sex, lies, and videotape (1989)

Featured Audience Ratings

• paul o

  
  A film with real depth in sexual desire and repression, Soderbergh bring his A-game for his debut film. Peter Gallagher, Annie Mcdowell, and James Spader are strong in their roles when prying in others' lives. Great watch!

• Sam B

  
  There's a reason Steven Soderbergh's first film is considered to be the starting point of modern indie films. 'sex, lies, and videotape' is an immensely powerful, well-written, and almost painfully honest movie. A bit ambiguous towards the end (as many indie films… More
  There's a reason Steven Soderbergh's first film is considered to be the starting point of modern indie films. 'sex, lies, and videotape' is an immensely powerful, well-written, and almost painfully honest movie. A bit ambiguous towards the end (as many indie films tend to become), but overall, its insanely captivating and real.

• Chris W

  
  This psychosexual drama not only represents the directorial debut of maverick filmmaker Steven Soderbergh, but also stands as an important milestone in the modern indie film revolution that began in late 80s but absolutely exploded during the 90s. The story here is a meditation on… More
  This psychosexual drama not only represents the directorial debut of maverick filmmaker Steven Soderbergh, but also stands as an important milestone in the modern indie film revolution that began in late 80s but absolutely exploded during the 90s. The story here is a meditation on the three subjects of the title as well as voyeurism, all of which are filtered through the lives of an unhappily married couple, the sister of the wife, and an old college friend of the husband. It's a wonderfully written analysis and exploration of the roles and impact of sex and sexuality in people's lives, and the intertwining nature of everything. The film's subject, its legacy, and the director all had me intrigued and wanting to see it. Now that I've given it a chance, I can say that yes, I am impressed, but I'm also not entirely sure of how I completely feel about it. The film takes on serious subjects, treats them seriously, and not in an overly inaccessible or pretentious manner, and I'm grateful for that. It did seem a little slow for me, and it took me a bit to warm up to it, but once things got going, I was hooked. And yet, I really am not sure what specific rating or grade to give it. I get that it is an important film, but I don't feel justified giving it a full 5. Maybe I need to let it stew for a while then rewatch it. I do think that the casting was pitch perfect and the performaes were superb, though Laura San Giacomo could have done a far better job with her accent. The film's music isn't bad, but kinda seemed maybe a bit too heavy or eerie, and thus kinda stuck out a bit. The film's shot quite decently though, and it seems like the most was made out of the small budget. It's the damndest thing. I enjoyed this movie, and it is quite well made, but there's something really gnawing at me, and I'm not sure what it is. I feel like it is somewhat overrated, but also that it isn't. Grr. I guess it's not really to the fault of the filmmakers though. I mean, if they set out to make a challenging and thought provoking film, they've certainly succeeded as far as I'm concerned, especially given how batty it's driving me. All in all, I do recommend this film. For now, let's just call my rating and grade temporary until I can better reason out the most suitable verdict. B+

• Spencer S

  
  A look into, well, everything in the title, and yet so much more. The film branches between four different people's perspectives on the same subjects. What makes the film especially interesting is that the characters are at worst quirky, at best complex versions of characters… More
  A look into, well, everything in the title, and yet so much more. The film branches between four different people's perspectives on the same subjects. What makes the film especially interesting is that the characters are at worst quirky, at best complex versions of characters that I've never seen before. This especially goes for James Spader's character, which is a tapestry of lies, repression, and self-doubt. The other three's actions are irresponsible, and their intertwining relationships aren't based on anything other than self-awareness. Peter Gallagher's character is the only one who isn't complex, the villain of the film while still retaining the humanistic properties of a sullen husband with a penchant for cheating. It's the psychological aspect that draws you in, which is certainly enhanced by the direction of Soderbergh. Everything about this film makes you feel uneasy: the score is a deep, long synth track that feels almost voyeuristic, while much of this includes phone conversation that uses voice over narration instead of realistic sound, like each conversation is a monologue about the upended lives of the four people. Yes, sex is tied into this film, but not the act itself. It's more about what constitutes freedom, what you have to feel, and think, and relate to yourself and your partner before you're ready to act on these feelings. Spader's character is the least insecure of them all about it, yet he's constantly running away, thinking it can ruin other people's lives when it's only ruining his. Macdowell is comely yet humble, and certainly a figure of repression, though here she just comes off as insightful and a diligent wife. There's nothing to suggest her life needs improvement, which is fascinating: sometimes the people who refrain from sex aren't stunted, just know it's something special or at least secret. Her sister, played by Laura San Giacomo is the definition of loose, and yet at the end we sympathize with her misdeeds against her sister, and simply want her to grow as a person, which she certainly does. It's unsettling, in the least.

