User reviews

This film is a tad predictable, a bored housewife entertains a gardener with questionable motives. The film itself was not terrible and the cinematography was well done. But then there is the music. It made the movie almost unwatchable. I get that you're trying to do the artsy "Drive" thing with the electronic moody tones but maybe turn it down a bit so we can hear what the characters are saying? Very distracting.

Writer and director Chadd Harbold sure butchered the 1960's classic film of the same name, by giving it a Lifetime/Hallmark feel. The usually very comfortable low 87 min runtime felt way longer with ridiculously slow pacing, and Harbold's screenplay being 80% filler and maybe 20% substance. It's a shame, because there was tons of potential that was missed, and in the hands of filmmakers that know what they're doing, this could've been great. Even if this was edited/cut down to a 20-30 min short film, I probably would've enjoyed it more. The ending was part cringe, part nonsense, and part ok, but all the previous filler was just boring and underwhelming. Even some of the fade-ins and outs in the thrill scenes towards the end were 1980's quality.

The cinematography was decent, although the darker scenes were way too dark. The score was your typical loud, unfitting and annoying B-grade fare, and in some of the quieter dialogue scenes, I couldn't make out any words because of the overbearing score, and that's something that could've been fixed in editing, if there actually was any.

Casting and performances were decent, and I can tell they tried their best considering there probably wasn't any cast direction from Harbold. Shiloh Fernandez whispering dialogue got annoying quickly, and incoherent when the score was overbearing his scenes. I'd pass on this, especially if you've seen the original, because comparing it to this one will be even more disappointing. A very generous 5/10 most towards the cast.

The film had some great visuals and an overall, style. I enjoyed the story structure. It felt very noir. Even Shiloh's performance was quite entertaining. He was both charming, yet creepy. His character's back story was also interesting. But the film could've dove in a bit more on his back story. Perhaps, I was just invested to know more of his motives.

The only issue I had was the lead (Ashley Benson). She was not convincing in her role; it felt very forced. In most of the films I've seen her in, she always came off exhausted. To me, she was just there - acting. The film should've cast a stronger leading lady. She should've taken acting lessons.

I have seen my fair share of stinkers over the years, but this remake of private property is among the worst offenders.

Why do i think so?

For starters this is a remake, so it lacks originality, there is barely a plot recognizable, twists were so obvious, that they lacked any kind of surprise. There are some stunningly looking shots in the movie, but as any Zack Snyder film will show you, gorgeous looking shots do not rescue a movie without a plot. The main characters lack any form of chemistry.

I had the feeling, the director decided to make a film noir, but a very colorful one.

The list if producers and executive producers on this film is longer than the list of actors. Among them the leading man of this movie.

It might be worthwhile digging* up the original movie and give it a shot, but watching this one was a waste of money and time.

I don't know where to start. Had such high hopes for this movie since we loved Ashley as Hannah in PLL. If this was the best vehicle for her, then I fear her career will be be short lived. The music was awful and the premise of the movie was just pure crap. And the acting? Can you say OVERemote? The guy playing Ed Hogate and the Ben and Oates characters made the whole thing seem like a comedy. Sadly, Ashley couldn't pull off whatever her character was supposed to be. I am thinking that she must have been a slut with a totally messed up brain. Two hours of my life I will never get back. Don't waster your time on this turkey.

None have captured the spirit of how bad a film can be like this one. I literally couldn't NOt Watch because I am shocked this was made. 0/10 would never recommend not even to my worst enemy. Guantanomo Bay banned this movie because it was too evil to put on repeat.

It was comically awful.

• The editing was terrible. In an 80-minute movie, we were treated to long stretches of scenes like the protagonist taking out her trash, making the movie feel like the run time was far longer. It was like an. Editing 101 submission.

• I paused to check the year this film was made because (and not in a good retro way), it looked like it was made in the early 90s at some points.

• The sound was poorly done, making it hard to hear dialogue at points.

