I Didn't Like It
-
rsuther104 — 21 years ago(December 05, 2004 08:38 PM)
I saw Sex, Lies and Videotape when it was first released. I loved it, and will surely add it to my DVD collection. You know, we all do have different taste in film. I am always a little surprised when a movie can mean so much to one person while another finds it completely boring. I have friends with both intellect and taste, who didn't get this movie. Go figure. It spoke novels to me, about the importance of honesty in love, friendship, and life for that matter. My life experiences took me down similar paths, and I could identify with one of the characters while some of the others were carbon copies of people I know. I thought it was superbly acted, directed, and it had something important to say, which most American movies seem to lack these days. It definitely ranks somewhere in my top 50, at least. Cascade is right, the trust sets everyone free.
-
tcoffman — 22 years ago(March 29, 2004 02:54 PM)
This was a wonderful movie about the devastation that the truth can bring to lives in denial. Spader's character, as a recovering "pathological liar," never lied. About anything, even his own fetish, which most people might think he should dissemble about. His entry into the world of lies and self-deceit and "too many keys" disrupted all the facades and illusions which were going on. By the end of the movie the truth had set them all free, though the process had been painful.
Truly a masterpiece. -
ada1crs — 21 years ago(July 28, 2004 08:02 AM)
I think it's a masterpiece, visually, verbally, and aesthetically but I know tons of people who don't like it. My mum rented when it came out and it bored her to death, my step sister thinks its dull as hell, I showed it to a friend and he turned it off after five minutes.
It reminds me of the Blair Witch Project, a film critics adored and audiences hated.
'garbage, all i've been thinking about all week is garbage' -
londonlondoners — 21 years ago(July 31, 2004 11:13 PM)
I was curious about it and finally got the dvd. I thought that after 15 years I should not expect much. But I was not expected the fastidious session I endured. My sensation is that I was watching "Blow Up" again - and I found Blow Up boring, no matter how "revolutionary" some critics see it. The same for Sex, lies the film is boring to death the acting is plain, there is nothing special about the four characters it is not a masterpiece verbally, not visually, not aesthetically with or without sex scenes, it would still be boring like the terapeutic session that starts the film The lover destroying the tapes was as ridiculous as it could get.. the dialogues arepueril English is not my first language but I don't thing it would make a difference if I had seen it in my owm language. so, just to double check I rented the Full Frontal and Julia Roberts is not the only thing boring in this last again another film that insteat of talking about adult sexuality just gets lost in blabbering Maybe some credit for the structure, but no much for the story, drama, plot, etc
R -
-
peyton_27104 — 21 years ago(August 24, 2004 10:40 AM)
There is a reason why this movie swept all of the important awards at the Cannes film festival - it's a masterpiece, plain and simple. As is the case with most masterpieces, especially the movies that try something different, a certain number of people simply don't get it. That is particularly true with this movie because of its reliance on the dialogue. If you don't like the movie, maybe you could just say "I didn't get it" rather than trashing the movie. I didn't get Magnolia, a movie even more highly regarded than this movie, but I don't trash the movie. I simply admit that I didn't get it.
My favorite line from the movie, from Graham. "Problems? Do I have problems? I look around in this town, and I see you, and I see John, and I see Cynthia, and I feel comparatively healthy." -
Krustallos — 21 years ago(October 11, 2004 09:41 AM)
I liked it very much but a friend of mine didn't. But it wasn't because she wanted to be "led around by the hand". She just thought the insights about sexuality and relationships were banal.
But then she was a hooker by trade, so it may have been a case of coals to Newcastle. -
PessimisticGrace — 21 years ago(January 02, 2005 04:31 PM)
I guess we're even, then. I didn't see the big deal about Pulp Fiction. It was an absolutely beloved movie on everybody's top 10 list, but I watched it and came away with a shrug. My conclusion? Everyone has their own "thing." Labeling something "boring" is erroneous, because I thought Pulp Fiction was ho-hum. Instead of calling it terribly "boring," why don't you say you just didn't enjoy it? Because I bet you'd be irritated if someone called Pulp Fiction boring.
