...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.

Sensitive artist Sophie is having a tough time getting over the loss of her mother. When things start happening, it appears she maybe targeted by her husband's dishy new colleague Mara who has her eyes on hubbie. Or could she be imagining it? So that's it - is she paranoid because she's going crackers, or because she has a reason to be paranoid? This basic notion has served many films very well, and Susan Sarandon and Sam Neill are pros.But there are two fatal flaws here. One, this film is slow, boring and dull. And, two, it is saddled with a preposterous and unnecessary twist in the tail. Emily Blunt (Mara), not one of my favourites, has been better in subsequent films.Watch it if there is nothing else on, but don't be surprised if you nod off.

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.

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.