Irresistible (2006) User Reviews (65)

The Hurdles Susan Sarandon Can Overcome

[gradyharp · 7/10 · 20 April 2006]

IRRESISTIBLE is a little film from Australia with big ideas and a clumsy script. The story itself is good with enough variation from the usual thriller scripts to make it enjoyable, but the writing borders on improvisation and doesn't provide the motivation for the development of the story to flow smoothly enough to maintain the credibility of the characters.

Set in contemporary Melbourne, Australia, the story begins in media res with our heroine Sophie (Susan Sarandon), a successful illustrator, wife of an equally important architect (Sam Neill), and mother to two little girls, hearing noises and finding odd incidents. Recovering from the death of her beloved mother and caring for her grieving father (Charles 'Bud' Tingwell), Sophie's stress factor is further heightened by the fact that she has a block about the illustrations for a book whose deadline is nearing. Her husband is supportive and encourages her to get away from her problems by attending a party given by a new associate of his at the firm - the bright and beautiful Mara (Emily Blunt) - who just happens to be wearing the same new dress Sophie has purchased for the party. The two meet, dance together, drink together, but innuendos have started: party guests offer condolences for her mothers death but also suggest she join AA for her 'drinking problem'.

Sophie's mind continues to fragment as she imagines she is being stalked by Mara because of events that happen in her house, with her wardrobe, and with paranoia that her husband and Mara are having an affair. She decides to observe Mara closely, discovering facts that feed her paranoia, and is caught in Mara's house - and arrested. From there the story disintegrates into revelation of facts that border on melodrama with ill-defined motivations marring every scene. To reveal the ultimate nidus for the story's plot would rob the viewer of what little surprises there are here.

Ann Turner could have used a script doctor before shooting this film, as the story is fine: it is just clumsy and not finessed. But once again Susan Sarandon proves she is such a fine actress that she can pull off even a spotty script and create a credible character. Sam Neill and Emily Blunt likewise do the best with what they are given with lines and direction. This is not a bad movie at all, just one that needed a bit of surgery before placing it on the screen, and the film is well worth watching for Sarandon fans. She still is one of our finest actresses on the screen today. Grady Harp

Not a masterpiece, just average, but way better then the negative reviewers want to make us believe

[deloudelouvain · 6/10 · 7 April 2016]

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?

Very intriguing

[paul-ayres-60784 · 6/10 · 8 June 2018]

Once you start watching this film you have to see it through to the end. It draws you in with a very strange tale which twists and turns and keeps you routed to the screen. The acting from the 3 main characters is superb. Emily Blunt's performance is absolutely stunning as the suspected source of Susan Sarandon's character's concerns and Sam Neill's character's attention. No spoilers!

Watch and see. My ideal rating would be 6.5/10

Entertaining but VERY flawed

[PhantomAgony · 16 March 2010]

NO SPOILERS YET

Sophie (Sarandon) is a children's illustrator who is married to a,architect (Neil) and together they have 2 children - Elly 7/Ruby 10. The movie takes place in Australia where everyone speaks with an Aussie accent except Sarandon who's character moved to Aus. when she was 17 with her parents from NYC (Father is Aussie, Mother was a New Yorker.

Basically, they have a happy life together (although Sarandon's character is still sad about her Mother's passing) until Emily Blunt's character of Mara comes into the picture. She does Tech stuff at Sophie's husband's work and hosted a party that Sophie & her husband attended. To Sophie's surprise when she arrives, she is wearing the same dress as Mara. Mara and Sophie hit it off as Mara dances with her, drinks with her & pays her much attention. There is a flirty vibe going on initiated by Mara. Mara knows about Sophie's Mother dying & confided in her that she lost a dear friend, Kate, in a tragic fire in Kosovo when they were there doing work with the orphans. As the party winds down & Sophie gets ready to leave, another party goer confronts her with her supposed drinking problem. Apparently, there is a rumor that she drinks too much and her flirty, over the top behaviour at the party only drove that idea home. Sophie denies it and as she and her husband (Neil) leave, she notices Mara up on the balcony watching them. She finds her creepy.

