Story about writing a book for all women just because one had some unhappiness and feels righteous enough to advise all women to avoid the mistake she herself made. Then about hypocrisy of doing what she advises others to NOT do. Then the obvious Howard Stern reference (maybe she in real life is a fan???) and the goody-goody exaggerations of this character. Then the sellout to the "happy ending". All in all a very bad story. But nicely shot.
Add a Review
-
initiate31 May 2003
-
=G=24 February 2003In the context of grand cinema, "Amy's Orgasm" is a zit. However, in the context of romcom fare, this flick is somewhere around the middle of a very large heap. A naive but lively Niagara of prattling about the usual stock love vs sex stuff we've all seen before, "Amy's O" does little to distinguish itself and will probably play best with teen females at sleep-overs because of the in-your-face vulgarities, sexual emphasis, and obvious girl power bent. Passable stuff for the public at large, "Amy's O" is a marginal though worthy effort for a relatively young auteur who apparently put this flick together almost single handedly. (C)
-
michaelRokeefe12 June 2004Julie Davis directs, writes and stars in this more often than not frustrating comedy. A self-help author(Davis) goes against the grain of a book that skyrocketed her to fame. She convincingly writes about why love does not work; because love is just dressed up sex. Hasn't sex always been about command and power? Probably too educated for her own good...the young writer finds herself falling for a radio shock-jock(Nick Chinlund)with a well known reputation for his four month romances with cover girls and air heads he interviews on his show.
The dream/fantasy scenes if not titillating can easily become frustrating. The young woman fends off her publicist's(Caroline Aaron) lesbian advances. And confessions to her foul-mouthed priest(Jeff Cesario)are actually entertaining. This movie is like waiting for that kiss at the end of a date...and it doesn't come. -
rollerblade24 March 2003I really liked this film. As a man, I am sure that this was driven by the fact that Julie Davis is a hottie who wore very sexy clothing. I also enjoyed the several hot sex scenes. (Face it. Isn't this one reason that Sex and The City is so popular.)
This really was the kind of movie that a man a woman watch right before they have sex. This isn't a bad thing.
This movie was supposed to be wierd in the first place. The confessions to a horny priest, the shooting, the voices yammering in her head where designed to be quirky. Rather than analyse the heck out of the movie, I just let it be what it was.
I have heard that this is an ultra low budget film. Yet, the quality of the shooting seems very good.
I also liked the fact that Julie David didn't go for some super smooth skinned beauty to play the part. She looked like a real woman and therefore, was irresistable.
Romantic comedies of today tend to be mindless and cute and sappy anyways. So the ending of the film was status quo.
I recommend it. -
nedkelly-13 September 2004This movie is absolutely dreadful. It was written and directed by one Julie Davis, who also has the ignominy of "starring" in it as the title character. The plot is a bunch of romance / relationship story clichés. The dialogue is stilted and obnoxious. All of the characters speak in the same manner, and their tired psycho-babble monologues all have one obvious source (Julie Davis apparently), and to make matters worse none of it is surprising or new or interesting or original in the least, just a bunch of witless repetition.
This movie is billed as a comedy, but the jokes mostly fall flat. I should have turned the TV off 15 minutes into this thing, but sometimes I get the urge to "rubberneck" at ugly train wrecks like this one, all the while wondering exactly how much money was wasted in producing it, as well as wondering why the "Sundance" channel was airing it instead of a test pattern or an infomercial. -
I thought this movie reminded me of a lot of young women I know who are insecure about love, men, their bodies, their minds, even though they may be bright and attractive. It is a breath of fresh air to see a young woman poke fun of the way that we tend to over analyze things such as sex, the long awaited "phone call the day after," over thinking everything, and who or what holds the right answers to all of our questions about love, life, and relationships.
