Speaking of Sex (2001) User Reviews (23)

Pretty Good

[Bob_the_Hobo · 7/10 · 22 February 2011]

I love anything with Bill Murray, or James Spader or Catherine O'Hara, so this seemed like a good deal. It was.

We have James Spader as a psychiatrist, who gets referred a patient played by Melora Walters, who is having marital troubles with her husband, played by Jay Mohr. Spader is turned on by Walters, however, and breaks any existing doctor-patient relationships when they have elevator sex. The ensuing events have Murray and O'Hara as two lawyers trying to level the damage done.

As another reviewer said, this reminded me very much of a French farce. "Speaking of Sex" uses the same brand of humor used by say La Cage Aux Folles, a lot of dry, goofy laughs that may be hysterical to some and irritating to others.

Bill Murray gets top billing, even though he's in probably half of the movie. Still, he's the best part of the movie and had me laughing the most. It's a Bill Murray performance with his type of lines. Spader was also funny, though, as our star, he was easily outweighed by Murray or O'Hara, who is equally good. Walters is the only part of this I found a bit irritating. Mohr is alright.

If you're not expecting too much and are in for an ultimately mediocre hour and a half, you could do worse.

stupid.... but funny.....james spader , bill murray ,melora . good act.

[afterdarkpak · 7/10 · 7 August 2020]

Good production quality with some some really decent funny acting by almost every character.

i never seen james spader doing comedy but he did this very well. he is funny. the plot is simple but it keep getting complicated later but still its easy to understand. im really glad that it wasnt serious movie, otherwise it would be a disaster.

Good and bad at the same time

[raulfaust · 6/10 · 24 May 2011]

You know, this is film is strangely funny. It's directed/written in a very underground way, but kinda works.

There are some very funny scenes involving the human nature towards sex; I really laughed when Melinda described the elevator scene to the lawyers and they wanted to stop for a while because they were getting' turned on.

Basically, the movie is about Melinda, a very innocent girl - to not say dumb. It looks like she's high in the whole movie. Daniel is her husband who can't get an erection for a reason you will find out in the end of the movie. Jay Mohr is brave to play such a ridiculous character like Dan.

But that's it: a few funny scenes in a charming comedy that won't change your life, but will probably entertain.

Spader is kinda like a squirrel in a doctor's outfit

[ablu272 · 22 March 2004]

James Spader was so adorable in this movie. His geeky quarks and pitifulness are so cute that he kinda reminds me of a squirrel in a scientist's costume or a doctor's outfit. His character is put through so many embarrassing situations that you kinda want to take him home and keep him like a pet or something. Bill Murry seemed out of place. There was absolutely no chemistry between him and O'Hara. His acting was machanical and the performance was cheesy. Melora Walters pulls out an okay performance. She starts out strong, but all of a sudden at the end of the film she is so different; like she's not staying faithful to the character. This is a good sit on the couch with a girlfriend or two movie, if you are looking for something to make fun of. All in All I think I enjoyed it.

The Sex Is Funnier Than The Script

[madfashionista · 5/10 · 26 June 2017]

This is a sex farce where the actual sex is by far superior to the rest of the movie. The title tipped me off, it's too on the nose and unsubtle. The script is entirely about sex. That usually would be very much in my "pro" column. The sex scenes and quick cuts are by far the funniest things in the movie. The problem is, the movie is ENTIRELY about sex. Next to nothing about the characters, the setting, nothing. There are no characters to connect to. Nothing to root for or care about. The plot is incoherent. The acting is broad and unfunny. In a later interview, the director said he wished he had told his actors to play it straight. Amen to that! James Spader, as Roger Klink (har har), gives a jittery, gaspy performance. Talk about playing against type. As the film went on, it bugged me that he never seemed to speak in complete sentences. Spader, Bill Murray and Catherine O'Hara, all excellent comic performers, are weighed down by the clumsy script and terrible pacing. In the small part of Dr. Klink's ex-wife, Megan Mullalley gives by far the best performance, in part because she has the most rounded, interesting character. You know there's something wrong with a film when a minor character is better written than the leads. Lara Flynn Boyle as Dr. Paige, an unstable marriage counselor is awful. The rest of the cast is capable, nothing special.

