The Housemaid (15)

Director: Paul Feig
Screenplay: Rebecca Sonnenshein, Freida McFadden

Starring: Sydney Sweeney, Amanda Seyfried, Brandon Sklenar
Running time: 131 minutes

Cinema

​

Review: Dave Stephens

​

“We wish you a Merry Little Mindf*<%”, as the second trailer of The Housemaid genuinely states. Mind you, it also highlights that it’s “based on the worldwide best-selling novel”, and Sydney Sweeney proclaims “I need a fucking sandwich” whilst soaked in blood. Taking all that into consideration, this film is the unlikely Christmas offering from the Hollywood studios, who are seeking the alternative seasonal mature crowd, being adults who don’t fancy blue aliens or green witches with their smuggled-in mince pies at the cinema. It’s sold as a psychological melodrama (with an “erotic thriller” slant) and has enough nasty details to warrant us having a peek and offering an opinion. As previously noted, the film is based on the phenomenally successful 2022 novel by Freida McFadden, which has since spawned two sequels. We’ll put our hands up now and say that we’re not familiar with the books, but more on that later. It was as late as October 2024 when Paul Feig was announced to direct with a cast of Sydney Sweeney and Amanda Seyfried, picking up quite a bit of interest in the process. Shot in New Jersey at the beginning of 2025, it’s now getting a pretty wide release and is showing in cinema screens in the US and UK during the Christmas holidays, alongside some big competition, it has to be said. Despite that, it’s had some surprisingly supportive reviews and a campaign that urges viewers to “keep the secret”. It’s okay, we never spoil films, just slate them if they deserve it. But is this maid-in-heaven or should it be left to gather the dust?

 

It opens with Millie Calloway (Sweeney) arriving at the ridiculously palatial house of the Winchesters in upmarket Long Island. She’s greeted enthusiastically by Nina Winchester (Seyfried), who is interviewing her for the position of live-in housemaid. Coming across as slightly scatterbrained and entitled, Nina nonetheless seems interested in hiring her, and sometime later, Millie is surprised to be offered the job. However, as soon as she crosses the threshold of the house and settles into her confined room, the lady of the house starts to exhibit some disturbing behaviour. She has vicious mood swings, accuses Millie of wrongdoing with no evidence, and threatens to terminate her employment at the slightest excuse. Despite the picture-perfect impression that the Winchesters give out, with the considerate husband (Brandon Sklenar as Andrew) and the ballet-loving daughter (Indiana Elle as Cecelia), there’s something badly wrong with Nina. Millie really needs the job and accommodation, as she has a few secrets of her own. But things get worse, and worse, and then they get weird and violent…

 

Two words keep coming up in the many reviews of The Housemaid, and they are “trash” and “fun”. And that’s a pretty fair summarisation, really. Because the film is a tonal throwback to the 80s and 90s, when a stupid number of movies seemed to be classified as an “erotic thriller”. Blame it on the huge successes of Fatal Attraction and Basic Instinct. As a result, the studios sanctioned the making of all types of unlikely crime capers and murder mysteries, as long as they had a fair bit of (usually female) nudity and a whole lot of plot cheese. And most were awful. Although it’s not (quite) as exploitative as those back in the day, the same slightly scuzzy tone is there. So, we get enthusiastic lovemaking during a thunderstorm and tasteful nudism (hand-bra ahoy!), along with sexual politics and longing glances. And then there are hammy, over-the-top, we’ve-got-this, hold-my-beer, performances. Take a bow, Mrs Seyfried and Elizabeth Perkins. The thing is that this almost pantomime approach is then married to a daft final act that comes across like one of those modern-gothic tales from author V.C. Andrews in the same era. The cherry-on-top is then provided by some modern themes. Now, we don’t know if that was the styling or how it plays out in the novel (we know there are significant changes), but that’s sure as hell the way it comes across in the film.