As the movie goes on, things turn up missing in Sophie's home. There is also a mysterious blue car parked across the street that an elderly neighbor claims she saw Sophie getting out of. Sophie becomes paranoid that someone is stealing things from her home and sets her sights on Mara who shows up at her home one day for tea wearing a dress that Sophie had noticed was missing. Sophie goes as far as to break into Mara's home, gets caught and Mara and her husband (they have a daughter too) get a restraining order against her. This doesn't stop Sophie, who has now become obsessed with the idea that Mara is out to get her, from stalking her around the town. In all the craziness, Sophie drives her husband away as she accuses him of cheating on her with Mara.

There is a twist that many will see coming a mile away given a conversation out of no where between 2 main characters to set up the twist BUT there is a double twist at the end that leaves the movie flawed IMO b/c, although entertaining, the movie just doesn't live up to what it could have been. Without the final twist, everything makes sense but the last curve ball makes one question previous motives and leaves open answered questions that never get answered. I think that the movie was more into the big twist at the end than actually realizing that the twist leaves many things up in the air.. and I don't like that.

7/10 only b/c the movie was entertaining, kept me guessing at the beginning and the actor was really good especially from Blunt who did a great job of coming across as normal, then broken, then crazy. It IS very flawed though.. a lot of plot holes.

MAJOR SPOILERS NOW . . .

Kate is, in actuality, Sophie's daughter and Mara assumed her identity (they were both orphans as kids) - I get that. However..many questions about motive and actions come into play.

IF Mara wanted to get a mother and a family, why did she spend a good portion of the film trying to destroy and then kill Sophie? If the movie had left it at Mara felt rejected b/c she was the daughter it would have all made sense but they did not.

Also.. one has to wonder.. she tried to kill Sophie with fire, did she kill Kate?

Here is my conclusion since the movie is a mess in that sense - Mara did NOT kill Kate. If she had killed Kate to assume her identity, then again, she wouldn't have been so enraged at Sophie and tried to kill her if she wanted to come to town and pretend to be her daughter and get the love she wanted.

I think that Kate died in a tragic fire and Mara lost her best friend. She took that anger out on Sophie who had abandoned Kate and wanted to ruin her life. She tried to kill her with fire to try and make her feel the pain that Kate had felt. In the end, Sophie mistakenly assumed that Mara was her daughter and Mara couldn't resist the chance to have a real family - she found it Irresistible.

The Dear Mara letter from the adoption agency I think was real and it was her real Mother rejecting her which possible was the catalyst that set Mara off.. that combined with Kate's death.

The family photos she stole and labeled as her family was Mara holding Kate to her 'we share everything' comment. She wanted her family, she wanted her sisters to be her sisters.. she just wanted Sophie, the woman who had rejected Kate, to not be part of the equation.

Is this accurate? Who knows.. the movie ends with the big twist that Kate is the daughter and Mara is an imposter and then nothing.. and it makes one question the motives and actions of Mara and Kate's horrible fate. There are no answers in the actual movie unfortunately..

Intriguing, but one too many twists

[xredgarnetx · 7/10 · 29 April 2006]

Susan Sarandon goes "slumming" in Australia and comes up with a pretty nifty thriller, IRRESISTIBLE. She plays a mom and wife and professional artist who begins to imagine things. She hears voices after her mother dies. Doors open and close of their own accord. Family photos disappear. An elderly neighbor swears someone dressed like Sarandon has been going in and out of her house! Changing the locks doesn't appear to help, and hubby Sam Neill is less than sympathetic. The solution comes at us unexpectedly, but then the writer or director decides to take it for one more turn -- at which point I was crying, "Enough!" It comes to A LIFETIME-type conclusion. Sarandon makes the film. Without her edgy performance as the aging, distraught mother, IRRESISTIBLE would be absolutely nothing. Neil is just window dressing.

