 |
DVD The Cottage
 Run time: 88 min Rating: 4.7 Genres: Thriller Director: Chris Jaymes Writers: Nick Antosca Stars: David Arquette, Kristen Dalton, Victor Browne |
| Storyline When Chloe (Kristen Dalton) and Michael Carpenter rent out the cottage behind their house to charming romance novelist, Robert Mars (David Arquette) their American dream soon turns into a suburban nightmare. |
|
| Plot Keywords: escaping from bonds, tenant, two word title, mother son relationship, husband wife relationship | |
| Details: Country: USA Release Date: 12 October 2012 (USA) |
|
DVD The Cottage
previous post
4 comments
A romance novelist (David Arquette) moves into a "cottage" behind the home of a composer and his family. He seems sweet, but what do they really know about him?
I have no idea how this was botched, but it was. You have a pretty decent story of a man living in a guest house and the family is slowly getting creeped out by him. That seems easy enough to build suspense for, find good actors and more. But somehow, no, it just does not happen. And I do not want to blame the actors, because they were fine. I want to blame the person who wrote the script (Nick Antosca). So much of what Arquette's character does makes no sense whatsoever. He could achieve his goals in ways that are less absurd.
The cinematographer, Zoltan Honti, needs to be singled out. Maybe his work is sometimes good — he has done a number of films — but it just is not worth a darn here. He does not frame things well, the camera is jostled all over when it should be steady… it is a mess. I recently watched "Last Exorcism" and do not recall it being so bad… For what it is worth, though, "Zoltan" is a pretty awesome name.
Lastly, I have to take issue with the box. First, it says the film is "based on a harrowing true story". I hate it when films claim that, especially when it is so blatantly false. The events in this movie did not happen. And second, it says the family does not know about "depraved secrets of his past" (referring to Arquette). That is just misleading — his past is never the issue, and I do not know what secrets he has. What matters is the present, which may or may not be "depraved".
***MAJOR SPOILERS***
From beginning to end, I was wondering how such a good premise could come off as being so placid and, sometimes, even embarrassing.
1. The whole "creepy neighbor" thing came on too strong, too quickly. That took mountains of suspense away from the general thematic. At that point, which was far too soon in the movie, all the characters began acting in a way no one would ever act, given the situation.
2. Far too many questions and suspended reasoning throughout.
3. The director didn't seem to know what to do with the two daughters. Why in the world would one of the daughters choose to be with some strange old guy, killing her father, quite brutally, I might add, in the process? There was no back-story to that. Had she been molested? Had she been mistreated? That was never apparent. In fact, the most I could gather was that the father was a GOOD father, which makes her actions even more puzzling.
4. Moreover, why in the world would there be three other girls–all quite beautiful–under the spell of this lunatic old guy? What power did he have over them? Was he drugging them? What were their stories to have such rare and diverse outcomes? It just made absolutely no sense, whatsoever.
5. Then we find out–in some kind of supposed twist/shocker–that there are more than three girls. There is a whole harem full of them. Once again, WHY? Why? Why? Why? The answer could have lent a entirely new and exciting layer to the story.
6. The actors, outside of David Arquette, who was like a wooden spoon from start to finish, were commendable with the minimally constructed script they were given. It was clear that they were trying to use facial expression and body language to convey some of the elements the script should have channeled.
I gave two stars for the acting chops of the two sisters, Morissa and Alana O'Mara. I would like to see what they can do with something more.
Well, in conclusion, you can pass on this one, folks. There is really nothing to see here.
The characters weren't particularly likable, and the plot was vague and left room for plenty of assumption. Honestly, it really just didn't pull me in. I spent half the movie wondering where the baby was and why she was left alone, and I couldn't help but feel like the characters reacted poorly to situations most people would handle with a bit of common sense. The suspense was notable but was overpowered by irritation with the character's stupidity. The movie should have definitely been longer and with a bit of explanation, perhaps a bit of back-story to each of the main characters. At the beginning of the film you're like "Why is this happening?!" and you're still asking yourself the same questions along with some new ones by the end. Definitely would have been unhappy if I'd have paid to rent this … but since it was on Netflix … eh. Worth watching I guess.
The movie started out OKAY, well half-watchable at least…
The main reason being David Arquette, for some reason I like the guy, he'll probably never win an Oscar but he has a likability about him that is undeniable…
Although I suppose in this movie he isn't suppose to be likable at all since he plays a psychopath, now David playing a psychopath doesn't work as bad as one might think BUT it doesn't matter cause no one could save this wreck of a script that I can't see how anyone would give the greenlight too…
I'm guessing David needed the money and good for him if he got some but yeah the script goes from halfdecent to fully horrible…
The psychopath is not only a psychopath but he also has a stable of young girls at his place hiding for the outsiders and just waiting for him to come home everyday to spend some time with him, and if he's brought someone home help killing them…
Cause girls like to have fun like Cyndie Lauper said, and these girls find nothing more fun than killing innocent people and cuddling in bed with their David Arquette all day long…
If this sounds sort of exciting to you, it isn't, not even a so bad it's good type of movie…
There's also subplots and stuff involving the family that rents out David Arquette's place, various family-issues etc that fail to commute any sort of interest with the viewer…
I gave it a 3 I'm not sure why maybe it should be less, but I wasn't annoyed to the point I hated it I just thought it was a movie that was really bad so I'm kind maybe…