VALUTAZIONE IMDb
3,6/10
768
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Una giovane donna in gravi difficoltà finanziarie accetta un'offerta per essere "l'animale domestico" umano di un ricco aristocratico per sei mesi.Una giovane donna in gravi difficoltà finanziarie accetta un'offerta per essere "l'animale domestico" umano di un ricco aristocratico per sei mesi.Una giovane donna in gravi difficoltà finanziarie accetta un'offerta per essere "l'animale domestico" umano di un ricco aristocratico per sei mesi.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Pierre Dulat
- Philip
- (as Pierre Du Lat)
Steven Wollenberg
- Charles
- (as Steven Robert Wollenberg)
Lydia McLane
- Red
- (as Jane Steele)
Carole Lieberman
- Ellen
- (as Dr. Carole Lieberman)
Recensioni in evidenza
A movie about power exchange featuring bondage. Doomed from even before the word go, because nobody here knows what they are doing. The theme has crossed wires, the script is utterly lame, the acting is dull, the camera-work is bleak, the excitement is often off, and the performances are way under par. This thing is too tame to be an adult movie, yet its theme is highly controversial, guaranteed to upset everybody. So, to make it mainstream acceptable, director D. Stevens, who should never work in this town again as he just waists everybody's time, pulls back on the camera-work and makes it as visually appealing as close-circuit television, with images that are often static, frequently distant, or otherwise bland. The human body is, to put it mildly, very interesting. Mr. D. manages brilliantly to make nudity seem boring, for the most part anyway, although I absolutely love that bit "The Girls of The Pet" included as a filler at the end of the plodding main feature, where we get to see under-employed co-star Jane Steele do the Jane Seymour thing with her long, long red hair.
The theme also gets entangled with bad guy organ harvesters, as if the bondage BDSM set is the same, or at least, related thing. Does that community a disservice.
And those tiresome references likening her to a dog! Playing fetch, yapping, sniffing master's hand. Hell, nobody would regress to animal status overnight. The petting of the hair is real cute though.
It also subscribes to the Neanderthal notion that masters want their slaves/pets marked, their charges to crawl around on their knees, and to lick their shoes. I guess this might be prevalent on the real-life scene, appealing to those who are too dumb to think up better fantasies for themselves, but the lead character seemed to be a more refined intelligent type... Anyway, you would have to be very stupid, very dense indeed, to mess up your 'property' so oafishly. I mean, you pay a fortune, and immediately mess up your investment? Hey, would these masters buy a sports car and then drive it through the swamps?
Andrea Edmondson gamely tries. Hell, some story she could one day tell to her grandchildren (not).
Even with copious nudity, what goes on on- screen, is just about as dull as ditch-water and as tepid as last week's stale tea. An anemic production that's one big yawn.
The DVD's stylish box cover art showing the naked bound slave kneeling before her master, is the best thing about it. It is not the image shown here on IMDb, of course not. It is not even really part of the movie, it is obviously a borrowed image Breaking Glass obtained to make the packaging ultra-appealing, and lure in suckers like me. :(
To sum it up, the Master/slave genre might be coming into its own with FIFTY SHADES OF GREY, no doubt what motivated Breaking Glass to acquire the rights to this little bit of flotsam, quick to get onto the bandwagon. This one is unsalvagable junk, though, an example of what not to do. Tame, so as not to catch too much flak, bland, because of misdirection and utter incompetence - and worst of all, dumb to the core, as thick as three short planks.
The theme also gets entangled with bad guy organ harvesters, as if the bondage BDSM set is the same, or at least, related thing. Does that community a disservice.
And those tiresome references likening her to a dog! Playing fetch, yapping, sniffing master's hand. Hell, nobody would regress to animal status overnight. The petting of the hair is real cute though.
It also subscribes to the Neanderthal notion that masters want their slaves/pets marked, their charges to crawl around on their knees, and to lick their shoes. I guess this might be prevalent on the real-life scene, appealing to those who are too dumb to think up better fantasies for themselves, but the lead character seemed to be a more refined intelligent type... Anyway, you would have to be very stupid, very dense indeed, to mess up your 'property' so oafishly. I mean, you pay a fortune, and immediately mess up your investment? Hey, would these masters buy a sports car and then drive it through the swamps?
Andrea Edmondson gamely tries. Hell, some story she could one day tell to her grandchildren (not).
