The Pet

This movie is genius out the other direction. It's so dumb and poorly made that it becomes entertaining. Its portrayal of BDSM is so clearly incorrect and offensive that even someone who is not apart of the community, could tell this is a gross misrepresentation of that community. Boy is it amusing though! The self seriousness and self importance is laughable! My suggestion is to get either drunk or high and watch this - you'll have a good time!

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.

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.

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.

This a very unusual perspective on a serious human issue, trafficking. I think it takes the subject matter seriously enough as it doesn't paint a rosey picture. However, the main topic of the movie is the girl's (not victim) willingness to comply. The movie has atmosphere, an intriguing story and is well filmed. The acting is surprisingly good and it is well directed. I can't see why it has been rated so low!