Denial (II) (1998) User Reviews

Something about relationships...

[dave13-1 · 5/10 · 12 April 2012]

...but I can't exactly remember what. When a film purports to have a philosophical viewpoint on sex, relationships, fidelity and especially on how they each involve and relate to women, and ten minutes after the thing ends you can't remember what that viewpoint was, is this a good indicator of how well it got its points across? Yes. It is.

Individual scenes worked well enough with a succession of portrayals of seemingly functioning relationships slowly showing cracks of dissatisfaction, but this is the best part of the movie. The cast of mostly TV actors is good, but the overall sociological ideas (as promulgated by Seinfeld's Jason Alexander) are weak and poorly focused, beyond that which is obvious or trite. The look of the film is good enough indicating efficient use of a middling production budget, but there are no grander cinematic ambitions here, no attempts to build up the script's ideas using the cinematic landscape. The landscape is just a background for the characters. It's not boring, exactly, and those in a mood for a relationship comedy won't hate it, exactly. They just won't get anything more out of it than they would a two inch column in Cosmo.

Formulaic

[MightyViper · 4/10 · 18 April 2006]

There seems to be a whole sub genre of cheap, tired old sex "comedies" out there, that say the same old things about middle class couples. Sort of like Friends, but with more soft porn and no wit. This film is no exception- it had situations so familiar I died from deja vu. People sat on couches, spinning out clichés about sex and relationships? Check. Monogamy versus cheating with some woman/man who would never look twice in reality at some other woman/man? Check. PORN The BADDIES!!!!111? Check. Some guy/girl in it who happens to be the only reason you're watching this rubbish? Check. The lesson seems to be- when it doubt, make a tired old sex "comedy" about people no one cares anything about, in order to make some statement that everybody has already heard three thousand times before. That'll get your film made. It'll even attract some sitcom nobody in a bad wig!

A sleazy misfire, despite a wonderful cast and a provocative premise

[inkblot11 · 5/10 · 12 May 2010]

Joel (Jonathan Silverman), a hotshot LA lawyer, is throwing a dinner party with his beautiful second wife, medical student Sophie (Leah Lail). Also at the meal is photographer Claudia (Amy Yasbeck) and her handsome husband, Isaac (Ryan Alosio) as well as chef Sam (Patrick Dempsey) and his pregnant fiancée, Sammie (Christine Taylor). They are exchanging banter when another guest arrives solo. That would be author Art (Jason Alexander), a new client of Joel's. In short order, the "sweetness and light" of the dinner blows away, as Art dishes on the subject of marital fidelity. It is this writer's opinion that men will never be faithful, even in marriages where the wife is greatly loved. Uh oh. Virtriol is soon being flung, for Claudia, especially, is very angry at Art's smug ideas and egotistical personality. Before long, the party is over. Once the guests have gone, Joel and Sophie get into further discussion of fidelity, because Joel cheated on his first wife with Sophe. The other couples arrive at their homes pretty confused also. It isn't too long before Art's theories are tested, as Joel frequents an oriental "massage parlor", Sophie garners the attention of an anatomy prof (Charles Shaunessy) and Isaac meets a lovely antiques dealer when he shops for an anniversary gift for Claudia. Also, Sammie is busy redecorating her home for the baby while Sam spends long hours at the restaurant, taking breaks to visit the triple X theaters and read his porn magazines. Then, too, Joel has to bail his brother Reuben (Adam Rifin, who wrote and directed the film) out of another tangle with the law and a chance second encounter between Claudia and Art, of all people, may lead to something, too. Whoowee, are the writer's ideas correct? If not for the wonderful cast, I would have turned this sleazy flick off after the first 30. Silverman, Dempsey, Taylor and the others are THE only reason to keep watching, for they try to elevate the material into something watchable. It's a no go. Yes, there may be something to the difficulties of faithfulness in marriage but this seems to delve into deviancy, too. The sets, costumes, and camera work are fine but nothing spectacular while the script and direction are sometimes interesting but mostly offensive. In brief, don't bother to look this one up, especially if you are a newlywed. It's a depressing film with very little to offer the viewing public.

Boring Movie With One Redeeming Factor

[mazdasucks · 19 June 2001]

This is your typical 30-ish "relationships are funny, aren't men pigs" type of film. It wouldn't even be worth my commenting on it except for its one saving grace: the topless sex scene of one Hudson Leick! If you don't know of her, her most famous role to date was that of Callisto on the TV series Xena. Well this is her in all of her topless glory! She's only in the movie for ten minutes or so, but since the movie sucks anyway, you might want to just fast-forward to the sex scene. Her breasts are beautiful. She is beautiful. There are other beautiful women in the movie (Leah Lail, Christine Taylor, Angie Everhart, and I GUESS I'll include Amy Yasbeck), but Hudson is the only one who gets nekked and I love her for it! Like I said, the movie blows except for seeing Hudson topless. Jason Alexander, Jonathan Silverman, old worn-out jokes about men being insecure about their penises and their sex lives in general. It's all just so lame. If you're a guy and you watch this for any other reason than Hudson Leick's boobs, I'd like to punch you in the stomach for it. Oh yeah, one last thing: that dude from "The Nanny" TV show is in it too. GAG If that doesn't show you it's a stinker, then I don't know what will!

formulaic 90s "controversial adult" film

[dien · 2/10 · 9 August 2013]

This film represents a certain genre popular in the 90s, where the focus of the film was a bunch of twenty a thirty-something old friends talking about personal and sexual relationships. It is as boring and formulaic as it gets.

