IMDb RATING
4.3/10
1.3K
YOUR RATING
When Chloe and Michael Carpenter rent out the cottage behind their house to charming romance novelist Robert Mars, their American dream soon turns into a suburban nightmare.When Chloe and Michael Carpenter rent out the cottage behind their house to charming romance novelist Robert Mars, their American dream soon turns into a suburban nightmare.When Chloe and Michael Carpenter rent out the cottage behind their house to charming romance novelist Robert Mars, their American dream soon turns into a suburban nightmare.
Shannon Lewis-Reddy
- Megan
- (as Shannon Lewis)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
One of the oddest films I have seen. What started out as a TV movie of the week just went bonkers!!! David Arquette did look hot in it though but that's not enough to recommend this mess.
This movie kept me interested but at the same time the acting wasn't great but most of all the story and events were all very unbelievable. Kind of seemed like a group of teenagers made the movie rather than adults. That said, I watched it all way through and despite most things about this movie being very bad, it somehow kept me interested, whether it was the astonishment of how bad it really was and wondering whether it could get any worse or wondering where the story was going, I'm not totally sure.
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...
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...
I must have written that summary a good 50 times attempting to keep a straight face before (somewhat) succeeding.. But even looking past the... inventive casting, this movie about a romance novelist who might not be who he seems, is a hopelessly muddled mess. Poor direction, abysmal writing, nonsensical characters. No character really has any rhyme nor reason to do anything that they do in the film. The movie feels horribly disjointed like they wanted to make a Lifetime-esque thriller but even failed at those 'lofty' goals. It's also one of the tamest movies of the 'bad tenant' sub-genre that I had the misfortune of subjecting my eyes to.
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.
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.
Did you know
- Crazy creditsDuring the credits some videos of Robert Mars (David Arquette) and Rose Carpenter (Alana O'Mara) dating and playing together are played.
- How long is The Cottage?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 28m(88 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
- 16:9 HD
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content