If you have nothing better to do, this movie is an okay diversion, but don't go out of your way.

actually pretty funny

[funkie_sparkels · 7/10 · 15 April 2005]

yeah, sure it's very screwball. But people should just take SoS for what it is and laugh with it. I did, and very much enjoyed it. All the performances were good, I thought Lara Flynn Boyle, Bill Murray and Catherine O'Hara were excellent. But I can't believe no one has mentioned Megan Mullally's performance. Well, she is a favourite of mine, so I'll admit a bias there, but she was good, incredibly sexy. I thought she fitted the role really well and added the little something extra this movie needed. A lot of the lessons in the movie can be taken into real life - that communication and honesty are the keys to a successful marriage. And I also like happy endings. Overall I thought it was an easy time-waster and a good laugh.

Who pays production costs for such a crap???

[vanjamarin · 2/10 · 22 March 2005]

This film really left me wondering for quite a while after I saw it... First (as trying to be as self critic as I can), I thought something was wrong with me... Maybe I've missed something... Some irony... Some parody... Some...whatever...

But... NO!!! Unfortunately not!

Reading all other User Reviews, I can only say that comedy taste of Americans and us, Europeans is obviously sooo different... (Which is totally OK)...

But, from my point of view, I must say I am shocked with what a crap they spent their money on!?!? I mean, there are so many great stories that never find a producer or studio, so many talented directors, young comedy actors...

And, instead of trying to figure some of them out, since they are already throwing away a bag of money, they do the worst possible thing...

Choose ridiculous scenario (that has NOTHING in it), they assemble a Golden Cast of actors and then they produce Catastrophe...

I mean, what was that James Spader story in this movie??? Him trying to act as Jim Carrey on Acid (why the hell didn't they take Carrey for the role then, and not the usually great James Spader, who looks ridiculous in this "slap-stick of 22nd century" comedy)...

Right, as said in many reviews before, Bill Murray and Mrs.O'Hara try to save the film, but not enough space and room and good lines and inventive directing and nothing...

Everything is so flat!!! Just dig out the lightning in the movie... Those flat faces, no shadow anywhere (not even on those in depth walls – In just one shot I spotted some Venetian blinds shadow on the wall behind the actors ----- oh, what a try!!!)...

Only decent looking scenes (in matter of Production design, light and direction) are the scenes taking place in this "statement taking room" where we have entire cast in the scene....

Don't know... Maybe those years I've spent on Movie and Theater Academy made a movie geek out of me, and maybe I am watching too many movies and maybe I am watching them too "technically", but, again, I really tried hard to find at least one simple tiny good detail about this film... And I found none...

I even found NO reason to even try to get interested in making the one --- and I really wonder how on earth did those producers succeed in lining up all those people --- from director to the last actor --- to appear in such a nothing!!!!

No offence, please!!! Just my point of view!!!

I'm not sure I saw the same movie as the rest of the reviewers...

[S_Dawg · 3/10 · 25 April 2004]

Because I thought this movie was barely better than an unfortunate train wreck. The plot was ridiculous, the characters were lame, and I couldn't believe that actors I admire so much were attached to such a piece of garbage. Bill Murray and Catherine O'Hara were basically the only two characters in the entire film I cared about, and even that is stretching it. I actually usually enjoy Jay Mohr's comedy, but I just wanted to punch him in this. I've never been one for "chick-flicks", but I don't even think this qualifies as one. In all honesty, I have trouble figuring out exactly what the target audience would be. If you happen to catch it on TV and there's absolutely NOTHING else on...read a book.

Could have been a lot better..

