Watch My Mistress For Free

Best movie ever!

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

I have seen other BDSM films. Some I watched out of curiosity, others to see if it'd be told or used differently. They were all the same. This film starts out from an emotional viewpoint, in my opinion. A young teenage boy named Charlie goes through some horrible incidences from the start; most likely emotionally wrecking him and finds a sort of comfort in a BDSM mistress named Maggie who has emotional issues of her own. While the BDSM does play its role this film is not really centered on it, as a whole. This film seemed to be about people going through a lot of emotional pain. I can relate to that. A mother feeling as if she's losing her son (main character), a son who wants to escape, and the BDSM mistress going through her own tribulations with her own life, and a child of her own she is apart from but wants to be nearer to and even his emotional turmoil from not being near his mother. Like the toy gun incident. From his viewpoint it probably wasn't about the gun but the fact his mother gave it to him but he wasn't allowed to keep it. There is a bit of dry humor to this film, especially during the BDSM scenes. Not that the film is necessarily making fun of what these men's sexual fantasies are but that it just comes off funny. While this does have its dry humor this is not a funny film, in the least. So emotionally wrought. Every time Maggie dominates Charlie it felt like she was losing herself more and more.The legal age issue; I saw this before in "Noksaek uija" where apparently an older woman had a sexual relationship with a young boy (he was 19), the age of consent in that country, at the time that film was released, was 13. They changed that law since then but the character in that film was obviously not 13. Much older. In Australia the age of consent is 16 yet here it seems they have a social worker talk to Charlie and he states "I'm 16!" which he knows it's legal yet films like this like to say it's not or imply it; an untruthful bias that always seems to be on their line. According to Australian law on this subject (which I read) it is only illegal for someone to have sex with a 16/17 year old who is in a "supervisory" role. Maggie, even though a Dominatrix, is not in that role, so it's perfectly legal for them to have a sexual relationship. That's the lie this film tells; and films like it. If you think it should be a higher age don't lie about it in a film, take action outside of it. Like the other film, and being a technical rater, that deducts this otherwise emotional film down a bit. Otherwise, I quite enjoyed it.

The poster and trailer want to make you think that this is a vividly sexy movie, about a french dominatrix and a teenage boy, full of yearning, desire and a little spanking.It's not.It's a run-of-the-mill drama about *spoilers* a boy who has lost his dad, and a woman who has lost custody of her son. Yes, you can see where this is going. Two out of two horrible mothers, the movie is co-written by four men. Make of that what you will.All the scenes of (very, very) mild sexual interest are in the trailer, extended by a few seconds in the movie. The way they are written suggests someone with a passing interest in S&M, there's nothing you wouldn't find on the wikipedia page for "bondage".If you're after a barely-watchable coming-of-age drama with a few shots of stockings and stilettos, this is your movie. But don't buy into what the trailer is trying to sell you or you'll be disappointed.

I watched the trailer and i was compelled to watch this film immediately, the kind of story, and above all the presence of the beautiful Emmanuelle Béart, of witch a'm a fan from back in the 80's.But i was disappointed from almost the beginning of the movie, the story is a mess, between a confused adolescent, a confused middle-aged-BDSM-woman, a cheating-with-your-best-friend, and all together make this mess, that the director and witter, didn't know how to solve.Is it so difficult to tell a story ? beginning, middle part and ending, with some kind of sense ?What Stephen Lance (i know it's his first major film) did was just a mesh-up of situations and none of them make a connection, and when you wait for 1h35min for some kind of explanations, BANG !!!!, nothing.Lovely Emmanuelle Béart, you should of stayed in France, and skipped this film.The 3 out of 10 is almost all to you.

This is presumably intended to be a 'significant' and 'artistic' film full of deep meanings on life, love and growing up. Its only claim to any of these is that the director made full use of longeurs where characters move very, very s l o w l y which served only to prolong an already dire experience.None of the players appear to have acted in anything before, wooden would be too kind a description. The leading boy is an unlikeable kid who shows how he is 'suffering' by writing graffiti on his widowed mother's garage. His sexy new neighbour just happens to gag and whip men in her spare time (as you do in the suburbs) and after that I lost interest.So will you.Any resemblance to real life experiences of adolescence is purely absent.