Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaA young woman in dire financial straights accepts an offer to be a wealthy aristocrat's human "pet" for six months. Then ruthless modern "pet-nappers" kidnap the woman to sell her on the GSM... Ler tudoA young woman in dire financial straights accepts an offer to be a wealthy aristocrat's human "pet" for six months. Then ruthless modern "pet-nappers" kidnap the woman to sell her on the GSM (Global Slave Market).A young woman in dire financial straights accepts an offer to be a wealthy aristocrat's human "pet" for six months. Then ruthless modern "pet-nappers" kidnap the woman to sell her on the GSM (Global Slave Market).
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)
Avaliações em destaque
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.
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.
I watched this movie with a group last night who is familiar with BDSM. Personally, I feel the movie did BDSM an injustice. If I did not know better I would think that in order for someone to become involved in a "power exchange," they would have to be enticed with big money or some reason other than their need to be in a supportive and loving environment. A true BDSM relationship involves a "power exchange" which comes from the person's need to submit, a gift of submission to their Master or Dominant.
By mixing in the slave trade it only misinformed those who have no knowledge of this type of relationship, and who try to use fear tactics to make us look as if we are a danger to society. In no way did I feel that the movie showed any type of a growing relationship that would justify anyone giving up the degree of control that was displayed. Her devotion was bought and paid for.
One comment from the audience was that the acting was comparable to a porno flick. Being knowledgeable as to the true relationships involved in BDSM we could see through the errors. For someone not familiar, it would only make them think that BDSM is a horrible thing. I would not recommend this movie to anyone outside of the BDSM scene.
By mixing in the slave trade it only misinformed those who have no knowledge of this type of relationship, and who try to use fear tactics to make us look as if we are a danger to society. In no way did I feel that the movie showed any type of a growing relationship that would justify anyone giving up the degree of control that was displayed. Her devotion was bought and paid for.
One comment from the audience was that the acting was comparable to a porno flick. Being knowledgeable as to the true relationships involved in BDSM we could see through the errors. For someone not familiar, it would only make them think that BDSM is a horrible thing. I would not recommend this movie to anyone outside of the BDSM scene.
Breathtakingly, stunningly bad. Production values seem to be even lower than the average adult movie.
Total acting skills displayed by all participants: close to zero. Poor shooting, directing, editing, script, DVD transfer, etc. If anybody connected with this movie was paid more than bus fares and lunch money, they were overpaid.
Some movies are bad, but entertaining because they are bad. Not so with this turkey.
The only reason I gave it one star is because there isn't a zero-star voting option.
Total acting skills displayed by all participants: close to zero. Poor shooting, directing, editing, script, DVD transfer, etc. If anybody connected with this movie was paid more than bus fares and lunch money, they were overpaid.
Some movies are bad, but entertaining because they are bad. Not so with this turkey.
The only reason I gave it one star is because there isn't a zero-star voting option.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesFilmed partly in the La Jolla Village area of La Jolla, CA.
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is The Pet?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- 더 펫
- Locações de filme
- Distrito de Los Angeles, Califórnia, EUA(Location)
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 1.000.000 (estimativa)
- Tempo de duração1 hora 34 minutos
- Cor
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente