TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

peefyn I quite enjoyed the format of this, and Allen managed to make short self-contained stories that fit nicely with a theme and each other. Some of the shorts were better than others, but none of them stuck out as very much better (or worse) than the rest. The highlights were certain inspired moments, that I am sure was the ideas that the whole shorts were built around. In one of the shorts, Allen plays a sperm cell, and the pick of song they sing before they're off was brilliant.But it wasn't all good. I feel that shorts like these are more "skits" than anything else, and the premises for skits were all good and memorable - but most of them were a bit too long to keep the steam going. The one with the goat was fun, but at one point you know pretty much know where it is going. The one about transsexuals felt like an episode of Curb your enthusiasm, but without a particularly satisfying pay off (though the discussion in the end at least provided some more substance to it).Perhaps it is due to this movie being over forty years old? That nowadays we want everything to go faster, so this feels dragged out? Either way, it was not a big problem, and this is still a solid (and strange) movie that's worth checking out.

John T. Ryan ADAPTATIONS OF ANY literary work is usually a complex transition from the print medium to that of the screen. By necessity, moving an established work from one medium to another will, by necessity, inevitably leave many details out. Even worse, rewriting for purpose of adaptation often leads to the horrors of R-E-V-I-S-I-O-N!! WITH THE COMING of this Woody Allen film, only the title remains. Topics that were subject of chapters of American Physician, Dr. David Reuben, were transformed into a series of episodic vignettes patterned on and titled by the particular chapter subject matter. This format's visual realization results in what could best be described as series of disparate comedy shorts that only are bound together by their subject matter (S-E-X!!) and the film's writer/director/performer, Woody Allen.BEING ONE OF Mr. Allen's true fans of his earlier work, we rank this very high on the list of his movies. It may have even come at the period of time when he was at his cinematic best. It was then that he gave us titles such as: THDE SLEEPER, BSANANAS, TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN and LOVE AND DEATH. OUR FAVOURITE SEGMENTS are those which featured Gene Wilder, John Caradine and Woody (himself) as a para-trooping sperm cell.

Hitchcoc David Reuben's book was a pop phenomenon, delving into things (in the mainstream) that were taboo for many people. He made it acceptable to carry this book around. Along comes Woody Allen, who take a series of vignettes (that really had nothing to do with the book) and puts it all out there. Fetishism, masturbation, you name it. He puts his putzy character into every role possible and draws in some great character actors as well. We have Gene Wilder who loves sheep, on the street drinking from a bottle of Woolite. Everything that goes on is pushed to its ridiculous limit. One of my favorites is Allen as a sperm paratrooper with all his fellow sperm, sitting in a bench on a plane (ala World War II) waiting to jump into an unknown kind of D-Day. Also, there is a giant breast which parrots the earlier monster/horror movies, chasing Allen and squirting at him. Like his other earlier offerings it's anything-goes humor and if it doesn't stick, something else will come along. This isn't one of my favorites but there's enough to keep it going.

ElMaruecan82 In 1972, two of the most memorable best-sellers from 1969 were finally adapted into film and became instant classics, although one of them holds a 'slight' edge over the second in terms of cinematic recognition.I was talking of course of the soberly titled "The Godfather" from Mario Puzo's novel of the same name, and the overly explicit "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask)". The title was so lengthy that I thought it worked quite well as a gag, until I realized it was the title of the original book, written by Dr. Reuben. Woody Allen didn't have to work hard to find a proper title, this one worked perfectly... now, to say that the film delivers its premise is a matter of opinion.It's also worth noticing that the film was released in 1972, a breakthrough year for movies rich on sexual content, whether intriguing, disturbing or hilarious. From the ill-fated Ned Beatty forced to 'squeal like a pig' in "Deliverance" to the infamous 'butter' scene between Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider in "Last Tango in Paris", from the first animated pornographic movie "Fritz the Cat" to the no-less graphic milestone "Deep Throat" ... the three letters had been so involved in movie-making that we can talk of a before and after 1972.And since sex stopped to be a taboo in the middle of the New Hollywood wave, and people got accustomed to the sight of bodies voluptuously expressing their mutual love, what more efficient weapon than comedy to trivialize what was left from sex mysteries? And who was more gifted than Woody Allen to make a movie about sex and getting away with the most outrageous and irreverent aspects without even shocking our eyes or falling in a voyeuristic trap? Especially considering that if the educational value doesn't work, it's still a good way to spend 80 minutes laughing.I guess I minimize the pedagogical effort because the 'You' refers to a 1972 audience, and forty years before, it's a fair guess to assume that sex wasn't as abundantly exposed as today (one word: Internet). The film seems almost innocent in its approach of sex as it features some cute-looking rabbits in the opening credits sequence. But when you watch a slut whipping a rabbi while his wife eats pork to fulfill one of his pervert fantasies, you know it's a Woody Allen film and the tone is less innocent than what it seems, 'rising above vulgarity' if I might use this quote from Mel Brooks.The movie is a kaleidoscopes of many issues involving sex: aphrodisiacs, transvestites, frigidity, one hilarious spoof of "What's my Line" transformed into "What's My Perversion", science, bestiality etc. and the film reaches its paroxysm of hilarity through the final segment: a sexual act recounted from the perspective of a NASA mission where everything is operated from the brain, a la "Fantastic Voyage" with a nice teamwork between Tony Randall and Burt Reynolds, this is one of the highlights of Woody Allen's zany period and the sight of all the little sperms waiting like paratroopers for the orgasm and wondering what awaits him on the other side, makes me laugh just thinking about them.You got it; gags are the film's reason to be, while sex is only the set-up of Allen's sketches. One involves an unfunny court jester who, like Hamlet, ("TB or not TB, that's the congestion") meets the ghost of his father and is ordered to bang the queen (Lynn Redgrave) he uses a magic love potion, but meets the chastity belt as an unfortunate obstacle. The following segment recounts the affair between Dr. Ross (Gene Wilder) and an adorable sheep named Daisy. There is no logic in Woody Allen's sketches, but the actors seem so involved in their role that it works. As crazy as it is, the film is one of Allen's most brilliantly cast.I won't enumerate every segment because one of the film's delights is to get from one to another with only sex as the common denominator. The last one was my favorite for its brilliant metaphorical depiction of erections, guilt, and emotional struggle before the act, but I also have a soft spot for John Carradine's role as the mad scientist and his crazy experimental situations. The 'tits' part includes a succession of hilarious lines; the correlation between "excessive masturbation and going into politics" made me burst into tears. The part is a great homage to 50's B-movies, with a giant tit as a blob-like monster, like a clever satire on the feminist revolution in march swallowing everyone attempting to block its path.The segments aren't equally hilarious, a nice parody of Italian movies lacked a punch-line, but this never hurts the film as the main purpose is to us about the taboo-ness of sex through laughs. Sex is such a serious thing one should make fun of it after all. I mentioned Mel Brooks earlier, I guess the film is to sex what Mel Brooks' "The History of the World Part I" is to history, but the Allen touch exists within the script, the zaniness and the little ounce of wisdom popping us between two outrageous lines. It's not the best of Woody Allen, but it's fantastically creative and entertaining and constitutes a summit of his crazy period, and I'm pretty sure the last segment carries half the film's classic status.Now, do I know better or not about sex? I don't think so ...but the film tackles some of its aspects with a mixture of derision, tenderness and wisdom that would have made me want to 'know' more, even what I knew. But I wondered how Woody Allen would have covered these subjects today ... but I guess we know so much anyway that sex lost this little touch of mystery that could make such creative gags work. Not that the film lost its relevance though.