Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
Psychopathia Sexualis
Metascore
40 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 10 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 10
  2. Mixed: 5 out of 10
  3. Negative: 3 out of 10
view
per page
  1. Chicago Tribune
    Reviewed by: Michael Wilmington
    63
    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. TV Guide
    Reviewed by: Maitland McDonagh
    63
    A window into bygone morals and mores.
  3. Seattle Post-Intelligencer
    Reviewed by: Sean Axmaker
    58
    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. L.A. Weekly
    Reviewed by: Ernest Hardy
    50
    It's a mildly enjoyable romp.
  5. Variety
    Reviewed by: Joe Leydon
    50
    Psychopathia Sexualis exists in the gray area between ponderous stylization and campy affectation.
  6. Chicago Reader
    Reviewed by: Jonathan Rosenbaum
    50
    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.
  7. Portland Oregonian
    Reviewed by: Marc Mohan
    42
    The result is a sepia-toned muddle.
  8. New York Post
    Reviewed by: V.A. Musetto
    25
    Sex can be fun and exciting and wonderful. It also can be deadly boring, as in Psychopathia Sexu alis.
  9. Village Voice
    Reviewed by: Benjamin Strong
    20
    Drearily pretentious, Sexualis has even less softcore appeal than an American Apparel ad.
  10. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Jeannette Catsoulis
    20
    Whether in the whorehouse or the sanitarium, Psychopathia Sexualis is an exercise in unrelenting dullness.
prev next
Page:
  • 1

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
4.4 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 11 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 4
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 4
  3. Negative: 2 out of 4
  1. PamH.
    8
    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.… Full Review »
  2. DominickS.
    2
    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 bed...so to speak.… Full Review »
  3. JoseM.
    2
    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.… Full Review »
See all user reviews »