Irresistible

There’s more than a few mysteries in this film, both on screen and off. Firstly, what are American actor Sarandon, and English actor Blunt, doing in what is essentially an Australian film? The scripting that explains this is a bit too contrived (the film was originally intended to be Australian and UK co-production). Next, exactly what genre is this pic aiming for? From the opening scenes I was convinced I was in for a bit of a poltergeist or ghost story. Pantry doors left menacingly ajar, irons turned off when they had been left on, children’s toys mysteriously disappearing and so on. Then when Sophie has strange dreams, always centring on owls, (which she draws constantly), and starts to believe everyone is watching her, I thought I was watching a study of paranoid delusion. Finally, when Mara turns up in a dress identical to one of Sophie’s which has gone missing, I decided it must be a stalker film. Somehow it’s an uneasy cobbling together of all three approaches, making for a film that is really only redeemed by some excellent performances.

The best thing about Irresistible is the two wonderful performances of the women. Sarandon,who apparently worked on the script with Turner for 6 months prior to shooting although she does not get a credit for this,  really has us alternating between sympathy for her plight, and conviction that she’s lost the plot, although for heaven’s sake, as her character (by my calculations) is supposed to be about 47 years old, why cast a 60 year old in the role? (Or am I just jealous that she looks so great at that age!!??). Blunt does a fine job of  balancing an appealingly attractive nature with a darkly menacing underside. Sam Neill effectively captures the rather wishy-washy Craig, although the outcome is neither here nor there, whilst such fine actors as Bud Tingwell as Sophie’s Dad, and William McInnes as Mara’s husband are wasted in their small roles.

The final scenes of the film really wade into plot-challenged territory. Given the big secret underlying the plot, (which I shall of course not reveal!), it is highly questionable that Mara would do some of the things she does.

Visually the film looks good, with well styled sets, especially the studio where Sophie paints. But Turner is no Hitchcock, and to cap it off, for the life of me, I can’t work out why the film was given its strange title!! See it if you’re a Sarandon or Blunt fan, otherwise take it or leave it.

Want more about this film?

Want something different?