• Graham J

  
  A strong introduction from Soderbergh.

• Reid V

  
  Interesting and provocative subject matter, executed poorly. Aside from Spader, the acting feels vapid. While Soderbergh shows some promise here, the direction isn't anything to write home about. Overall, not a stellar debut feature, but worth a watch if you want to see some… More
  Interesting and provocative subject matter, executed poorly. Aside from Spader, the acting feels vapid. While Soderbergh shows some promise here, the direction isn't anything to write home about. Overall, not a stellar debut feature, but worth a watch if you want to see some early Soderbergh,

• AJ V

  
  Another fantastic movie about voyeurism and relationships and just life overall. This movie has a bunch of good actors, and a great story. I loved it, and I highly recommend it.

• Veronique K

  
  i used not to understand "sex, lies and videotape" and dismiss it as a humdrum pretense of intellectual smugness and i asked myself then "where was that provocatively sexual stuff the advertisement says?" when i was 16 and watched it during my high-school days..(at… More
  i used not to understand "sex, lies and videotape" and dismiss it as a humdrum pretense of intellectual smugness and i asked myself then "where was that provocatively sexual stuff the advertisement says?" when i was 16 and watched it during my high-school days..(at the time when videotape was about to be eliminated and replaced by dvds)...and i just re-watched it weeks ago and found myself deeply amused by its witty dialogues, so different from what i felt 10 years ago. age does mellow a person beyond one's own expectation. it's about a loner who claims himself impotent and gets his thrill of life by videotaping women talking about sex, a housewife who's frigid about sex, who also has a lying lawyer husband who cheats on her with her free-spirited but somehow crass sister who holds a smoldering grudge against the goody goody housewife, a story settled in some cozy town of inland america. anyway, the lives of these people are altered all at a sudden when the loner steps into the picture with his voyeuristic videotape-fetish. does that sound a bit like hitchcock's rear window with a naughty twist to you? huh? what interests me is, of course, its sex (who isn't interested in sex? let's be frank), the mentality of sex. if cinema is a form of collective voyeurism, wouldn't it be an ironic self-reflection to witness a voyeurist who carries the same knack as you do in front of the screen? to voyeur or to gaze is a very sexually charged act and even more intense than the real sex because it's so full of unfulfilled wishes for transgressions. if voyeurism is a substituted form of sex, and to give others consent to videotape you is like saying yes to a proposition of sex. the gazer appears like an intrusive trespasser (of their minds) but by actuality he turns to be the helplessly fixated prey of those women who accept such intimate camera-exposure. the lawyer character who has got most laids in the movie is actually the least sexual one because the sexes are de-subliminated by immediate gratifications while those women around him are aroused by the voyeuristic loner who ravishes their minds on the side of camera. (said in a crude way, it would be "he fucks their brains out with his inquistive lens") the notion is that when one's in the process of copulation, he/she is actually making love to an idealized beautification of an image projected into his/her mind, in other words, she/he is fornicating with an illusion. just like real life, some couples, who fail to entince the sexual spunk from each other, would watch some porno tapes to help themselves to get into the mood for sex, and it's probably more like consensual cheatings (with the porno actors) rather than mutual masturbations. the ending is the loner smashes all his videotapes once his protected universe of reclusion is shatttered into pieces when the dejected housewife reverses the camera back on him and his fetishized, idolized object of desire is blemished, i.e., the sacred memories of his very one passionate love are violated by betrayal. (his college girlfriend, who he has carried the torch for all these years, turns out to be liar as his lawyer friend confides him about her infidelity "she's no saint; she's just good in bed")..as he finds the void within his idealized illusion, he abandons this peculiarly subliminated form of sex to get involved into a real relationship. doesn't that sound interesting? even it has no dynamic sex scenes, no actual nudity shown, and it's just a bunch of jaded people talking about sex, but the motives behind these acts are surely engrossing. (ps) in a brief, suppressed people are much more sexually charged, so they watch lots of interesting movies as substitutes like we flixsters(cinephile=implicit voyeurs?)...huh? of course, i kid. you'll be the judge of that.

