User Reviews

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...

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".

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.

So disappointed in this movie. Scripting is bad, story line doesn't match up. Acting is poor camera angles not interesting. They should made a documentary instead. Looks like amateur movie that went wrong. With the caliber of known actors involved, it's very disappointing . I recommend a remake. Write a proper script Use effects and create illusion . Even if your lighting is poor, still , use effects to patch up.

I think the movie has potential to become something good. Just rewrite the script .

Good things about the movie Good location Few good actors

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.

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.

Badly edited, bad camera work and choppy scenes. This whole mess of a film was shot in a way that made it impossible for the viewer to follow. Scenes built up to a suspenseful moment and just ended abruptly and then jumped to somewhere else, leaving the viewer wondering why. Why film a movie like that? Abruptly ending scenes doesn't build suspense if the viewer is busy wondering what the hell is going on.

This happened multiple times throughout the film and each time it distracted from it which caused me to gradually lose interest.

I stayed with it though because I had to see where this choppy mess of a story was going. It went to a really bizarre and unsuspenseful climax at the end that made me roll my eyes at the absurdity of it all. It was really bad and so unbelievable.

The premise is good, and there are much better "psycho renter" movies out there to watch---but this definitely isn't one of them. I like David Arquette, but he really should leave this embarrassment off his resume. Watch if you must, but you've been warned. This film is a 1 star dumpster fire.

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.

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.

I give it high rating marks because it is a very unusually chilling drama film that surprised me. I would say that it's like watching a Charles Manson psychopath type of movie. The character comes off as a true blue psychopath. At first I wasn't sure if it was going to be a supernatural spiritual evil or a human psychopath. If you like suspense and bizarre movies this is a high mark. But it is very disturbing. Definitely not for everyone. It might make you think twice before you decide to rent out your room in your house or condo or even a in-law Cottage on your property. Spooky. You might want to lock all your doors after watching this film.

Watch and see.

Started really well, but didn't maintain any momentum.

Went from weird, to bizarre, to crazy, to downright ridiculous. The last 20 minutes are like a fever dream. I could barely fathom what was going on.

Is David Arquette really like that, or was he acting that way? If that was acting, he deserves 16 Oscars, because that was so unnerving, that I started to believe we were just watching a home movie.

I love the idea...and have a thing for movies of this genre (crazy neighbour), but this really didn't quench my thirst.

Not sure why this was under the 'horror' section on Amazon Prime, as there is zero horror. Well at least what I deem horror.

Overall, starts really well and ends really poorly.

Just bad all around. David Arquette was pretty darn cute in Buffy the Vampire Slayer but that was back in 1992. It's tough to pull off James Dean rebel without a cause with a harem of young girls in your 40s and what's with that whole creepy plot anyways? The husband was a hunk!

Wow just when I thought that idiot David Arquette couldn't anger me more he ends up in a film where numerous underage girls are falling at his feet and god knows what else. The distant gaze of the o'mara sisters is infuriating they have no facial expressions they just glare to the point you'd like them to be slapped. The ending infuriated me as if you were fighting for your life then you'd stab to kill. Not just feeble slash then run. FINISH THE JOB. It's what we paid to see. UGH JUST UGH.

(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.

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.