 

In other words, this isn’t a “good” film. There are tropes and clichés aplenty, and you’re more than likely to guess the average direction in which the plot will go, but it’s fun getting there and forming your own theories (if you haven’t read the book or wiki page, obviously). So, it isn’t great, but as we’ve said before, it is enjoyable, as long as you know what you’re in for. The cast and direction helps immensely. As noted, Seyfried is absolutely up for the job, turning from perky and daffy to vengeful and psychotic on a dime. She knows exactly what’s she’s doing, and you half expect her to wink into the fourth wall. Joyful stuff. And whilst he’s had his ups and downs in his filmography, director Feig also knows what’s needed with the material. Luckily, this is A Simple Favour-Feig, as opposed to the Ghostbusters variant. As with Favour, he knows just how much he can get away with in the situations, without tripping over the plot machinations. In fact, if it wasn’t for Sweeney’s potty-mouth, the mild softcore couplings, and bloody final act, this could almost be one of those soapy dramas that play on afternoon TV or US Lifetime channels. But, it’s not. Especially as the story unwinds.

 

The film does make a lot of the involvement of zeitgeisty actor Sweeney, and she’s not bad here, but she does play it disappointingly seriously for much of the time. She is capable of more (see Immaculate and Christy), but the story relies on her doe-eyed winsomeness and seductive qualities for large sections. Worry not though, because when the need for a change occurs, she understands the assignment. Full marks to her for some of the blunt responses that were audibly appreciated in our screening, such as her sweary reaction to waking from an erotic dream and the aforementioned sandwich hankering. By comparison, Sklenar is blandly “nice”, and Elle is annoying as the bratty daughter, but that is kind of the point (or is it?). There are some significant changes to the original plot of the novel (we’ve done our research), which means that one particular previously-important character could have just been played by a cardboard cut-out. But them’s the breaks with film adaptations.

 

For all those complications and diversions, on a pure entertainment basis, Housemaid ticks the box. As underlined, it’s not high art, it doesn’t take itself (too) seriously, and you’ll have a blast if you’re in the right frame of mind. Whilst it’s not quite as clever or twisty as it pretends to be, it gets elevated due to the efforts of its cast and some of the cinematic tricks it plays. There are lovely junky moments that totally satisfy your expectation for orchestrated drama, and it does get surprisingly dark (and bloody) at times. Those with a queasy dislike of dental violence need not apply. But it’s the little touches that swing it, such as Nina’s screaming fit signifying a string of revelations, and the tease of small-but-important details (pills in the toilet, a window that doesn’t open, the significance of a cake knife, the odd look between two characters, etc). It means that there are actually some fine details you could pick up in a second viewing that will have you nod in appreciation. Other similar moments involve the delicious overall reason for Nina’s mental problems and why her daughter is such a brat (both of which have hints in the storyline well before they are revealed). It’s not Agatha Christie, or even Midsomer Murders come to that, but it is fun, and some of the mean-spiritedness will find an audience with those who thought The Thursday Murder Club was just too damned nice, and what it really needed was someone gorily gashing their stomach open with an expensive dinner plate.

 

As daft as the final act is, that's what you will walk away remembering, rather than the slow build-up and the soap-opera-ish shenanigans. It spurns the slightly downbeat original ending of the book for a more dynamic one, which feels earned, to be honest and fits in with the characterisations that Seyfried and Sweeney have provided. It also provides a comedy of errors being made by one character, which is quite inspired, even if everything else seems somewhat unlikely. The “empowerment” theme is a little overused these days, but it fits with the plot and makes for a suitable full-stop, even if the ethics and methods of certain “good” characters really need to be called into question. But you won’t get an interpretation of real-life in this film. It’s dopey and derivative at its worst, but it’s also fun and mischievous at its core. Like the naughty kid you can’t help laughing at or the dog that steals the turkey dinner. It won’t be remembered as a classic, but it may get a sequel, and it won’t harm the reputation of anyone involved. Maid for enjoyment.