• Steven C

  
  In all actuality Steven Soderbergh's "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" is just a series of conversations, but oh what fascinating conversations they are. The characters within the film are so complex and introverted- it really makes for an interesting character study and… More
  In all actuality Steven Soderbergh's "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" is just a series of conversations, but oh what fascinating conversations they are. The characters within the film are so complex and introverted- it really makes for an interesting character study and psycho-sexual study. Clearly, the actors are having a ball with the monologues and Soderbergh's directing style really amplifies the proceedings. "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" is one of the signal films of the 80s and ushered in an entirely new view on independent filmmaking.

• Wahida K

  
  The Word Sex these days has become so normal. Sometimes it depends on the director to give the "word" its real meaning in the Movie. I expected Steven Soderbergh would might be the one when I decided to watch this movie. Another voyeurism Movie. Dissapointing.

• Conner R

  
  James Spader and Peter Gallagher were so amazing in this. The plot is really interesting and plays with a lot of relevant subjects. The style of film making from Steven Soderbergh is really unique. It has a lot of great character driven moments with fulfilling endings.

• Sanjaya &

  
  Well, I don't watch a lot movies that made in the year of 1980s, but to me this film has a really weird directing style... Well, all you can say is this is a debut movie from Steven Soderbergh, one of the top class director in Hollywood right now... So for me, this movie proves… More
  Well, I don't watch a lot movies that made in the year of 1980s, but to me this film has a really weird directing style... Well, all you can say is this is a debut movie from Steven Soderbergh, one of the top class director in Hollywood right now... So for me, this movie proves nothing, except for the unique idea they got here.. But the story?? It's really bad, too much talking especially... Overall, not an outstanding debut from Soderbergh, but a memorable one because of the controversy...

• Lorenzo v

  
  <i>"Nothing's what I thought it was. John's a bastard. Let's make a videotape."</i> A sexually repressed woman's husband is having an affair with her sister. The arrival of a visitor with a rather unusual fetish changes everything… More
  <i>"Nothing's what I thought it was. John's a bastard. Let's make a videotape."</i> A sexually repressed woman's husband is having an affair with her sister. The arrival of a visitor with a rather unusual fetish changes everything <center><font size=+2 face="Verdana"><b><u>REVIEW</u></b></font></center> For all intensive purposes, this is Steven Soderbergh's directorial debut. That fact is never apparent once throughout the movie - not once. Soderbergh applies his great touch to this movie in very discreet ways. I think the most effective is in the way he sums up an entire relationship by showing quick sequences which feature exchanged glances or small, but revealing, interactions between two characters. That's what I mean about "discreet". He never gets up in your face with this film. He gives the viewer more of a fly-on-the-wall type of point of view. Which is perfect for the subject matter. Soderbergh also wrote (and was nominated for) the script. With all that said, I don't want to overlook the four great performances here by the main cast (James Spader, Peter Gallagher, Andie MacDowell, Laura San Giacomo). For all four of them, I feel it is their best performance ever. Each one of them really nails the character. This is especially true for Spader. At times he's confident, and self-righteous. At times he is desperate and pathetic. Great movie.

• E.J. B

  
  Smart, dialogue-driven piece of cinema where it\s actually a lot of fun to watch all these characters cheat on each other. You start to wonder if this movie had an influence on Closer. James Spader delivers an outstanding performance.

• Jon L

  
  Good flick. A little on the slow side, but it really gets you into the characters mindset.

