Better than Sex (2000) from Tuna and Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

One thumb up, one down.

Tuna's comments in white.

Better than Sex (2000) is a modest Australian-made character driven romantic comedy. A couple meets at a party. He has to leave for London in three days, and they end up sharing a cab home. The idea of good dirty sex with no entanglements appeals to both, and they end up in her bed together. Three days later, they have trouble separating.

NUDITY REPORT

Female lead Susie Porter (Star Wars Episode 2, Attack of the Clones, Monkey's Mask, Two Hands) shows breasts and a glimpse of buns several times throughout the film, and flashes the top of her bush near the end.
The narrative style is one I normally wouldn't like. Between scenes, primarily sexual, we get monologues from each of them, and also from their friends. In this case, however, the monologues really add to the film, because we see what each is thinking, and that they are not misunderstanding each other, but simply not realizing everything that is going on in the other person's head. It is also obvious from what their friends say that, while the two of them are compatable, none of the friends would be. It also doesn't hurt that some of the dialogue is dead clever. At one point, she is giving him head in the bathtub, and says "Move your hips a little, I'm not a fish," to which he answers, "No, but you are good with a snorkel."

DVD info from Amazon

  • widescreen anamorphic 1.85:1

Scoop's comments in yellow:

I guess it may be my personal prejudice against "talking heads speaking into the camera" movies, but I found this to be a horrible ordeal to get through. The entire movie basically consists of scenes in one bedroom, and some talking heads.

There's nothing terribly wrong with the movie. It has a pleasant, accepting attitude toward sex and humanity. I just find the technique precious and boring, although I guess it is a workable way to make a movie if one has no money at all.

The Critics Vote

  • General consensus: two stars. BBC 3/5, Austin Chronicle 2/5, NY Post 1.5/4

  • The film was nominated for eight awards from the Australian Film Institute (It didn't win any.)

The People Vote ...

  • IMDB summary. IMDb voters score it 5.9/10. (Men 5.6, Women 7.0. Women seem to like "relationship discussion" movies better than men.)
  • It grossed about a half million dollars in Australia, less than $100,000 in the USA, but it couldn't have cost anything to make, so there was no great loss for anyone. (I wonder if it made a profit.)

 
The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, Tuna says, "I enjoyed this immensely, mainly do to the honesty of the feelings expressed, and the overall cheerful tone of the film. C.". Scoop says, "I couldn't make it through the film myself, but C- is the right score based on the fact that there is obviously a good sized core of people who enjoyed it. I couldn't even really enjoy the nudity, because I found the lead actress quite unattractive except for her pretty blue eyes."

Return to the Movie House home page