You get exactly the characters you would expect in such a film. We have extreme feminists, weakling husbands worried about what is cheating and what is not, feeling guilty about a hand-job from a massage girl. We have a married couple who screw around with whoever they want (simply because they have an agreement to be liberal in their relationship and not tell their spouse about their adventures). Then another couple about to get married asking the question: "Is watching adult films cheating?" And the last but not least a writer with some pseudo-intellectual crap about how people are not more than animals and monogamy is not natural.

It is predictable and you can guess the ending 15 minutes into the film. For a film claiming to talk about controversial adult topics it seriously lacks in the nudity department.

I am very happy this sub-genre died with the 90s and I hope it's never coming back.

Fun!

[Rich-Y · 7/10 · 14 March 2007]

Enjoyable, funny film that didn't drag! No really intricate plot or especially deep characters but there are times when you want to watch a film like that and other times when you want to just sit back and enjoy a film without having to really think about it or keep track of a complex storyline. That said - the film deals funnily with issues of trust, monogamy and, of course, sex.

Very funny performance by Jason Alexander - different character in many ways from Seinfeld's George - he has some of the best lines and the best laughs.

Overall - a fun little film

Controversial film

[rokahn · 8/10 · 9 November 1999]

See Denial (called "Something about Sex" in the UK) with your girlfriend or boyfriend. It's a controversial film about the tradeoffs of open vs. monogamous vs. deceitful relationships. It's funny, intellectually stimulating, erotic at times, and provocative. Be prepared for a long talk afterwards to discuss what you want from a relationship.

Typical

[holliemichellebp · 18 February 2006]

Ladies and men who do not want to be stereotyped as creeps should stay away from this one. It's no fun and a complete disappointment. More of the same old tired "boys will be boys" routine. It was largely an excuse for gratuitous female nudity and the promotion of the stupid idea that women must accept certain behavior from men. We're supposed to consider it a happy ending when a female character accepts behavior that is unacceptable and hurtful to her and keeps the jerk around instead of kicking him to the curb. As if that is the best deal she can get. It left me with a very bad impression of Adam Rifkin. It's bad enough when a very young man acts/thinks like an adolescent, but Adam is getting old enough that it is especially unattractive.

Humans are in Denial

[Mr.Uxo · 10/10 · 7 December 2000]

This film is perfect. Adam Rifkin does a great job, the story is flawless, well almost until the end, kind of gets a little sappy. But I loved this film because it conveys the very epitome of what I believe in. Humans were not meant to be monogomous creatures by nature but they are in Denial. This Denial is the very cause of all the deceit, adultery, divorce and mishap in relationships. We, being humans, need to be free to explore all avenues when it comes to sex and that which we find attractive, thus the origins for this film. Bravo. If your in Denial while reading this, come to terms with your own desires and needs, and go after what you want. Monogomy is best left for those who are too stubborn to know the reason for their own existence. By the way, the male acting is great and this is very funny film. 10 out of 10.

Funny - Don't watch it w/ your wife...

[SpringsteenRules · 21 December 1999]

This was a good movie. My wife and I watched it together. She kept quizzing me on the premise of the movie - even though we have a great marriage and I've never even though of cheating. She was smiling so I think it's no big deal.

As for the characters, you'll hate Jonathan Silverman's wife! The chick from the hockey game looks to have real breasts! What a novel idea in Hollywood! OK nudity - let's face it, that's why you're reading this, looking for the scoop on the skin. Not much from the main characters, though. You do see Amy Yasbek in a see through purple top. Not great but hey, better than nothing.

Worth a rent. It's funny.

Cynical, Dry, Funny modern day social/sexual commentary film

[MovieGuy-44 · 8/10 · 27 June 1999]

This movie will appeal to those frustrated by love, sex and commitment in our confused 90's American culture. Men and women are both targets in the movie, as opposed to just men - as it seems early on. If you liked 'Friends and Neighbors' or 'In the company of men' you are a good candidate to 'get it' with this film and not be offended. As a man, I have to say that the message is 'sad, but true' too often...

A hilarious Comedy with a twist, As in twisted!!

[MetaRoc · 23 October 1998]

You Can deny it all you want but it is funny! Jason Alexander is hilarious...

Best damn sex comedy I've ever seen

[richgoldstein13 · 10/10 · 22 June 2001]

The cast alone is reason to watch this film, but the irreverant comedy makes it much, much better. Ron Jeremy, the hedgehog himself, makes any movie worth watching. Rent this, buy it, wait for it on tv. See this movie!

Comical, but sexually controversial

[a.m.@web · 14 January 2000]

I have seen the film. Yes, it is very funny. But I also found it degrading to certain actors' professional ability in TV and in movies. This particular actor is much better off in family-type movies. Other than that it makes one think whether or not monogamy is for them. It is a delicate, controversial issue.