Seeing Other People (2004) from Tuna

Despite an ultra-low budget, a microscopic theatrical trial, and 67% negative reviews, Seeing Other People is not a bad romantic comedy at all. It follows the standard Hollywood formula, boy meets girl, etc, but is a whole lot of fun along the way.

Ed and Alice (Jay Mohr and Julianne Nicholson) are the perfect couple. At their engagement party, Alice observes another woman having hot anonymous sex, and becomes afraid that she has missed out on an important life experience, so she suggests to Ed that the two of them go out and have meaningless sex to get it out of their systems before they tie the knot.

Rather than getting wanton sluttiness out of her system, Alice found herself in another relationship. Ed, on the other hand, was against the whole idea from the outset - until she actually went through with it, at which time he got even with a vengeance. 

NUDITY REPORT
  • The Playmate of the Month from March 2000, Nicole Lenz, shows breasts in an "almost 3-way" with Jay Mohr.
  • The December 2001 Playmate, Shanna Moakler, also shows breasts as Mohr's first conquest.

DVD info from Amazon

  • Commentary by writer/director Wally Wolodarsky & writer Maya Forbes

  • Deleted scenes

  • Behind-the-scenes featurette

  • Widescreen anamorphic format

I found it fresh at times, very erotic in parts, and a very quick watch. It looks very good for a high definition video effort. I found some of the editing a little jarring, especially one stuttering jump cut, but the overall effort was much better than I would expect for a micro-budget film made entirely by unpaid performers and crew. Nicholson totally charmed me, and Andy Richter did a wonderful job as one of Mohr's friends. If you enjoy a sexy romantic comedy, you might enjoy this one as much as I did.

The Critics Vote ...

  • Roger Ebert 2.5/4.

The People Vote ...

  • It appeared on very few screens, and did poorly on the few it reached. Total gross was $64.000
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, this is a C. Solid, adult-oriented romantic comedy.

Return to the Movie House home page