• Jay Pharoah's character was a joke. Going back to bad directing/editing: one of the longer stretches of his character on screen has his back facing the camera. He's absent for a large part of the movie and his character just comes off as filler. Terrible way to use your star actor.

• The whole story was a mess. The ending was a mess and rushed. Certain character motivations were unclear or not addressed. So when the ending came, it fell completely flat. A certain character reappears and I laughed because he was so disinterested in everything until that point.

It was like a lifetime movie (though that's an insult to many LT movies). Not an entertaining one and not well done even for their standards. A boring, dated (but new), poorly directed and edited Lifetime movie.

The actors did their best but you could tell they were without proper direction. The lead woman's abilities were greater than the film, for sure. But she was working with nothing.

"Private Practice" starts out in "Sunset Boulevard" fashion, with a body in a swimming pool and a voice over. We then meet Kathryn, an aspiring actress who is married to a successful Hollywood producer. On the surface, the couple appears to be getting on, but there seems to be some deeper conflicts -- she claims she doesn't want him to help her out in getting roles, but we're not sure if that decision really came from her, she spends the day at home cleaning the house, and he seems to be lacking interest in her when he gets home. Meanwhile, she gets a phone call telling her that her gardener has been "detained" and there is a new one coming. Duke, the new gardener, shows up and the two of them start a bit of a flirtation...

"Private Practice" starts out strong and then completely falls apart. Ashley Benson makes Kathryn an engaging heroine and she makes us empathize with her and root for her, and Shiloh Hernandez plays Duke with just the right level of intrigue to make us know that there is definitely something more going on. And just when the movie hits a climactic moment, the entire film stops, shifts, and circles back in time to explain things. And what's worse, the movie then pushes its strongest asset -- Ashley Benson's Kathryn -- to the back burner in favor of other far less compelling characters. And when it finally comes back to the original flow, the movie just hurriedly rushes through its ending. And what's worse, some major events are in almost pitch darkness so we don't know what is really going on, they don't really explain the characters' motivation, and then there is a final sequence that is just a confusing mess. In addition, for an "erotic thriller" the "erotic" part is pretty scarce -- in one short scene Ashley Benson wears a bikini and the movie goes to outrageous lengths to make sure we don't actually see her in it, a couple of characters are watching her in a pool going on about how she is swimming naked but when we see her she is actually in a very conservative one-piece, etc.

"Private Practice" started out strong and I was enjoying it and was bummed out that it took such a wrong turn. A missed opportunity.

Apparently, this is a remake of a 1960s film, which was controversial when it was released and was considered lost until 2016. It reminded me of a few other films such as Under the Silver Lake, Andrew Garfield's random stares are still vivid to this day.

It has definitely surpassed my expectation because I went in with the thought that, it was going to be another break into the house film and a dark comedy. The slowness of the plot pushes you to dissect everything and what everyone's motives are, so in the end, you're left with lingering thoughts throughout. Hence why the slow burn plot style was appropriate to slowly build up the twist everyone is waiting for. By deconstructing the main events, the director gives a new perspective on what the future entails for these characters.

It's basic thriller which is trying to hard to be some kind of Art film.

Its slow and boring and you can see the outcome from the offset.

Avoid at all costs.

I wonder why someone would even make this movie. It's one of the worst I've seen in my life, even on fast forward. Bad acting, bad plot, bad photography, bad direction, bad set.

I didn't realize this was a remake, so haven't seen the original (but I'd bet my bottom dollar it's superior to this piece of crap). I don't review many movies but I had to figure out what my password was just to log on to rate this one. I'm fairly easy to please as far as movies are concerned, but this was just bad. Bad plot, bad acting, bad writing. It felt like such a mess, it would not surprise me if I found out this was the final project for a high school film class. It was so laughably cringy and ridiculous that I just couldn't stop watching because I had to find out if it would end up having any redeeming value at all. Spoiler alert: it doesn't.

Oh man, like the other user said about not having logged in in awhile but had to for this review, I have never reviewed anything on here before but man this film is SO bad lol terrible acting, I laughed every time the cheesy synth stabs came in to create "a mood" haha this plays out like a bad porn but with no sex.