Stolen Identity

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 14 January 2007]

In Australia, the artist Sophie (Susan Sarandon) has a happy marriage with her husband and designer Craig (Sam Neil) and they have two beautiful daughters, Elly and Ruby. Sophie is traumatized by the death of her mother, and under pressure to finish a work paid in advance in a tight schedule. Craig lost his keys and after meeting her husband's colleague Mara (Emily Blunt) in a party at her house, Sophie feels weird things happening at her own house, such as an attack of wasps, disappearance of her favorite dress, photos and toys, and she suspects that Mara is trying to get her husband and daughters for her. Sophie becomes paranoid and obsessed with this idea, and nobody believes on her. Craig actually believes Sophie is driving insane, and she stalks Mara, trying to prove she is right, disclosing deep secrets about Mara and her.

"Irresistible" is a dramatic thriller, sort of "Fatal Attraction" with two final twists. The story is good and it is amazing the number of viewers that has not understood the final twist. Susan Sarandon and Sam Neil are great actress and actor, but they are too old for their roles as parents of young daughters. Even Susan Sarandon (60) is too old to play the mother of Mara, the character of Emily Blunt (23), since she was supposed to be eighteen years older than her daughter. My recommendation is to pay attention on the story, especially on the last twist, and you will certainly enjoy this above average low-budget movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Identidade Roubada" ("Stolen Identity")

C movie with an A cast

[gridoon2024 · 4/10 · 20 February 2016]

"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.

Psychological "thriller" doesn't...

[MrGKB · 6/10 · 8 February 2007]

...but can't be faulted for trying hard. Too hard, unfortunately. Writer/director Ann Turner strives to build tension, but loses focus as the script distracts the audience with too much belaboring of incidents to maintain any real dramatic momentum. It's also difficult to accept sexagenarian Susan Sarandon as a woman in her early forties. Yes, she's always held her age well, but c'mon. Still, fans of her work will enjoy what she gives them here, even as they groan at times. Sam Neill does his dutiful best as the husband bewildered by his wife's odd behavior, but his character comes totally unraveled in a third act seduction. Speaking of which, although decently filmed in the beautiful environs of Melbourne, Australia, "Irresistible" descends into formulaic schlock in its final act, and loses whatever good will the audience had for it at that point. The twist ending only makes you wonder how clever little Mara (played with all the appropriate do-ability necessary by tyro starlet, Emily "The Devil Wears Prada" Blunt) got the job with the hubby's firm in the first place, and the too-long-by-half second twist ending is out of place.

Regrettably mistitled, "Irresistible" simply isn't.

worst ever?

[travelour · 2/10 · 21 June 2006]

Was it the worst movie ever? No. Was it below mediocre? Yes. Surprisingly poor development for a reputable cast. I don't blame the actors, but rather the writer, director and editor. timing was off, story development was poor and unimaginative. I kept expecting it to go somewhere other than the obvious. It didn't. The ending was amateur at best. Don't rent it. Wait until it comes on the Sunday morning showcase on public TV when the weather forbids you from going outside, there are no children's shows or Gilligan's's island reruns on to compete for your attention, and you've already vacuumed 4 times. While it wasn't so offensively horrible like the other reviewer insinuated, there are definitely better things to do with your time (counting spots in the carpet, memorizing the different Chinese dynasties, talking to an imaginary friend).

Two * may be one too many

[caa821 · 2/10 · 6 November 2006]

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?

It's a stunning movie.

[kimhunt · 9/10 · 17 May 2006]

This film explores the darkness that exists in families because of secrets. It has a slow burn, but a deeply satisfying one. I really liked the way the ending was structured - it surprised and intrigued me. A lot of women will love this film and will find it resonates with their own lives, the tensions within it, the darkness and the light. The performances of the children are wonderful. And so are the performances of the rest of the cast. I was especially drawn to the Susan Sarandon character and loved the strength she displayed. It's wonderful to see a great actress in such a strong, central role. It's a stunning movie.

Quite entertaining, not great - see why it went to video.