[rudebuzztard · 5/10 · 27 January 2003]

I don't know exactly what went wrong with this movie, Bill Murray can do comedy, Jay Mohr was funny in Mafia, but I think it was the script that has messed this movie up big time. I know it's hard to make up good jokes, and all the good stuff has already been used in other movies, but is that really a reason to resort to sh***y sexual jokes? I mean, you can make BIG sexual jokes, that are almost revolting (the sperm gel used by cameron diaz in there is something about mary) but will freak people out and make them laugh, or you can do the other jokes.. and sadly they have chosen for the save path. These jokes are weak, I have the idea that the writer is a bit afraid of sex himself, and tries to write the trauma away with this dreadful story.

But enough about the story what about the cast? lot of semi-great names, but no real big names, that is not a shame, I think the actors did pretty good considering the script that was given them. None of them are truly great, Lara Boyle is candy for the eye as usual, but nothing more. The characters are just flat, no crazy persons (a good comedy must have a weird or crazy person in my opinion) they are all at the same level. Even a veteran like Bill Murray delivers a meagre performance. Almost like the director said "people! don't try to be too funny" they seem to be held back by something.

And last, but not least, the directing. I think the director did a good job I like the short flashback thing were he let's the picture slide into the screen. Also the "private eye and victim woman" telephone conversation with 2 other people was brought very good. The director did his best and made a movie what was a 4 out of 10 into a 5 out of ten.. so 5/10, maybe nice for the die hard Murray fans. But not very funny.

surprisingly good

[bbbl67 · 9/10 · 11 July 2003]

This movie was similar in many ways to a French sex farce. So I guess you'll have to call this an American sex farce. The script was well thought-out, though there were a few characters which didn't get enough air time.

James Spader played a neurotically geeky psychiatrist, which is a bit of a different character for him, as he usually plays sexual deviants. Good manic performances by Jay Mohr, Melora Walters, and Lara Flynn Boyle. Bill Murray and Catherine O'Hara also shown in their supporting roles. Phil Lamarr had a hilarious line, despite being only a cameo appearance.

There were several intermingled stories playing all at once. It was well done because if one story started to drag, they could switch to another story to keep the interest fresh. This is really light-hearted stuff, but it did have some very subtle comic moments in places that you might miss if you don't watch it more than a couple of times, so watch it at least a couple of times.

YAWN

[ksoze327 · 3/10 · 18 October 2001]

I saw this film tonight at the Chicago film festival's closing night. This film is one of the unfunniest and unoriginal I've seen in a while. It even stole a gag from Austin Powers(another unfunny movie). The film stars James Spader, Melora Walters, Jay Mohr, Bill Murray and Lara Flyn Boyle. The plot was so contrived and pointless I can't even remember what it was about. The plot is there to basically fuel all the unffuny sex jokes and gags. I hated it and so will you. it is Boring with a Capital B. Johnson. Major. Out.

Godawful film for immature retards

[Shocka · 6 July 2002]

It seems this sex-related film was made specifically for teenage-adults who aren't too bright. As it goes, a married couple who can't even speak to each other end up in a bunch of horrible events after the guy can't get an erection - of course, when they go to a marriage counceller, no one is even mature or sane enough to say "erection" or "penis" because their combined intellect matches the amount of poor people who have suffered through this garbage (11). I've seen a better plot in Sesame Street, and more chemistry between a Kermit the Frog and a lunchbox. Speaking of a lunchbox, the acting is AWFUL. The leading lady is so incredibly awful I wanted to hit her with a shovel - her only claim to fame in this film is that she doesn't bare her breasts, though poor Lara Flynn Boyle (of this month's horrendous Men in Black II) does, in what seems to be her pre-implant days; in other words, they're proverbial mosquito bites. Nothing about this movie is watchable or good at all. Avoid at all costs.

Yeah, but where's the comedy?

