Knots (2004) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

A thumb WAY up for this hard-hitting "behind the scenes" tell-all biopic of the small but impressively hung actor who managed to use intimidating violence and his powerful sexual allure to overcome a squeaky voice and a bug-eyed stare in becoming one of the few character actors who could open a picture (as Mr. Limpet, Mr. Chicken, and The Shakiest Gun in the West), and finally in establishing himself permanently in America's collective consciousness as the lovable deputy Barney Fife.

Oh, wait. I'm thinking of Knotts!


Today's movie is Knots, with one t,  and while is isn't as good as the "two t" version, it does have the significant advantage of not being a figment of my imagination.

Knots is yet another "talking about relationships" comedy. Six contemporary urban thirty-somethings get involved in various sexual combinations with one another and the occasional outsider. The familiar characters are all there: the couple with a solid but boring marriage, the sexually predatory bisexual female, the sleazy and sexually predatory male, the nice guy, the nice girl.

The plot, if indeed there is one, involves two parallel questions: (1) what will happen to the married couple after they both cheat separately with the bisexual woman? (2) will the nice girl figure out that she belongs with the nice guy before she ends up married to the sleazy guy?

Knots is pretty much like all of the other films where the characters get together in same-sex pairs to discuss their relationships with the opposite sex in dialogues inspired by old Woody Allen movies. The one thing that really redeems the film, or at least lifts it above the rest of the similar films to hit the streets in the past ten years, is a hilarious performance by John Stamos, in a well written role as the poster-boy handsome slimeball who will tell women anything they want to hear in order to get laid, often going to outlandish lengths to create his pick-up scenarios. (To get the idea, think of the crazy stories Matt Dillon made up when he was trying to pick up Cameron Diaz in There's Something About Mary.) Thanks to Stamos, and Paulina Porizkova as his female equivalent, the film stays funny and moves along briskly. The sentimental moments are offset by humor and the characters are credible and likeable - even Stamos and Porizkova as the horny "villains" seem decent enough underneath their sexual obsessions.

A bit of nudity provided a plus for the film's entertainment value. Paulina Porizkova showed her ex-supermodel figure in some hot girl-on-girl action, and even Annabeth Gish flashed the top of her bum in that scene. Tone Christensen appeared topless in a minor role as one of the many women Stamos was entertaining. Stamos himself flashed the ol' bum in a deleted scene.

Knots was first screened at SXSW in 2004, and was received positively but could not attract a distribution deal. Despite its lack of a theatrical release, it's not bad at all if this kind of movie appeals to you.



  • This DVD has a lot of features, considering that the film was never distributed theatrically.
  • There is a full-length commentary by the director and Annabeth Gish
  • There is a gag reel of outtakes, and a few deleted scenes
  • The transfer is anamorphically enhanced for 16x9 screens, and is fairly good.



see the main commentary

The Critics Vote ...

  • No major reviews online.

The People Vote ...

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, it's a C, a fairly funny character-based comedy, similar to a Woody Allen film in many ways.

Return to the Movie House home page