The Cottage

(2012) The Cottage SUSPENSE THRILLER/ PSYCHOLOGICAL

Again, we're accustomed to seeing so much of these kind of movies, that it's becoming to be so tiring. I even get sleepy attempting to submit a proper review on here. Anyways, there's a small scene at the beginning where a young teenage girl is getting married before she kills her mom and dad who're tied onto a chair. The movie then jumps to a suburban city focusing on a family of a step mom who's expecting, and at the same time looking after two teenage daughters who're not biologically hers. One of the daughters is resentful because her dad has already found someone who isn't her actual mom, but is really a school teacher she used to have. Viewers are completely oblivious about all the family's problems except to say that it's dysfunctional. The actual story doesn't start as soon as Robert (David Arquette) wanted to rent the so-called "cottage" located at the back yard, since the previous tenant had got into an accident. Now, viewers only heard about the accident, but are also kept in the dark about it's events as well, at least until much later. As viewers are finding out more about Robert- the psychopath, the movie becomes more shallow and convoluted.

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...

Family rents "cottage" -- actually a two bedroom, two bath home, fully furnished, with swimming pool, modern appliances and lovely hard wood floors -- to romance writer who has a red pick up truck but no typewriter. He tells the lady from whom he rents the names of his three most recent novels...so, for the rest of the film (somewhere between 80 minutes and 5 torturous days, depending upon perception) I wait for the lady to look up his books on line for some major "reveal." If YOU had a successful author renting from you, wouldn't you look up his books on line? Nope. Okay, David is excellent as the "renter" who is up to plenty of no good but the plot holes are big enough for his pickup truck, and the behavior of the family is the face of suspicion and terror is absurd and senseless. Apparently not only did the writer/renter not have a typewriter or word processor, neither did the screenwriter. Only worth watching for villain's performance.

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".

Actually, I know it's never easy to make a movie. But sometimes you see one and you think, how on earth did this actually get funded, get as far as production, with a script that might have been drafted on a few cocktail napkins? Really, you're going to pour so much money and effort into something that has barely been written? Was it so so easy to say "Sure, this script is ready! Let's roll!" when there are plenty of people involved whose professional instincts should have been screaming "Hit the brakes NOW!!!"

This slapdash assembly of genre elements has too many ideas for one thriller, though none of them are necessarily good, and none of them are developed at all. That includes the dysfunctional family dynamics (so poorly done I wasn't fully sure just how everyone was related to each other), the villain's backstory (there is none--how, and how long, has been getting away with this stuff?), the ridiculous cult-leader-of-sexy-young-women thing, and so forth.

This i one of those movies in which the entire plot falls apart anytime you ask a question like "Didn't they think to ask for references before letting him rent their home?," let alone "Why didn't they call the police?" (you'll ask that one about ten times). It's just sheer carelessness that perhaps could be excused/explained if the film went into production without a finished script (or into the editing room after a budget shortfall caused filming to stop before the whole script had been shot...these things happen). Either that, or the filmmakers simply had no idea their script was Swiss--as in cheese, with lots of holes.

Of course a lot of people are going to find the very idea of David Arquette as a scary bad guy inherently ridiculous. He's adequate here, actually, and could have been pretty good in a better movie. But the other performances are fair to middling, no surprise since they're given so little to work with in terms of scripted character definition.

What worst about this movie, though--even beyond all the above, not to mention the weak non- ending--is its vacuously glossy look, which is more appropriate for a Lifetime or Hallmark movie than a horror thriller. It's like a lifestyle ad for a new upscale suburban development in Utah, the homes are so boringly tasteful and new-looking. Needless to say, this tends to undercut any potential for suspenseful atmosphere--and unlike something like "The Stepfather," "The Cottage" doesn't even think of using that environment subversively, to give the horror elements a more perverse edge.