And as for James.. I honestly don't know how anyone could dislike him. He's a brilliant, versatile actor who inspires admiration in the most low-key roles. He's not an action star or your average leading man, yet he infuses such depth and thought into each of his roles. I like blockbusters like anyone else, but it takes very little thought to play an action hero or a typical romance movie. But he takes roles that are very subdued, yet captivates audiences. Clearly not you, clearly not some.. But you don't win Cannes with a "boring" movie. Just say it was "too slow and uneventful." Because obviously, many people didn't find it the least bit boring. it's refreshing for me to see a movie in which there's no gunfight, no gore, no gratituous sex scenes and no.. well, Hollywood! Somebody called him a "dorky-looking douche-bag." I personally think James Spader is one of the most attractive celebrities I can name, and I don't even date men! I'll take him over Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Matt Damon or Keanu Reeves any day of the week! I'm not attracted to hunky and muscled and manly. I think he's absolutely gorgeous, largely because of his eyes. I watched an episode of Boston Legal lately in which, following a love confession by a woman, he said nothing for what seemed like two or three minutes. Yet he conveyed shock, wonder, disbelief and confusion, without speaking a single word. Eyes that can do that will always win out over "handsome hunks" for me. -
nottheingenue — 21 years ago(March 06, 2005 01:01 PM)
I love this movie. There are some movies that I can watch over and over again, and this happens to be one of them. I think the dialogue is very interesting, it may not be very deep but it seems sincere and reveals a lot about the characters. I'd have to agree that it is up there with Peeping Tom. I don't understand how someone could find this movie boring. Also, the sound is amazing! The scene with Graham and Ann at the end is wonderful. I really love the mood of the room and the fact that Soderbergh decided not to use overpowering music was a great choice. Because that scene was so much about the characters and not necessarily what was happening in the scene, I thought the music really emphasized the emotion. I usually watch that movie while I paint, it's wonderful just to listen to. The very last scene is beautiful.
Also, I did see House of Sand and Fog, and though I didn't think it was boring, I would not compare it to SLAV. I found "House" to be rather dramatic. It could have been much better had it been more understated.
As for James Spader, I love him. I happen to like Stargate, but maybe it's simply more of a sentimental thing or maybe I'm just too keen on sci-fi. -
kid-8 — 21 years ago(March 07, 2005 01:22 PM)
I was channel-surfing last night, and happened upon this movie, which I had seen on the big screen when it came out in 1989. Watching it again, I was reminded of its brilliance. Yes, it is like a play, but in movie form: long scenes, but mostly character development stuff. In those long (some say boring) scenes, we come to know (and care) about the characters. I felt like at the end of the film, I really knew these people.
My take, simplistic though it may be, is that this is a story about the insidiousness of lies:
Ann and John fall in love and marry. Ann has never experienced an orgasm; John is too self-centered and insensitive to notice, or even care.
Ann's sister is much more open sexually, but her openness manifests itself in an insecure way: by having an affair with her older sister's husband, her sister whom she's always felt inferior to, looks-wise, intellectually and morally.
Graham, one of John's old school friends, shows back up in town. Graham was much like his friend Johna liar, a philandererand as a result lost his first love, never to be retrieved. Graham and Ann meet; instinctually, they are drawn to one another, but at first don't quite understand why or how. When Graham "interviews" Cynthia (Ann's sis), and we later see him watching the tape of that interview, rather than be turned on by it, he turns away in pain, because he sees in John's betrayal of Cynthia his own self-loathing: for his lies and deceit in the relationship with his former love, Elizabeth.
When Ann finally figures out that her sister and husband are having an affair, she goes to Graham, whom she has conflicted feelings about, and confronts him with this news. Graham already knows John's a liar, and already knows what she tells himand in their revelations to one another, during Ann's "interview", they connectemotionally, at first, and then physically (off-screen).
Graham, the reformed liar, and Ann, the innocent, her eyes now open to her husband's betrayal, come together, to form a relationship based upon both emotional and physical intimacy, as well as integrity.
THE ENDor in Graham's and Ann's case, THE BEGINNING.
It seems pretty clear to me.