Keiran McLaren I have to start by saying who gives people the money to make this garbage. What I thought was an interesting plot line with the mystery of a secret list of women that you have slept with and will sleep with until you die might have some potential. At the same time in another universe there is a Man Killer about killer man after sex named "Death Nell". Nothing more to give away but for a movie with some class actor it fell short of being a good movie. It's corny a little nudity, sex with a leper, and sex with lesbians. Sounds good right ??? WRONG. Please Simon Baker, stay on TV until a decent script comes up. I wouldn't watch it unless there is nothing better outside like a hurricane.

martin lane A quirky little study of the modern mating game which might have been unwatchable if it hadn't been graced with a sly and insightful wit...and the presence of an ideal leading man. Simon Pegg hasn't generated the big career building buzz that has elevated so many other actors from down under....his performance here is charming and polished enough to make one wonder why (somebody wrangle this guy a blockbuster!).The lead role in this inspired concoction would be a mine field for an actor without genuine charisma, magnetism, and sensitivity. Many lucky enough to possess the stunning looks which the part calls for would have been content to strut and smirk through the film. Pegg seems to dig deeper...and the grace and genuine warmth that shine from behind his beautiful facade bring to mind the class of another gorgeous actor who was never content to hide behind his pretty face...the great Cary Grant.The deft script also stirs up memories of droll "golden era" comedies that managed to bring in a bit of magic and mystery to spice up what could have been rather crass and ordinary plot lines. A story about a golden boy Lothario who's life is turned upside down by a mysterious e-mail concerning his future love-life could very easily have been lame, tired, and dim...(like so many Hollywood comedies seem to be nowadays). It was a joy to find that the ending has the same sly and unexpectedly insightful sheen as the opening scenes.It is also wonderful to see the delicious Winona Ryder finally getting another role that comes close to deserving her decadently desirable charms. This mix of danger and dreamy dark eyed dramatics fits her to perfection...and how she does shine!

dominik96 The basic idea does work for a nice comedy, and the script author must be very disappointed what the producer had made out of it. Problem is that the director and the writer are the same person: Daniel Waters. So one essential thing learned from this movies is, that Daniel Waters should only write, and never again be the director.I won't tell the story, because reading it there wouldn't be much left for watching. If you want an average movie to spend 100 minutes, then you can watch it. If you expect a great comedy and a nice time in the cinema, then this movie is wrong for you. Escpecially because it has the appearance of a movie made only for video release but not for cinema.The overall problem is the cast. Simon Baker is good for romance movies and attorneys, but not for a comedy like this. Actors like Adam Sandler and Steve Zahn would be the right man for Roderick Blank. Simon Baker lacks the comedic element in his acting.The secretary of Roderick Blank is also a prime playing role for a comedian, but the female actor here lacks also the comedic quality.Patton Oswalt is the only actor in this movie with this quality.Overall the movie is too slow. Even the music used in this movie is just wrong for a comedy.

jpschapira Continuing with the thought that sometimes movies may honor its title, and that may save them from being bad or make them even more terrible than they are, I present to you the latter of the examples. Like "Boys", where Winona Ryder also plays a part, "Sex and Death 101" makes true justice to its title. The thing is that with a title like "Boys" there are interesting things to be said, but "Sex and Death 101"…That's all there is: sex and death.If I want those things, I can easily find them in a lame erotic film. For those who think that sex can be justified in a film and so on, I tell you that I agree; but there's nothing justifiable about the use of sex or even death in this film. "Sex and Death 101" tells the story of Roderick Blank (Simon Baker), an entrepreneur who's about getting married and receives an email with a list of every women he's had sex with and will have sex with. Any guesses? Right! They're 101 women. From that moment on, and I'm sorry if I spoil the ride for you (but all of this and more is in the unappealing trailer, if you've watched it), Roderick leaves his soon to be wife in a ridiculous scene and starts doing what probably any man would do; except that he does it in every scene and the only scenes that are not about it are about their friends (a fat, lesbian secretary and a bunch of married guys) trying to stop him with whatever excuse they find. At one point, writer/director Daniel Waters (I hope he has nothing to do with Mark) runs out of these excuses and the need for a closure takes his film to the utter bottom. But that's not everything Waters' made of as a writer. There's a woman called Miranda (the charming Leslie Bibb) who's apparently on the list but touches Roderick's heart; which leads Waters to create a joke that consists on everyone asking: "Have you f***ed her yet?". Another thing that's supposed to be funny is when his secretary makes Roderick check if her name is on the list.Oh, and there's "The Machine"! How could I forget such original invention and the origin of Roderick's problems? It's an empty space with a strong white background, and it has a crack in the wall. From that crack, it spits cards that apparently know anything anyone would like to know. The guy who controls the Machine, a possible Morpheus without glasses, says it may be an oracle but he's not sure. If you thought I had forgotten that the Great Winona Ryder plays a part, I hadn't. How could I when she's second-billed and she's not even a supporting character but a mere excuse to finalize the movie? She appears in only one scene, and gives (as convincingly as she can; it's not her fault that the script is so poor) a speech that pretends to justify the time we've wasted and fails.And Simon Baker can do better. Better than a simple smile and a cocky narration. A narration that pretends to know everything about sidestepping clichés but in the end narrates us the most convenient ending. I hate that.