PREMISE
A struggling young woman is relieved by the chance to start fresh as a maid for a wealthy couple. Soon, she discovers that the family’s secrets are far more dangerous than her own.
THE GOOD STUFF
AMANDA SEYFRIED- In a more just world, Amanda Seyfried would be a way bigger star than she is. Her post-pandemic career is pretty great and very low-key. I would say that she may be a bit overqualified for a film of this nature, but I will digress.
She is the most multifaceted character in the entire film by far. There are at least three or four tonal changes in her character, and it’s almost like she gives three or four starkly different performances. Her strength is always her expressiveness. Just like in many of her other performances, she tends to do a lot more with an eyebrow raise, a head tilt, or a squint of the eyes than most actresses do. I may be a bit biased. This is one of my favorite actresses. She uplifts everything that she does.
SYDNEY SWEENEY- People seem to dislike Sweeney so much that they pretend that she can’t act at all, and that is patently false. She is precisely what she needs to be in this film. She’s not given any of the dynamic stuff to do, but she’s unquestionably the lead of this movie. And she works well as a leading lady, as she sometimes has. She’s especially good in the second half of this movie when things go off the rails. Mostly, though, this is a very bland character overall. Though Sweeney does well, she’s never been the kind of performer to add any spice to a bland dish.
THE BAD STUFF
ANDREW WINCHESTER- A good example of a good actor who is miscast. The first act is pretty long and mostly focuses on this character’s interactions with the two female leads, and he’s very dull. For almost an hour of this run time, he shows up, smiles, wears a tank top, says about four lines, and then disappears and reappears now and then. For almost an hour of this run time, the entire point of this character’s existence is for him to be good to look at on screen. Even when things go off the rails, he’s only moderately interesting from there because of the telegraphing of his character taking place early in the film. Again, Brandon Sklenar is a good actor, and he’s perfect for playing the handsome, ripped dude. Everything outside of that in this movie that he plays is… Not it.
THE UGLY STUFF
Unnecessary eroticism– The Sydney Sweeney conundrum in full effect. Is she a good actress? Yes. Two-time Emmy nominee. Golden Globe nominee. But for all the talent that she has, all of it is laughably drowned out by her sex symbol status, and the insatiable need to show off her body in the work she does whenever possible… even if it is unnecessary. There’s a good stretch of the second act where it’s Sweeney being in various states of undress, and her cleavage is front and center for the entire second and third act of this movie, no matter what’s going on on-screen. Because of this, the housemaid is classified as being a “erotic thriller”. And I guess that’s fine. But did it really need to be that? There are many, many different instances to point to where we can insinuate that sex is either about to happen or has just happened, and the audience is smart enough to catch on.
Aside from this stretch of the film, there’s really no eroticism happening in the housemaid. This could have been completely removed from the story. I understand if a sex scene has to be in the film to move the plot along. It’s been done in movies without the point being titillation (EYES WIDE SHUT, SINGLE WHITE FEMALE, MOONLIGHT). This, however, is not like that.
**************
Ultimately, like many Paul Feig movies, this will work if you have nothing to do on a Friday night and you just want to go out and do something. Thrillers like these can be very crowd-pleasing, and THE HOUSEMAID does have those moments, but it could have been much better. If not for Amanda Seyfried’s performance, this film would be much worse.
THE HOUSEMAID is in theaters now.
