Mixed or average reviews - based on 10 Critics What's this?

User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 11 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: Employing a complex multi-narrative structure, Psychopathia Sexualis dramatizes case histories of turn-of-the-century sexual deviance, drawn from the pages of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's notorious medical text. (Kino International)
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 10
  2. Negative: 3 out of 10
  1. An independent American art film that seems to be masquerading as Victorian-era pornography--and it's not quite as interesting or provocative as that description might make it sound.
  2. 63
    A window into bygone morals and mores.
  3. The curiously stylized piece, shot in a muted palette with performances to match (the cast is perhaps too restrained given the theatrical framework), is dramatically colorless, but the moods and moments are crafted with kinky grace.
  4. The director's familiarity with silent cinema enhances the prudish pornographic footage, but when he starts cutting between separate perversions, I began to wonder if he was getting as bored with the material as I was.
  5. 42
    The result is a sepia-toned muddle.
  6. 25
    Sex can be fun and exciting and wonderful. It also can be deadly boring, as in Psychopathia Sexu alis.
  7. Reviewed by: Jeannette Catsoulis
    Whether in the whorehouse or the sanitarium, Psychopathia Sexualis is an exercise in unrelenting dullness.

See all 10 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 4
  2. Negative: 2 out of 4
  1. PamH.
    Aug 23, 2006
    Maybe it didn't move as fast as the typical Hollywood picture, maybe it wasn't as titillating as some people might have hoped, but I felt like it was a thought-provoking, very atmospheric film that succeeded in its aims (of replicating a Victorian-era medical text). I thought the last section -- with Veronika Duerr and Lisa Paulsen -- was very compelling. Am curious to see if it holds up under a second viewing. Expand
  2. MelJ.
    Jul 3, 2006
    A film with a name like this should deliver more for the time spent watching it! That said, there were some good performances ( Patricia French) and some gawd awful performances ( Sandra L. Hughes) . There werer some good, reflective moments like puppetry and dance and some bad momentswith uneven lighting and sound. I may not be a film professional but I know this could have been beter that it is. Be well and try again another day in my opinion. Expand
  3. JoseM.
    Jul 3, 2006
    Not a very good time for a film with an exciting premise! Jane Bass was good. Bret Wood who did a good job with Highway to Hell looked like he fell down when it came to casting, for the most part. I liked the look, you couldn't always tell it was filmed in Atlanta, but I agree with the critics who say the performances were "wooden", the acting "amatuar" acting. Expand
  4. DominickS.
    Jul 3, 2006
    Flat film. Flat acting. It never came to life and was for the most part TOTALLY miscast. It looked like Bret & company couldn't get professional actors, which was a shame. The obvious exceptions were Patricia French and Daniel Petrow who were actually good enough to make everyone else look even worse. The material deserved better treatment in my humble opionion. I really was looking forward to this film but the premise never made it off the to speak. Expand