[roliver-2 · 6/10 · 30 September 2006]

Rented this one because Susan Sarandon and Sam Neill were in the cast. Took a chance because could not see much else. The movie was reasonably entertaining but Sarandon who I almost always like did not seem at her best. A couple of times she was not convincing at all - most unlike her. Sam Neill had a pretty undemanding role as the husband and of course he did fine. Emily Blunt, with her scary eyes, may have been the most interesting and convincing as Neill's work mate and the "mystery woman". Part of the surprise ending was apparent well before the end so that took some of the suspense away but at the very end there clearly is in the "Fatal Attraction" style, a final surprise on top of the other surprises. Well my wife and I (in spite of watching the last 5 minutes twice) could not understand it so if anyone can really do a "spoiler" and let me know what the real "shocking revelation" was - we would love to know!!!

Clunker.

[jimmydavis-650-769174 · 2/10 · 20 August 2014]

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.

Warning: waste of time

[Phil_Chester · 27 March 2020]

With a messy script and quite tedious pacing, this film doesn't really work. Sam Neill and Susan Sarandon do their best with desperately underwritten parts and Emily Blunt feels at times wasted in the role and at other times very miscast. The whole adds up to a waste of your time if you take the risk of watching it. You have been warned.

emily blunt made this movie

[ctatchuan · 7/10 · 22 October 2006]

I watched this in the cinemas, yes the movies last weekend, firstly because I love sarandon and think she is a magnificent actress and secondly because i though emily blunt was the second most memorable character in devil wears prada after meryl.

Although there were plenty of scenes that never went anywhere and supposedly meaningful interpretative scenes, the whole movie was held together NOT by a good scriptwriter or director but by a stellar cast, in particular i would like to commend emily blunt for surprising me, I was worried for a while that I would find her performance unconvincing after knowing her as the funny girl from devil wears prada she quickly develops into a convincingly sweet girl with an evil twist, in my opinion she alone in the final scene is worth the money I paid, she gave the movie the unsettling feeling at the finale with her cold as steel eyes....more importantly she made us believe that this could indeed be a REAL person (although definitely NOT a real story) and made the best of a movie with plenty of loopholes..

A movie for a rainy Sunday afternoon, under a blanket with a cup of tea

[natasa-sokanovic · 6/10 · 19 November 2022]

Predictable, moderately solid...

And it could have been much better if only the plot wasn't so drawn out...

There is a lot of idleness, some situations are unnecessarily emphasized, some are insufficiently emphasized, even the acting in some scenes looks dilettante...

Regardless, I don't regret watching this movie because I'm a huge fan of both Susan Sarandon and Emily Blunt... for whom it's not possible to see all the endless finesse of exceptional acting quality in this movie, but not every movie can or should be a masterpiece- work, which does not mean that it is automatically trash.

A movie for a rainy Sunday afternoon, under a blanket with a cup of tea...

Seriously - all the positive reviews here were written by the film makers

[jim_cal93 · 1/10 · 5 August 2006]

Sometimes when you're watching a really great movie, you wonder "Wow, Hollywood producers are just sooo good, I wonder if any of them have ever just totally f--ked anything up so badly that they got fired?"

And that's why this movie was made. The REAL secret ending isn't that BS about the mother/ daughter/friend. Its that some stud.io boss was looking for an excuse to fire his daughter's husband that he had to hire to make up for the time he drove over his daughter's dog when she was 9.

Its pointless to say this movie is horrible. Its beyond that. No one could genuinely write a positive review of this movie.

I DID watch this movie to the end. You expect that after all this chaos and confusion, you trust the film maker - and some seasoned actors - to have a trick up their sleeve.

