You are on page 1of 1

Sex and Breakfast

(2007)
Most of the time when they put sex in the title its a clear indication you should lower your expectations. Im sure there are exceptions, but usually the thinking seems to be well, weve let them know its about sex, weve got them hooked. Which usually doesnt work for me, but when you dangle Eliza Dushku in front of me, sex in the title or no, Ill bite. That doesnt always work out, but sometimes it does, and even when it doesnt, hey, theres still Eliza Dushku. The film follows two couples Renee (Dushku) and Ellis (Kuno Becker) and James (Macaulay Culkin) and Heather (Alexis Dziena) neither of whom are doing so well in the bedroom. These problems do occur, and they are handled decently at the start of the film, with the expected bickering and blaming one another. But rather than focus on any one specific idea, we get treated to a lazy susan of relationship problems the over-aggressive ex, the lesbian fantasy, etc. and both couples somehow latch onto the idea that group sex therapy is the answer. Of course the couples end up with each other, which is far less sexy than it sounds, and, as expected, little is resolved. The movie almost tries to be a character study, but none of the four leads are particularly deep (or likable), so it ends up mostly being a group of young attractive people talking about sex which could potentially be interesting, but isnt here. None of the leads are either great or terrible Im unfamiliar with both Becker and Dziena, but I found them both acceptable. Dushku and Culkin Ive seen be very strong in other work, but I found them only average here. Maybe it was the script or the direction, but neither impressed me terribly. This is a thoroughly pedestrian and mediocre film; like most movies with sex in the title, it doesnt live up to even vague expectations (and for those interested theres a question about it on the IMDb no, Dushku does not get naked). Other than an abiding interest in one of the leads (guilty as charged), theres no compelling reason to see this film. Even clocking in at a brief 81 minutes, this isnt worth your time. October 15, 2013