen before. He has a very assured style of directing and never rushes things which is great, but a little speed wouldn't have hurt this movie. things that should have been done in two minutes went on for what felt like ten minutes. The movie is only about ninety minutes long, but it sure does feel longer. I wouldn't have minded if the slow moments had something interesting, but the ones we get here are filled with either sex scenes that make you fast forward the movie, or Robert moping around the house with a "woe is me" demeanor.
-The one thing about the movie, which was apparently a huge issue in the casting of the movie, is the whole "rape sequence". The clever thing that the Reiss does with the scene though is not show the thing but rather just suggest it, and show it start then cut away. That to me was greatly effective and even though we don't get to see anything it still left me in a bit of a sour mood. I didn't crack a smile or feel good about anything after that scene for about a good 30 minutes which is a great credit to Reiss. The scene is a turning point in the movie so it was a necessary one but at the same time a bit unnerving, which is why so many people turned down the role of Zack. I think there were better ways for him to have shown the whole dominance aspect, but what we have in the movie is fine. It makes the movie harder to enjoy, but it still works fine.
-It has its problems but overall it's a pretty decent flick. If you're a die hard Radha Mitchell fan then I won't recommend it because she's barely in it. However If you're in the mood however for a tale of dominance and revenge then this maybe your ticket.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Peculiar amalgam of other films
Added 1/18/2004
The first half of this film actually works well because the dynamics of the two couples portrayed are sizzling, punchy, and smart. One of them is a yuppie duo made up of a photographer obsessed with somewhat creepy subjects, and his wife who's equally compulsive in her behavior about trying to become pregnant. These two obvious uptighters are paired off against a couple who are the obvious opposite--wild with enormous libidos, selfish, and inconsiderate. It's when the film progresses to the dynamics of the two men alone that it encounters serious problems. The interaction here is much too forced, contrived; there's a lot of treading water here, but the water is pseudo-water and the treading is thrashing about without a reason. After all, why thrash around in water that's not even water? Without giving away the plot points here, it's just not credible that the dominant one of this male pair would continue to accept the ministrations of the other man after a major problem arises. In addition, the dominant guy's treatment of the other man is much too crudely handled. This obvious lack of credibility ruins the entire second half of the film whose ending would otherwise be very creepy. But because the events leading up to it really don't work, the ending suffers considerably. We just don't buy it. Had the filmmaker thought through the interaction of the two men more carefully and plotted the film in this middle section more believably, this would have been a significantly stronger piece of work. As it is, it is a muddle whose three stars are for the strong first half and some definite creepiness in the ending section. In addition, any title that requires serious cogitation to understand (after which it is STILL not understood) is perhaps somewhat suspect.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