Although, Sam Neill should have taught us all a lesson after "Bicentennial Man" -- which, incidentally, is the film that beats out Irresistible for WORST picture of all time. What is it about this guy? He should fire his agent. OOOPS...he did that after Bicentennial Man. I mean come ON... WTF? was this guy watching too much 'ENTOURAGE' and decided to hire his best friend from high school as his agent? Great, except that his best friend must have been the weed dealer from the back alley.

perhaps the weirdest aspect of this movie is that AFTER the whole incident with Susan breaking in to the house and getting the RO, her husband STILL trusts his secretary Mara to PICK UP HIS KIDS?? I mean - - huh?? HUH??

and then after that Mara is dancing with the three kids in the kitchen and she starts stomping on the floor vent... oh, and then of course she gets a molotov cocktail to go in to the basement and what? burn her 'mother' to death with the kids still dancing upstairs?? I mean please, Susan, Sam, explain to me what the f--k you were smoking when you read this script, because I got to get me some o;' that! Aussies grow the goood stuff, apparently.

So, was Mara trying to GET a mother, or kill a mother? the whole thing goes back and forth and its just a mess.

If you ever need to get even with someone, go out and rent them Bicentennial Man, Irresistible, and for good measure, get The Boss's Daughter with Ashton... thats the only other movie that comes to mind that sucks THIS bad.

Lifted just above average by Susan Sarandon

[MattyGibbs · 6/10 · 3 June 2013]

This is a pretty routine thriller elevated by good performances by a strong cast. The film centres on a wife who believes that a young woman at her husbands work is trying to steal her life.

The main point of interest is whether you believe she is being victimised or whether it's all in her head. It's all pretty straightforward and the plot goes pretty much where you think it will.

With a weak cast this would have been a pretty lacklustre film but thankfully this isn't the case. Susan Sarandon is simply excellent as the confused wife and Sam Neill is as solid as ever. Emily Blunt also puts in a good performance as the object of Sarandons apparent paranoia.

Irresistible has a few nice touches and does build some tension towards the end even if the main twist is signposted a long way from the end. This isn't a film you will probably remember greatly but it is reasonably entertaining and worth at least one watch.

A muddled mess

[rkalla · 3/10 · 20 April 2006]

It's one of those movies where it ends and you look at your spouse and say, "huh?" There's all this owl imagery and an implied dark secret. But by the time we get to it, after what seems like hours of moody music and implied threat, you don't really care. And then it turns out the secret you thought you revealed hasn't truly been revealed. Sam Neil is all whiny and nondescript. Susan Sarandon is annoyingly fidgety, which I suppose is meant to be acting, after all it's always worked for Meryl Streep. The movie is also padded with numerous scenes that make no sense; you think they're leading to something and they're not. There is a reason this movie went straight to video.

Fatal attraction in Melbourne; not really, but sort of

[Wuchakk · 6/10 · 16 September 2021]

A family in Melbourne (Sam Neill & Susan Sarandon) is threatened when a young woman attracts the husband at work (Emily Blunt). But is she really a threat or is the wife just paranoid?

"Irresistible" (2006) is a drama/mystery/thriller that throws in bits of "Fatal Attraction" (1987), "Rosemary's Baby" (1968), "Poison Ivy" (1992), "Single White Female" (1992) and "What Lies Beneath" (2000), but is unique enough to stand on its own.

The style of the filmmaking took me a little bit of time to acclimate to. I suppose you could criticize it as a Lifetime movie with a bigger budget. But there are several things to appreciate, including some well-done visuals and the inevitable revelations.

Neill is always effective as the male protagonist. Sarandon is past her physical prime, but still in shape and dramatically effective. As for Blunt, this is one of her earlier roles. So she's attractively youthful, but too thin; she'd fill out better for "Wind Chill" (2007).

The film runs 1 hour, 43 minutes, and was shot in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

GRADE: B-

Mediocre Mystery

[tarbosh22000 · 5/10 · 17 April 2006]

"Irresistible" is a poorly thought out film. Susan Sarandon plays Sophie, who is an artist. She thinks her husband is having an affair with his secretary. When she thinks this, nobody believes her. This is basically "Fatal Attraction" again.