And now apparently this review has to be at least 600 characters but I'm not sure how else to say you should not watch the movie. Can't even believe Hulu had this as a brick to recommend this? Someone should be required to actually watch these before they "recommend" to anyone, let alone allow to be streamed.

When the opening credits state, "Based on a film" and "The day before yesterday", you just know it's not going to be worth watching.

Remakes never state it's based on a previous film, screenplay, book or play; it's a given. As for time line, the standard is, one day ago, two days ago, etc. NOT, the day before yesterday. Who the hell speaks like that?

This movie got half an hour of my life before I had to turn it off. The script is so amateurish, it may has well been written in crayon. The acting was stunted and monotonous. Ashley Benson probably should have been cast as the homeowner's daughter, which would be much more believable than as the wife and lady of the home. Watching it seems more like watching a high school drama class rehearsal rather than an actual movie.

The only positive thing I can say is that the cinematography was very good; the picture looked bright and vibrant.

Whoever greenlit this ghastly mess should be run out of Hollywood on a rail.

I put this Hulu flick on at 1 in the afternoon while doing laundry and packing for an upcoming work trip. All I could think of while watching thus movie was Instagram "stories". I had just watched Shiloh Hernandez (even his name is Instagrammable!) in a movie on Tubi with the actress from Gone Girl and I Care A Lot. Like this, it too was a bad flick but that actress (I don't know her name, she never became an A-lister) is so great she elevates her films if given enough creative license to do her thing. I cannot believe how difficult it is to try and come up with six hundred characters to fill the gap. Cringe & thirsty.

It comes up with the day before yesterday and so on. So it's hard to tell what is happening. The final 1/8 of the film if you imagine the film being made up of 8/8 parts, it totally lame. It destroys anything that was setup in the first 7/8 of the movie. Nothing much happens in this film. You have some uninteresting characters doing uninteresting things. How I managed to watch all of it is anyone's guess. It's a very uninteresting film. You just watch it as it's on and you want to see if anything happens. Hanna from pretty little liars is in it. She isn't very interesting. The other characters are not very interesting. The film is pretty bad due to the ending which is pretty much non-existent.

Private Practice" starts out in "Sunset Boulevard" fashion, with a body in a swimming pool and a voice over. We then meet Kathryn, an aspiring actress who is married to a successful Hollywood producer. On the surface, the couple appears to be getting on, but there seems to be some deeper conflicts -- she claims she doesn't want him to help her out in getting roles, but we're not sure if that decision really came from her, she spends the day at home cleaning the house, and he seems to be lacking interest in her when he gets home. Meanwhile, she gets a phone call telling her that her gardener has been "detained" and there is a new one coming. Duke, the new gardener, shows up and the two of them start a bit of a flirtation.

It had a wonderful plot but the sound effect in the background you could not hear some of the talking. You missed a lot of the viewpoints because you could not hear what they were saying for the loud sound effects. But It absolutely Was A great plot and I fully enjoyed it except for the sound effects.

I will let me it I have lost some hearing but the high pitch sounds overtakes the talking. I had rather have a silent background sound than one that's over takes the words. Each actor did a fantastic job with their part and I was really pleased with everything except for the sound effects. I wish more movies would delete the sound effects or quite it down.

What in the name of A thirteen-year-old boy's junior high film project did I just watch?? The premise of this is the farthest thing from a new movie concept that needed to be made. Plus, bad acting, horrible music and novice effects. I can't believe I kept watching, hoping something would click and make it worth it. Never happened.

Not only was the acting bad, what was up with the beautiful home in the Hollywood Hills with really bad bedroom wallpaper and 1970s furniture? Did I miss the relevance of that?

The scene in the kitchen with the burgers and dancing was cringy and just plain embarrassing.

This didn't need to be an hour and thirty mins. I understand the modern twist on 60's cinema, but it could have done as a short film. It was a complete waste of time!