• Elvira B

  
  There's not much to say about sex, lies, and videotape wihout giving everything away... or perhaps giving everything is the same as giving nothing? Steven Sorderbergh's debut fully grasps the importance of human amibiguities, and thus creates a world full of open… More
  There's not much to say about sex, lies, and videotape wihout giving everything away... or perhaps giving everything is the same as giving nothing? Steven Sorderbergh's debut fully grasps the importance of human amibiguities, and thus creates a world full of open possibilities, where currents flow in every direction and with fluctuating intensity. I admire films that manage to craft multidimensional characters, and expose -seemingly effortlessly- how humans are not only one thing, how they can be contradictory, and yet perfect as they are. In sex, lies, and videotape, the four main characters exist in total opposition to our usual custom of labelling people as 'good' or 'bad'. In the lapse of less than 2 hours they manage to make plausible and moving changes that characterize them further as <i>themselves</i>, in all their potential, rather than shift them from 'nice' to 'mean', 'moral' to 'immoral'. That's more than I can say about most films. If you don't already know the story, I'd hate to ruin it for you, but a little bit of revealing can do no harm... Sex, Lies, and Videotape is about an unhealthy love triangle and a taboo-brekaing figure that comes into the picture to shatter it. James Spader is spot-on as Graham: perfectly mysterious, somewhat self-conscious, perfectly neither-here-nor-there. His performance never gives away too much or too little about this cryptic character that we don't really get to know all that well, but perhaps just enough. Graham is an old college buddy of John, a rising lawyer who's married to the excessively moral Ann and having an affair with her sister Cynthia. Graham comes clean during the first few minutes in which he is onscreen about his impotence, something that Ann finds fascinating, since she is thoroughly uninterested in sex, and gives his husband a virtually non-existent sex life (which he makes up for with Cynthia). From this point on, <i>every</i> character is on its way to a transgression, during which they refrain from becoming heroes or demi-gods, just happier, more conscious, more open people. Soderbergh puts each of them in confrontation with their fears and guides them to their most logical breaking point -and the entire process is touching, tough, it's deeply involving. Peter Gallagher, Laura San Giacomo, Andie MacDowell and James Spader are so fantastic. They act like the people they play (wow), down to every sinlge idiosyncracy, making every line they utter believable and <b>familiar</b>. They are never too classy or too poised or too carefree, they are who they are. Of course, it is greatly thanks to the script, which is intelligent without being witty, engaging without being effectist, and dramatic without going overboard. sex, lies, and videotape could be said to be about sex (although there is hardly any actual 'action' onscreen), but it's really about many other issues. I think what those issues might have been for me, could be different for somebody else, and so on. There's plenty to think of when the movie is over. And I think it's best just to lose yourself in it.

• Jennifer X

  
  I think I may just have a fetish for watching soulless, selfish people (Closer, anyone?), but I really connected with this film. One of the few times I have actually "got" it from beginning to end. For once it's not about the film, it's about the people and ideas… More
  I think I may just have a fetish for watching soulless, selfish people (Closer, anyone?), but I really connected with this film. One of the few times I have actually "got" it from beginning to end. For once it's not about the film, it's about the people and ideas in it.

• Ken S

  
  I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what all the hype is about. I found it to be mostly tedious and occasionally interesting

• Arash X

  
  Ann: Let's make a videotape. Graham: No, I... I don't think that's a good idea. Ann: Why not? Graham: Because I don't think it's a choice that you'd make in a normal frame of mind. Ann: And what would you know about a normal frame of mind?

• xGary X

  
  I didn't find Steven Soderbergh's examination of voyeurism and emotional/sexual obsession remotely sexy, and I think that that was kind of the point. Spader's character is shown to be ultimately rather pathetic and impotent, and only when he develops some perspective on… More
  I didn't find Steven Soderbergh's examination of voyeurism and emotional/sexual obsession remotely sexy, and I think that that was kind of the point. Spader's character is shown to be ultimately rather pathetic and impotent, and only when he develops some perspective on his actions is he able to move on. More of a psychological study than a sexual one, so anybody expecting a T&A fest will be disappointed.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings