Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Don't listen to the negative reviews

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

"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.

...basically because it had Lifetime written all over it. I grant you I was surprised to see Susan Sarandon and Sam Neill in a TV movie, but this was no feature film. Susan Sarandon worked with the writer for six months so that the script met her specifications? Maybe she should have worked with her for a year.Sarandon plays Sophie Hartley, a talented and successful illustrator of children's books. Her husband (Neill) is a successful architect. They have two daughters and, because of her husband's job, they live in Australia now.Sophie has just lost her mother and is taking it very hard. Her husband convinces her to buy a new dress and attend a party with him. There she meets an office associate of his, Mara, a beautiful young woman who is wearing the identical dress. She is extremely happy to meet Sophie and since the party is at her house, she changes her dress. The two spend a night talking, Sophie being a little intoxicated.As time goes on, strange things begin to happen in the Hartley household. A neighbor tells Sophie that she saw someone going into her house wearing her beautiful dress what has hibiscus on it. Sophie's hibiscus dress is missing. Then she sees that Mara is wearing the same one when she visits her. Then, a gift that Mara helped her husband bring home for Sophie's birthday has a wasp nest that attacks Sophie and puts her in the hospital.Sophie becomes convinced that Mara is breaking into the house and going through it, which her husband doesn't think is happening. Sophie follows Mara one day and enters her house, where Mara catches her. Everyone thinks she's crazy. She slaps Sophie with a restraining order. Sophie doesn't pay any attention to it and keeps following her.I had this thing figured out within about ten minutes.In the film it's revealed that Sophie was 18 in 1975. I doubt it since Sarandon is only a few years older than I am, and I remember her very well as an ingénue.Good actors wasted, and the ending wasn't satisfying.

A minor variant on the female stalker genre of movies sees Susan Sarandon relocated to Australia (her American accent explained away with a troubled New York upbringing, which later assumes greater importance in the plot) and her happily-married with two children, successful-career existence shaken by someone out to bring it all down. Said someone turns out to a pretty young work-colleague of her husband with a young, good-looking husband and daughter of her own, so why would she go after Sarandon, if indeed she is the interloper?As is I suppose typical with this type of movie, the plotting has some convenient coincidences (Sarandon's main independent witness is a conveniently forgetful OAP) and some unlikely occurrences (Sarandon breaking into her suspected rival's house, twice, what would make a supposedly content young woman turn vengeful) does recycle some obvious genre clichés (her husband's ambivalence, a recent bereavement and pressure of work causing her to imagine things), but while the film fails to deliver any really big moments, (you never really sense that Sarandon's life is ever in real danger, a given I'd have thought in a film of this type) either revelatory or of sheer excitement, it's never less than engaging.The acting helps it along, old hands Sarandon and Sam Neill have made films like this before and know what they're doing, while Emily Blunt is okay as the avenging other woman. I was slightly thrown by the film's "in at the deep end" beginning but appreciated the change of approach and also actually enjoyed that the film was set in Australia rather than big-city USA but felt more could have been done to play up this aspect of the movie. Oh and of course there's the usual tacked-on twist at the very end although it has the effect if anything of reducing the Blunt character's motive for her actions.All in all then, this was a routine but well made psychological thriller, fine for late Saturday- night viewing.

Irresistible (2006)Ann Turner has been involved as writer or director in a series of pretty awful films, but this is easily her best. And it includes a stellar performance by Susan Sarandon, which all by itself should lift the dismal ratings the movie enjoys. And the plot is a sensational exploit, really, a common tale of one woman seeming to torture another psychologically, and you aren't sure whether the victim is really going mad or is simply disbelieved.But this isn't just a harrowing play with the character's psychology, and the viewer's suspense. The acts of subterfuge are subtle and canny. The husband, convincing as always by the actor Sam Neill, adds to the conflict because he is both utterly reasonable, but also drawn to the other woman, the rather deceptively evil and seductive (to him) Emily Blunt. The clues are there, but no one except Sarandon's character, a loving mom and children's book illustrator, can see.And the viewer. Sometimes. The movie works best when it plays with the head trip of the viewer, wondering if it's her or her. Or him. And it plays out with general subtlety.What might kill it for some people is the ending twenty minutes, which is both resolution to motive and dramatic free-for-all. It pushes probability a little, but then, it makes it all possible, because the events needed some extreme motivation or they would seem spurious, uninspired.But back to Sarandon. Her delicately shaded performance as both mom and someone possibly going insane is remarkable. Prizewinning. Because it was nested in a mediocre (or thin, at least) movie is a shame. Neill and Blunt are both wonderful in their own ways, though Blunt in a way needed to have some greater kind of edgy attitude to make it soar. She is too often self-conscious in front of the camera (making you seriously wonder if she was involved with any of the crew at the time). Or the crew, at least, was enamored with her. Too bad. It's Sarandon who shines.