I am sure if you polled intelligent, 20 something female college grads with good heads on their shoulders, they would find this movie amusing. Nice to see a movie that is not about the perfect in every-way girl finding the perfect in every-way prince charming. -
SPOILERS!!!!!! Let me tell you, I signed up at IMDB, JUST to write my opinion of this movie, it SUCKS!!!!!!!!!! it is sold as so modern, single women dating (and masturbating, oh!) and it ends up being a most brain-dead, conservative fairy-tale. It is just the writer/director/actress indulging herself.
see the philosophy lesson develop:
a) The character things you should not have sex unless you want to marry the person (no shopping around)- she writes a book and she is SOO famous....... (and rich) but SAD because she is ALONE.
b) but she is horny
c) (she thinks masturbation is only ok for single people)
d) she meets a wild boy a la howard stein
e) but he end up bein a nice, sensitive person, ill-treated by his family. (like howard stein?)
f) she says I love you, he doesn't
g) oh! a conflict finally?
h) he DOES love her (but she keeps thinking love does not exist, people only are together for sex reasons (and herself then?)
i) cause she is jewish and MODERN, she does not go to a shrink, but to confession (ooooooooooohhhhhhhhh!)
j) because the priest was cool, he is now out of priesthood and tells her "stop acting like the book"
k) she is invited to a big rally in washington to talk about how women can stand on their own, and do not need man to be valued.
l) she stands, weeps and says that "WOMEN NEED MAN TO BE FULFILLED"
AND THIS IS NOT EVEN IRONICAL!!!!!
m) all the political correctness of having a lesbian manager dissapears ( SHE - the writer AND the director, and the ALTER EGO of the character) REALLY MEAN IT!!!!!!!!
n) of course, nice guy sees it on TV
o) she writes another book, and imagines herself at different ages SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE (you see, that was the ONLY problem!)
p) he comes to her signing and they smile at each other, she starts being neurotic again, and talks and talks, and he kisses her to shut her up... ah! that is love
q) movie has ended
Conflict of the movie: I want sex - I don't want sex with someone I will not marry - I have sex - OH! fairy tale! I WILL marry him.
read me again
conflict of the movie: that I have rented it, spent almost 5 bucks and 1, 30 hours of my life, plus, all these reviews I am writing to vent steam.
movie is worth 0, pity there wasn't that option! -
cherold24 January 2004Cute, slightly offbeat romantic comedy is funny and I recognize some of the lead's attitudes and actions from girls I've known, so it kind of helps me figure out why they do some of the things they do, and I liked the way they would move from what was happening to what she was hearing and imagining, as when a guy's comments about having stayed with an ex for the good sex translating in her mind to a diatribe about her being fat. Movie has a rather cynical view towards self-help pop psychology books, which I think is justified. The big speech near the end of pretty stupid, the sort of unrealistic thing you see in Hollywood movies all the time. Not successful on all levels, and if I felt like it I could pick apart this or that, but overall it just works and is quite entertaining.
-
stan-czerwien14 February 2005I could go on and on about this waste of time - but here's the abbreviated version: The writing is a pseudo-intellectual blend of female hormones and half baked feelings. It is presented as somehow being a thought-out psychology of femaledom, but almost immediately morphs into female-dumb. I still have no idea as to why there were at least three or four totally gratuitous "Hey I'm Jewish!" references made by the lead character in this bomb (not to mention totally wearing out the viewer with "cellulite" references throughout this disaster), they had absolutely nothing to do with anything - they weren't even comedic.
Don't let the premise of this movie and its flimsy dime store psychology be the only thing that causes you to pass it on the rental shelves - by no means. The actress who played the lead (she also wrote, directed and produced the movie as well) is sickening in her constant mugging for the camera. This movie is one of the clearest example of somebody having access to the means of making a movie, the knowledge of how to make a movie, the money to make a movie - and yet none of the talent to make a movie. I hate to make accusations because I know very little if anything about this actress, but I get the sneaking suspicion she really thinks she's something special.
It offends men, Jewish people, Catholics, and - I'm certain - most women with an ounce of brains. But it doesn't offend in a "man I'm really going to challenge your mores and thought processes", no it just flat out offends with its misled stupidity.
There.........now mug for the camera.........mug again.........act cutesy...........mug...........CUT! -
Gingerella24 December 2003I liked this film a fair amount and would have liked it more if the main character had been a little bit more consistent in her actions at the end of the film. Before that, though, I thought there was good chemistry between the two leads, and both of them were very likeable. Nick Chinlund was very good as a romantic lead -- I don't think he normally plays such roles, but maybe people will look twice at him now. The lead actress seemed like someone you could know. Word to the wise: This is definitely a chick flick, -- not that there's anything wrong with that.
