Watch Amy's Orgasm For Free

How sad is this?

As Good As It Gets

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Hollywood had to bring out a movie just like this one. Firstly the name used, for me had to be the name, then the topic following the name is also very creepy and ironic. I will explain later why I feel the way I do about this movie, and what I will describe are the thoughts and ideas that I have had, when it comes to the whole deal that I guess is ‘Amy's Orgasm'.Amy Mandell is a sophisticated, beautiful 29-year-old self-help author who, having been burned by men over and over, has made it her mission to convince women that they don't need men to feel fulfilled. Desperately lonely and having trouble practicing what she preaches, Amy meets Matthew Starr, a shock jock known for his sexist on-air antics, irresistible charm, and sexual prowess. Amy finally throws down her guard and dares to experience the most elusive orgasm of all -love. This movie was written and directed by its star, Julie Davis, which created some problems for me. Firstly the screenplay, while not being completely bad, had some downfalls. At times, the main character of Amy was hard for to me like or even understand. While some of the other characters were a bit too much, such as Amy's parents and her priest, who I feel is the most unrealistic character I have seen in a movie for a long time. Then look at what was contained in the movie's screenplay, with all these different notions of love and relationships. In the end, I felt that the story overanalysed love, and started to become boring, repetitive, predictable and confusing. Davis did a pretty good job in directing the movie, although I did have problems with her overall visions for the film. I was not a big fan of the way that we hear all these various voices churning through Amy's head, as they really do show that this girl has no right to give out advice on love, when she is totally confused on the issue herself. However, I did like the movie's preempting about what sorts of situation Amy might like to be in, via her very deep sexual fantasies. Amy Mandell (Davis) is a woman famous for writing a book called ‘Why Love Doesn't Work', loved by many thousands of women, but widely criticised by the media. It was a very open role from Davis, as she would show herself in many personal predicaments, and then would also talk about many issues that most of us shrug away from. While on her interview bandwagon, Amy is interviewed by Radio DJ Matthew Starr (Nick Chinlund), who initially we are meant to think is a really sick jerk. But as Amy and the audience get to know Matt, he shows himself to be a pretty reasonable sort of guy, someone Amy could love. While I like Matt as a movie character, it is all a bit too freaky for me, for two reasons. One my name is Matt and the situation I found myself in just a few years ago was with a girl named Amy. This movie had to use those two names! And, two, I once wanted to be a radio DJ like Matt, making AO seem all the more coincidental. We also meet some other interesting characters in AO. Amy's publicist, Janet Gaines (Caroline Aaron) is a strange woman and we learn quite quickly what sort of person she is. While Amy's parents (Mary Ellen Taylor and Charles Cioffi) are very cold and callous when it comes to their daughter and what has happened in her life. Yet Amy's friends, young couple Don (Mitchell Whitfield) and Elizabeth (Jennifer Bransford) help their friend feel better about life and love. However, the priest (Jeff Cesario) is character, who I am sure many people would love, but I did not appreciate here. This movie also reminds of other things I have seen on TV and in cinema lately. Firstly, the downer for this movie is the way it brings back bad memories of a film that did not like, the disgraceful 2001 Josh Hartnett film '40 Days and 40 Nights'. The area AO reminds me of that film is the stupid way it involves religion within the context of a film that deals primarily with a human view on sex, just not good enough if you ask me. The other thing is how much better CBO's ‘Sex and the City' handles all the issues involving, relationships, love and sex. Unfortunately, AO was unsuccessful in dealing with these issues.AO also brings back some bad personal memories for me. An example of this is the moment in the film where Amy asks Matt a very personal question about his sex life. Now, while most people would have no problem with questions of this nature being asked of them, I have regretted admitting this to other people, especially those who did not deserve to hear about it. I have also learnt that this movie's was originally titled, ‘Why Love Doesn't Work', a much better title than Amy's Orgasm in my opinion. I am a bit confused as to the change in name for the video release. If any other name had been used in this film, I think I could have stomached it more than I have, but by using the name ‘AMY', it really does bring back memories for me of a person who I have forgotten. I have also forgotten the personal things that she told me about her life, like her deep sexual feelings, her very lurid sex life and what many of her orgasms were actually like. To say that these words and images affected me is an understatement. So a movie with this name was always going to be difficult for me to like, which just so happens to be the case.CMRS gives ‘Amy's Orgasm': 1.5 (Bad – Ok Film)

I liked this film a fair amount and would have liked it more if the main character had been a little bit more consistent in her actions at the end of the film. Before that, though, I thought there was good chemistry between the two leads, and both of them were very likeable. Nick Chinlund was very good as a romantic lead -- I don't think he normally plays such roles, but maybe people will look twice at him now. The lead actress seemed like someone you could know. Word to the wise: This is definitely a chick flick, -- not that there's anything wrong with that.

What starts out as a mildly charming and satisfying movie, ends up as a disaster close to the finish line. 15 minutes into Amy's O, you'll have little question about how the story will play out. The issue is the sloppiness of the final act. It feels like a complete abrupt cop-out. Even some of the dialogue in the final scene is re-dubbed without consideration to matching lip movements. Did they run out of money? It's a shame because despite the obvious flaws, the movie did offer some charming moments. Unfortunately, it's not enough to recommend it based on the ending.

Spoilers herein.How difficult it must be for a young writer/director/actor with energy, some skill and no ideas. So just write about one's self and use the current `intelligent' template of self-reference.That template has our writer playing a writer. The writer on screen is struggling with the same issues that vex the writer behind the screen: how to reconcile things that are `real' life with things that sell. A serviceable enough template, which in some cases has the hero in broadcasting or film of some sort. Here we have both writing and radio in a clash, each with their own take on how to distort reality for the market. They battle it out and transcend the marketplace (which in Amy's situation includes all of femdon).Could have been good, had edge, been worth watching. But the problem with the film is the same as what the film is about: the conflict between real meat and what sells. Davis decides to stick with what sells, which is the typical date material: boy and girl meet, have spats, find true love together and along the way have endearing, slightly comic complications edging toward titillation. Davis IS as likeable as say Meg Ryan, Julia Roberts, and Sandra Bullock, indeed more so because she really does seem intelligent under the fluffy grin.But here, she picks the wrong side of the equation to emphasize, a decision that I suspect is directly related to funders. Wish she would have done in real life what she did in the film. Instead what we have is a paean to the complexities of reality that sticks to the simplicities of fictionTed's Evaluation -- 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.