[webjunk · 3/10 · 12 July 2002]

Ok, I read a review and thought how bad can this be. Lets look at the good. Bill Murray is given a very good character to play in this film and does his small number of lines well. But what a waste. You are given a only sniff of his potential. James Spader and others also hold their characters well. Jay Mohr not so good. Editing and scene changes are also very smoothly done.

Lets look at the bad. There is no possible way this can be classed as comedy. There is a small run of jokes part way through (Mr and Mrs Happy) to stop you falling asleep but its no where near enough. Heck, slapstick comedy with the old faithful banana peel would be a welcome addition here.

I rate this 3/10 - not as bad as freddy got fingered, but still a waste of my time.

Feeble Attempt

[nitro72 · 5/10 · 28 March 2022]

Feeble attempt at what should've been a screwball farce, this AB-shot flat comedy is the result of a decent script meeting the wrong director. Walters & Mohr are good, but I really wanted the movie that Spader was acting in. #nitrosMovieChallenge.

surprisingly good

[wencer · 8/10 · 4 April 2003]

What's the deal with James Spader? Why does he always end up playing the incompetent boob with weird sexual fetishes?

This superbly cast film is well-written and well-directed. The thing is, it doesn't really have any zingers, any defining moments. The talented James Spader (Crash) and Lara Flynn Boyle (The Practice) are two therapists that get emotionally involved with a troubled couple, the talented Melora Walters (Being John Malkovich) and a very down-to-earth Jay Mohr (SNL). Spader is particularly gifted through his mannerisms and uncomfortable demeanor, although Walters' performance as a simple and emotionally confused woman is equally amusing. As things between characters get complicated, the director does an excellent job of keeping the pacing going; the film never really loses momentum. The writing is based mostly on the situation, yet a couple of twists and subtleties really keep the viewer enguaged. Especially brilliant is Bill Murrary (Groundhog Day) who steals scenes from Phil LaMarr (MAD TV) and Catherine O'Hara (SCTV) with his exaggerated delivery. Furthermore, the director uses several manic cuts and tricks to keep the images fresh. The only real sore points stem from the fact that there isn't much TO the movie. It's hard to find an emotional connection with any one character, such that by the end, you're more interested in seeing what will happen as opposed to hoping for happy fates. Furthermore, the script's humour is mostly character-based; there aren't really any lines that bowl you over or stick in your head. But the dialogue is well-scripted and well-delivered. This movie isn't really a romantic comedy; but a piece of good entertainment for several demographics. It's got a Snatch feel with a Zoolander comedic touch. Great entertainment for an afternoon and a definite renter if you want to laugh a bit. James Spader forever.

Friggin' High-sterical

[squinty4567 · 9/10 · 19 October 2001]

This was the closing night of the 37th Chicago International Film Festival. The audience laughed all the way through. Get a van and bring everyone you know!

I loved how this movie poked holes in our prudishness. Even after 6 years of Bill n' Monica many of us are still not able to do what the title suggests.

It's funny funny funny. Not for kids, but funny.

McNaughton should get a Oscar Nom for keeping this movie funny and moving all the time!

Good Natured Silliness

[strat-8 · 9/10 · 7 June 2003]

Oh c'mon. What were you expecting? Gone with the wind? Some of my favorite stars. Some cast against type (James Spader, Jay Mohr, Lara Flynn Boyle). Bill Murray is ALWAYS watchable and here makes a delicious pairing with Catherine O'Hara. Situations are wacky but plot can be easily followed. This is one of those movies that is like a feature length SNL sketch, only this is actually funny (in most parts). RECOMMENDED.

Hysterical, Bill Murray, James Spader, Catherine O'Hara and the rest are perfect!

[tsmithjr · 9/10 · 17 February 2004]

Possible ***SPOILER*** is in the second paragraph.

"Speaking of Sex" with Bill Murray, James Spader, Catherine O'Hara and the rest of this ensemble cast is hysterical in this classic "lovers misunderstanding" comedy. The first few minutes may be slow, but hang in there, it's worth it. By the time Catherine O'Hara and Bill Murray arrive, the movie is in full swing.

I'll try not to give this away. But the helpful and somewhat duplicitous brother Larry, played by Paul Schulze (Sopranos, "24" etc.), is excellent coming up with some creative money making ideas to capitalize on the situation.

"Speaking of Sex" is a hoot. I don't think anyone will be offended (if the title didn't interest you, you wouldn't consider watching it). A lot of the humor tries to beat around the bush, so to speak. Every aspect of "Speaking of Sex" was extremely well done. Excellent acting, direction, screen play etc. Thank you to all! It was a true joy to watch.

"fall-off-your-chair" funny.

[spasmoid · 10/10 · 26 May 2002]

I think the scripting and the acting are brilliant in this movie. If you can't relate to the characters, you can still sympathise with them. I didn't think there was any main role which wasn't portrayed well. The film took a little time to win me over but it was well worth it.

Good funny comedy for adults only!

[Go_Skins · 8/10 · 17 September 2004]

This was a good comedy for adults. It had some stars such as Lara Flynn Boyle and Bill Murray. I thought it was definitely a different role for Murray. The story itself was a good one and I found it easy to follow the characters and the plot line. Lara's character was that of a sex therapist trying to get a couple's life back on track. It definitely worked! They were much happier after seeing her. This is one movie I would rent but I don't think it would be something I'd own. Some of the camera shots towards the ends were pretty funny watching where the characters were at a given point in time during that part of the movie. If there was a sequel, I'd try and see it just to see what happened to everybody after the story of this one ended.

A Heart-Warming and Erotic Romp

[AlanTES · 9/10 · 7 May 2003]

I saw this movie at the Tribeca Film Festival, and it upsets me when good movies are not distributed in wide release.

This movie is a fun and exciting experience with some outstanding performances by Bill Murray and Catherine O'Hara. While it might seem like a standard childish sex comedy, the writing and acting are much more intelligent and is sex-positive and witty at the same time.

If you see this playing and want a fun time, go see it.

Naughty but nice

[Radiant_Rose · 9/10 · 14 January 2008]

Amazon.co.uk declined my initial review of this film. This is why.

"In regards to the review for 'Speaking of Sex', it was not posted due to to the following content 'I am delighted that James Spader accepted the role of Roger. Spader's screen personae have, er, explored many aspects of sexuality. These include voyeurism ("sex, lies and videotape"); hitting a brunette called Lee ("Secretary"); being hit by a totally separate brunette called Lee ("Storyville") and experiments with saddles and carrots ("Secretary", again). His alter egos have done it with a hooker and a psychotic killer ("The Music of Chance" and "Driftwood" respectively). They deflowered a human virgin on an alien planet in "Stargate" and an alien virgin on Earth in "Starcrossed". They were videotaped in compromising situations in "Bad Influence", "Storyville" and "Critical Care". They have had sex in outer space, in a bath and possibly on a table top, in public ("Supernova", "The Stickup" and "White Palace"). Spader made werewolves sexy in "Wolf" and let us not forget "Crash" (1996), a tale of orgasms, cars and scars.

"'We at CHERISH (Campaign to Holistically EnRIch our lives with Spader's Help) value all these diverse sex scenes. We also firmly believe that LITBM: Laughter Is The Best Medicine. We are delighted when Spader finds a role which enables him to poke fun at his stereotyped image: notably in the TV series "Boston Legal". However, "Boston Legal" has its serious side.'"

This is a really fun, funny film. I wish Megan Mullalley's character had found a new love interest, but apart from that, I cannot fault it. It reinforces every stereotype we have about Americans, and was filmed in Canada.

Not that funny

[Stealth2000 · 25 July 2002]

From reading squinty4567's comment, I was expecting a laugh-out-loud comedy. Unfortunately I didn't think this movie was that funny. I'm not saying it was a bad movie, it's fairly good and worth watching, but not really funny. I don't think I so much as snickered during this movie.