-
SanteeFats15 April 2014Boy talk about your stereotypical Jewish angst movie. This is it to the absolute max. I thought it was suppose to be a rom-com. Well there is some rom, kind of, but I personally found very little com. A think Amy's dad was pretty funny though and mom was okay, although I think in reality very few daughters talk so frankly to daddy about who they have or have not banged. Anyway this is a movie that I regret watching and will never watch again. Just too much self doubt and loathing in the Amy character even though she finally gets through it at the end. I guess it is suppose to be hilarious that she does end up achieving this break through with a radio show shock jock. Eh!!
-
"Amy's Orgasm" certainly isn't the first film to consider sex and relationships from a woman's, or from women's, perspective(s), but it does feel unique in giving frequently visited material a fresh, sassy, and daring treatment not frequently seen.
Julie Davis has crafted a script that, for the most part, is crisp and pops with great dialogue. The narrative/plot is strained in some parts, but I'm a sappy romantic and fell for the film overall nonetheless.
Nick Chinlund is the male lead, starring here as a sleaze-baggy radio shock jock who also happens to be quite sexy. I recognized Chinlund from a great spot he did on The X-Files; it was nice to see him in an entirely different role and working the script and his scenes with Davis, the co-star *and* writer/director, very, very well.
Caroline Aaron is terrific in her supporting role, too. She gives the kind of scene-stealing performance that should attract attention from critics.
Overall, "Amy's Orgasm" is a well-acted romantic comedy that takes some pretty interesting risks. As a writer and director, Davis still manages to say something about sex and relationships and is able to do so in a manner slightly different than what we're used to seeing from most other films. -
Cosmoeticadotcom25 September 2008Written & directed by Julie Davis, who stars as the title character- 29 year old best-selling Los Angeleno self-help author & celibate Amy Mandell who advises woman do not need men to be successful. There is also lesbianism at play, in the form of Amy's lecherous publicist Janet (Caroline Aaron- a Woody Allen veteran) who seeks to control & prey upon Amy's emotional anomy with thinly-veiled barbs about her looks. Amy is a typical Ivy League yenta who does not follow her own advice. Inside, she desperately wants love, but falls for jerks. The latest is a Howard Stern wannabe named Matthew Starr (Nick Chinlund). Amy does his radio show & falls for him, despite their banal pattering battle of the sexes. Yet, 1 can tell that they hit it off right away. He seems to be not as bad as he seems, but the set up veers away from triteness because we soon find out that while he's not the pig he plays he has deeper issues that will kibosh any relationship. & Amy is not the basket case we think, & have seen a 100 times before. Her problem is more profound: she actually is a well-adjusted person.
This is shown in some funny scenes where the Jewish Amy seeks free counseling by going to confession with a priest (Jeff Cesario) who slowly falls in love with her despite his exasperation . Here is the film's only real failing- that it copped out with what seems like an appeal for commercial over artistic success. Matthew & Amy's relationship will never last. -
rosscinema4 March 2003Anytime someone writes, directs and stars in a film they're taking a big risk and this effort fails miserably. Julie Davis deserves all the credit for this mess and I'll try to name just a few things that stand out. They're are two scenes that take place where Amy is giving interviews on radio shows and in both scenes they're is inappropriate language used on the air. Everyone knows you can't use the "F" word and "Tits" is also not allowed by the FCC. Amy is suppose to be so famous that everyone recognizes her and people pop out of nowhere with books to autograph and she even appears on the cover of People magazine. Stephen King was never this popular! In another scene she is suppose to talk in front of a group of people and someone takes a shot at her with a gun! Why? Why was this important to the film? Her grouchy publicist is a lesbian and tries to kiss her passionately out of nowhere and I'm not sure if she was trying to be funny or what. Both Amy's parents and her married friends spend all of their time talking about Amy. Everyone's lives center around Amy! Not one single scene is believable. Not one line uttered is believable. Not one self centered moment in this film is realistic. I have to ask this question again, Why did someone take a shot at her and what was the relevance? Julie Davis was in dire need of another colleague or two for another opinion on what to leave in the script, what to change in the script, and what to edit out of the film when it was needed. Instead, she made it herself and didn't have an objected point of view. What a mess!