Even with copious nudity, what goes on on- screen, is just about as dull as ditch-water and as tepid as last week's stale tea. An anemic production that's one big yawn.
The DVD's stylish box cover art showing the naked bound slave kneeling before her master, is the best thing about it. It is not the image shown here on IMDb, of course not. It is not even really part of the movie, it is obviously a borrowed image Breaking Glass obtained to make the packaging ultra-appealing, and lure in suckers like me. :(
To sum it up, the Master/slave genre might be coming into its own with FIFTY SHADES OF GREY, no doubt what motivated Breaking Glass to acquire the rights to this little bit of flotsam, quick to get onto the bandwagon. This one is unsalvagable junk, though, an example of what not to do. Tame, so as not to catch too much flak, bland, because of misdirection and utter incompetence - and worst of all, dumb to the core, as thick as three short planks.
The acting wasn't great...Andrea Edmondson sounded as she was reading most of her lines but the story it's self was what draws you in. The only movie you can compare it to is The Secretary which was the first BDSM to hit the mainstream. I actually liked this movie better than The Secretary. I enjoyed the eroticism of it -the time it took to show how a person can become someone's pet. If you can go into it with an open mind, you can allow all types of possibilities to emerge.
There are inherent storyline flaws but I overlooked them. The ownership was erotic to me, the branding, the cage it's self. (A triangle cage does NOT look comfortable!) I feel people outside of the "scene" will not appreciate it (if they see it at all) but for those into BDSM, it's a welcome addition. Not the end all be all, but certainly a start into what will hopefully be a growing genre.
There are inherent storyline flaws but I overlooked them. The ownership was erotic to me, the branding, the cage it's self. (A triangle cage does NOT look comfortable!) I feel people outside of the "scene" will not appreciate it (if they see it at all) but for those into BDSM, it's a welcome addition. Not the end all be all, but certainly a start into what will hopefully be a growing genre.
Yes there were problems with the plot, but the acting was so bad I could not stand to watch the entire movie. The main character was just plain pathetic. I think someone could have convinced to chop off her own hands for the hell of it. Oh and who did wardrobe? He is wealthy so he wears nothing but a very out of style suit for the first part of the movie (the same one day after day). Obviously the wardrobe person or director never met a wealthy man. She also wears only two very unstylish outfits before she becomes his pet. Really this movie is not worth watching. I also found that the situation was very unrealistic. At first he is going to go buy some girl from the slave trade that the animal shelter people don't notice is in a cage. Then he is not doing that but instead wooing his soon to be pet instead. I just can't believe how much these characters just did not make any sense.
This movie could've been so much more. As a member of the BDSM community, I have seen first hand the loving relationships between Masters and their pets.
This movie could have informed the audience about these relationships, about the growth of both people involved, their character development, and there could have even been subplots of action or care or intrigue without involving a contrived, convoluted, and ultimately damaging subplot involving human trafficking, a horrific and reprehensible practice that has nothing to do with 99.9% of the BDSM community.
It was obvious that the film makers have some knowledge of the dynamics of a Master/human pet relationship. But they wrapped it up in bad acting, bad dialogue, and bad story telling.
This movie could have informed the audience about these relationships, about the growth of both people involved, their character development, and there could have even been subplots of action or care or intrigue without involving a contrived, convoluted, and ultimately damaging subplot involving human trafficking, a horrific and reprehensible practice that has nothing to do with 99.9% of the BDSM community.
It was obvious that the film makers have some knowledge of the dynamics of a Master/human pet relationship. But they wrapped it up in bad acting, bad dialogue, and bad story telling.
8cnrm
If you're into Master/slave alternate lifestyle and BDSM, this movie is for you. The two leads are perfectly cast - Andrea Edmondson who is very believable as the submissive human pet and Pierre Dulat who brings European sophistication to his role of master. When those two are on screen, the movie works. The rest of the cast is not up to their standards and the early part of the story is lacking and the ending is even worse, but the middle hour of this movie is really excellent with the interaction between the two leads. Andrea is nude for most of the film, but it's so natural that you won't even notice after the first few minutes. If you're not into alternate lifestyles, this movie will leave you cold because clearly this movie was aimed at a very narrowly focused audience and it hits a bulls-eye with them.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizFilmed partly in the La Jolla Village area of La Jolla, CA.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is The Pet?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Sottomessa
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 1.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 34min(94 min)
- Colore
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti