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.

A must see IMHO.I have no clue where ppl are coming from with comments like this could be more?BDSM for me has taught me to appreciate what is. including everything.This movie touches on so much...I can't write it all. ...Slavery (willing and not)...predgidism...Zoophilia......I could go on and on...but its braded (IMHO) in a love story (or stories depending on perspectives).I could watch this movie over and over. ..its past thought provoke'n. what it IS is also what it isn't and it is awesome...IMHO.

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.

The acting is terrible. The plot makes no sense. This movie attempts to explore 2 relevant & infinitely interesting topics...a type of D/s relationship & human slave trafficking. Unfortunately, it doesn't come close to doing either justice. It attempts to intertwine the two in a way that makes no sense. The D/s side comes off as typical fantasy...the woman is offered large sums of money by a rich man to try being his kept-nude & in a cage pet & she likes it. Now, I'm not against a well-done fantasy portrayal, but this isn't it. In the movie's defense, it does attempt to show a D/s relationship as a loving one with mutual consent & benefit (besides the monetary). But that doesn't begin to save the film. We are asked to believe that one day she is perfectly lucid & signing contracts & the next day she has no cognitive abilities except those of a dog. BTW, if you have a RL dog, you know that most of them have a whole lotta cognitive ability LOL. This is only one of it's many, many problems.As for it's attempt to touch on the abhorrent practice of the human slave trade, it touches on it briefly in a way that makes no sense in the context of the movie. I had such high hopes for this film & the trailer made it look so exciting. I wanted to love it. Instead, when I wasn't laughing, I was just stunned by how bad it was. Don't waste your time! And definitely don't waste your money!