-
tomgrunick23 September 2004This movie is nothing but a tease...offering all sorts of insights into the way women and men inter-act but in the end offering only shallow platitudes.
The use of the confessional as the way of hearing Amy's inner thoughts was nothing but a glib gimmick...completely unbelievable.
The acting was wooden and unimpressive, and I couldn't recognise any of the stars. Nor will I be looking for them in another movie any time soon.
This is a poor imitation of Sex And The City, and comparisons with Woody Allen are hopeful at best, and laughable at worst. It all seemed like a stand-up routine taken too far.
And what is it with movies about women who write books about how they don't need men, and then fall in love? Change the formula! -
vivesi-119 March 2003This movie was a silly, pointless romp into the life of a not-so-likable person and her involvements with not-so-likable people. She is the typically portrayed (yawn) neurotic Jewish girl who questions her every action, not in an ethical sense but in a purely selfish quest-- how will this benefit me? She is superficially flawed in character (much time is spent on her laughable misgivings about her looks) and chooses her lover because of his fame through a flimsy film-mask of desperation. It's a horror film to me.
I wanted to like this movie. It wanted to be the movie where feminism meets itself in the 00s. (We're successful and now what?) I'm still waiting for that movie. Amy's Orgasm, however, relies on tired clichés about people, screen writing and film-making. It is a disappointment when you expected something at least mediocre. -
lapinPub23 December 2002The film, (based on the premise of a 29 year old self-help guru, who, though she has very little experience in the ways of romance, sells herself off as a romance expert and gets rich selling her dour and pessimistic views of love, but in the end has a revelation of brightness and light) plays very much like a movie, written, directed and starred in by a 29 year-old writer/director/actor who knows nothing about romance but still tries to gets rich selling her dour and pessimistic views of love but in the end has a revelation of brightness and light.
Written, Directed and lead role played by Julie Davis, (can you say "coincidence?"), the movie is filled with dark, self involved and "verymuchinneedofanalysis" characters. And in actuality, the movie's bright spots tend to come from those who are not so neurotic, but who are reacting to the actions of those less-reasonable persons around them.
Still, as an indie, better than most Hollywood fare and definitely containing more than a few yucks, perhaps worth a watch alone, or with same-sex companions. Like the Anti-Christ, this dour little ditty with it's cynical underpinnings plays like the "Anti-Date" of a movie, definitely not a film to share with your sweetie... -
jagaleigh25 August 2003OK, kiddies. I first saw this film at a friend's house. We were listening to music, drinking lots of beer, and the TV was on mute but the closed captioning was on. I have to say that this film looked damn good from what I saw. I decided to rent it on a more sober evening.
This film turned out to be the biggest movie rental mistake of my life.
There are a few laughs to be had, and I really did like the cast; BUT THE STORY WAS RIDICULOUS.
SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!
"Women need a man to be complete"? I am no feminism-activist-man hater-girl power-freak....but c'mon. "Women NEED men and that's what makes us smarter"? I like guys as much as the next redhead, but women NEED men to be complete like men need us to change the channels. I mean, WTF? Women and men may want each other, and that's great (to me), but this overly needy film almost made me throw up.
I didn't get this movie. First she's against men, then she needs them. Then she doesn't. Then she does. Then she is controlling and giving every woman a bad name. Then she can't and won't have sex and then she does. Then she is crazy. She even got a priest to quit his job and he was happier that way.
Help?!
If this movie comes on cable, see it. Then you can either agree with me or think I am a nut. DO NOT RENT IT. I'll never get my $4.10 back and I am sad about it.
I should note that I expected to LOVE this movie. How disappointing is that? -
FlorianLaur3 March 2023Amy's Orgasm felt a lot like a New York film. The style, the music...if I hadn't known that Sex and the City was already in season 3 or 4 by then, I could have sworn that they copied their style from this movie!
Similar to Sex and the City, Amy's Orgasm is told like the early seasons of SatC, with the female main character telling us who she is, why she is who she is, etc. We get some friends and relatives of her to add some contrast or different opinions and a fairly common plot line that is used as the vehicle to give us some actually rather useful insights into a lot of female assumptions and insecurities.
Frankly, I don't understand why the movie is rated so low. Maybe because it's from 2001? I'm quite sure if it was made in today's super woke and "women are superior in every way and need no man" misandric society, this movie would easily score a 7-8 from young women (the same kind that actually thought ANY of the women on Sex and the City would be a role model, while really, they're anything but).
I did like that it didn't give us all those man-hating and hypocritical messages that today's movies throw at us. Amy is at least seeing some of her flaws.
Plot-wise, yeah, it's not that realistic or makes a lot of sense. But I think sometimes it's ok if the message is ultimately a life-affirming one, rather than all those messages today that support hook-up culture and hypergamy.
The Orgasm from the title has to be seen as a more metaphorical than physical one. It's less about the penetration of the body and more about the penetration of the walls we built around us and taking a leap of faith.
In that sense, it's a very nice little movie that I could imagine to view again. I give it a strong 6/10. -
mmereos16 September 2003This movie was very similar in dialogue to another movie I rented called "100 girls" the whole movie the star is discussing the difference between men and women, and it goes on, and on, and on. It has a descent, yet predictable plot, but you really get sick of hearing all the differences and theories about what makes men and women different.
-
dromasca25 August 2006I have no clue what happened with the career of Julie Davis after this film. It looks like after having written, directed and acted the principal role in 'Amy's Orgasm' she completely disappeared. This movie cannot be the reason, it's not a masterpiece despite it's great ambitions, but is's not that bad either.
Ambitious it is, with the main character seeming to reflect to a large extent the director's and writer's real life person. Comparison with Woody Allen as some critics made seems however an exaggeration, Davis does not get even close to the self-deprecating humor or deepness of Allen, and her Jewishness is just a pretext without any real holding in the action.
What we are left with is a rather well told romantic comedy about a neurotic but famous writer failing to stand by her women_do_not_need_man_for_happiness standards and falling in for an older radio talk show skirts chaser. There comic quality lies mainly with the situations and especially the secondary characters like the catholic priest confessor and lesbian editor friend. The film advances quite well for about three quarters of its screening time, despite the cheap anti-moralistic tones and the 2 cents relationship touches seemingly borrowed directly from the 'Sex in the City'.
Unfortunately the end spoils much of what is gathered until then. Trying probably to avoid another melodramatic ending with the characters falling in each other arms after a dramatic break-out, the writer Julie Davis pushes the resolution ten plus years later. She achieves nothing and misses the climax.
At least with this ambitious project Julie Davis had to blame but herself for not succeeding to launch a fantastic career which could have happened if the film succeeded. Yet, there are enough good things in the work of writer Julie Davis, actor Julie Davis, and director Julie Davis to wish that any of them or all be back to screens sometimes. -
Exactly what an independent movie should be. Smartly written with a unique point of veiw. A little Sex in the City-ish, but with real characters and loads of funny, classic dialogue about relationships and sex. The lead actress is adorable!
-
Rogue-323 September 2002Julie Davis has written, directed, produced and edited a very promising film that she also stars in, involving romantic relationships between men and women in which the man actually isn't the 'bad guy' - in this film, AMY's character is the neurotic and insecure one, sabotaging her opportunities for happiness at every possible turn. Insightful, witty and charming, this would have been a truly outstanding movie if it didn't end with a ridiculous cop-out speech; hopefully Ms Davis will take a braver approach in her next outing.
-
twoxmilton21 December 2002For me, what "Amelie" was to Paris, "Amy" is to Los Angeles. Amy"s O is a witty, well conceived and acted presentation and resolution (the cop-out ending!) of a feminist argument, alive with larger than life characters, each contributing a perspective on the argument, which is of course, maintaining female self esteem in a traditional relationship. The best of this genre - funny and intellectually satisfying - 9/10
-
I was flipping and channel surfing the other night and this was on. I must have missed about 20 minutes, but reluctantly stayed until the end since there was nothing else to watch. Very bad. Profanity that is excessive and horrible acting from the two main players, Amy and Matt, or Julie Davis and Nick Chinlund---whoever they may be or were.... Man, they need some acting lessons and he needs to lose that incredible NY accent. The film was lousy. Did I say lousy......and the title...it shows the ignorance of the writer. Couldn't a better title be selected, unless it was meant to be provocative to lure viewers, although once lured, they have the option to escape!!!!