Denial

...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.

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!

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

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.

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.