The problem with the film is that there is no suspense at all. It shoots itself in the foot because of the predictability of the characters. The viewers will know nothing will happen to her. Sam Neill is good as usual, but he doesn't do much.

In the trivia section of IMDb it says that she worked with the director for six months on the script to meet her specifications. I guess Susan supports movies with zero tension, no character development, and no sense of humor in the role. That means everybody else gets the short end of the stick. In the end: If you want a good Susan Sarandon film "White Palace" or "Light Sleeper" are better choices.

For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com

This is a great film!

[Zoip · 10/10 · 24 April 2006]

This is a great film! Susan Sarandon is at her very best in a stunning and captivating performance. It is without a doubt, her most accomplished role since Dead Man Walking, and certainly at least equal to her award winning role in Thelma and Louise. Sam Neill and Emily Blunt both deliver extraordinary, mesmerising performances. Neill captures the sympathetic, but increasingly frustrated husband, whose motives you are never quite sure about, as he appears supportive and loving, but can he be trusted? Emily Blunt keeps you guessing and manipulates the audience with her superb performance.

The script and direction are both tight, flow well and create a wonderfully suspenseful, and tense mood throughout. The psychological drama which unfolds is both subtle and yet emotional and incredibly moving as the main character confronts the very past she has spent her life trying to suppress. The themes of this film – of loss, trust, and redemption – are universal themes which will speak to a range of viewers; you cannot help but be moved by its emotional power.

The ending is a wonderful double twist which is simply brilliant, original - and chilling. I would highly recommend it to anyone who wants to see a first rate, highly intelligent, psychological thriller. It is a truly haunting journey watching this excellent movie.

A pleasant suprise

[jessicamckeever-38192 · 7/10 · 12 March 2023]

I must admitt I expected this to be a straight to dvd type of thriller as have seen so many rubbish ones like this before, but I liked at the cast and thought, okay good actors let's give it a go. Turned out it was actually quite good. Okay a little. Far fetched sure, but who cares, I was held entertained for the full film, didn't get bored, the actimg was great, and was not disappointed. Not a blockbuster but but for a Sunday afternoon with dog curled up beside you, an entertaining and enjoyable watch. If Susan Susan Saradon, a Emily blunt and sam Neil hadn't been in it it may have ended up one of those rubbish ones that clog up Channel 5 at 3pm in the week that are silly and not worth a glance bit I would definitely give this one a go if you like edgy thrillers.

Just Plain Bad

[valsal-1 · 2/10 · 30 August 2006]

I don't know why I watched more than 5 minutes of this movie. Well, yes I do. I was intrigued by the description that was written on the DVD jacket and, although I was thoroughly bored from the start, I wanted to see how "Sophie becomes completely caught up in her obsession, turning stalker herself - and makes a discovery more frightening than her worst fear." The description was misleading, but not as much as the title. I still don't know what "Irresistible" means relative the movie. Everything was bad about this movie. Susan Sarandon looked like she was straining to make her role believable. The plot was uninteresting and predictable. The "Twilight Zone" suspense and innuendo was annoying. If you are thinking about renting this movie, Don't! Find something else to do with your $4.99 and the 103 minutes of your life that could be wasted watching this film.

Very well crafted and unique film with a poor title

[princephoto · 11 June 2006]

Despite what the previous reviewer said this is a very good film. The excellent globally known actors ( Sarandon and Neill ) portray their characters with subtle, very believable nuance and the virtual newcomer Emily Blunt plays off them like a seasoned vet. With great actors in place all you need is a good story to flesh out and this one hits the mark. Is Sarandon paranoid or is something or someone really unraveling her life, marriage and sense of what's real ? The trip to what happens is worth every second on screen and the ending not only has a twist but a second subtle and more mysterious twist right at the end that turns your first conclusions upside down. This film is well set up for a sequel (which I doubt will happen due to its release straight to video in the U.S>) but also stands very well on its own. Emily Blunt is a new actress with great talent and will surely become a big name once her work gets more exposure. The movie is well worth seeing if for nothing else than its very unique unresolved double twist ending.