Sex Lives of the Potato Men

Oh my, such pretension, such pontificating, such bollox forwarded by other IMDb users. This film "does exactly what it says on the tin" (sorry American readers). It's called SEX LIFE OF THE POTATO MEN - did you expect English PATIENT perchance ??

Admittedly - I, like another member thought it would be akin to "Bottom" (sorry American readers) but after 5 minutes had that notion blown out of the water.My word, it certainly was crude - but who cares - give me crude anytime ahead of American graphic slaughter.

I thought is beautifully disgusting, wonderfully crass, amazingly childish and above all exactly what I expected !!

Now how's that for pretension

Such was the opprobrium heaped on Sex Lives when first released, you'd think director (and one-time Mastermind winner) Andy Humphries had committed atrocities on a par with Harold Shipman's, or the Mai Lai massacre. Much column inches were generated devoted to this supposed 'worst film ever made', and there were questions raised in Parliament. It's quite mystifying actually – as even those hand-wringing broadsheets were forced to admit after cornering happy punters emerging from the theaters. Not many of them, granted; certainly, there were only two other audience members in attendance when this reviewer caught a screening – one of whom was covertly pleasuring himself throughout. (It seemed fitting, somehow.) The plot's simplicity itself: Vegas and Crook, the titular potato deliverers, attempt to get their end away with all and sundry. In truth, it's less sordid than surreal, featuring bonkers flights of fancy bordering on genius: Vegas's musing that all insects produce sugar-based substances, being a particular highlight. It's also slightly funny (ish). Essentially, an honest depiction of working class sex, and the inherent ridiculousness of the sex act itself.

Dave and Ferris are mates who work in Birmingham delivering potatoes to trade. However their passion for their work doesn't compare to their desire for regular sex. Having just split up from his wife, Dave sees the future of being knee deep in the stuff if he can only work out who to get with. Ferris has a different problem as staying with his mother-in-law rent free means that he has to provide a service to her without making a fuss. Meanwhile their boss struggles with unrequited love for Ruth and colleague Tolly has strange tastes left over from his previous relationship.

I decided to try this film out of curiosity because of how universally reviled it was when it came out in the UK. It seems from the IMDb rating that the film has found some affection from somewhere but generally it is still very poor. The sense of humour required is low and the script seems rammed with unfunny jokes that seem to lack any taste or decency. Some people will find it hilarious perhaps but generally the best I could say about the "best" bits of the film is that they didn't sicken me. Sadly I cannot say that about the worst bits of the film and occasionally I did look away from the screen in disgust. I did this when the material was particularly coarse or the images were just tasteless. So although I didn't find it totally repulsive I didn't find anything of value here.

Writer director Humphries reacted with shock at the response the film got, saying he was trying to make a genuine account of the lives of people you don't see on film having sex however his problem is that he may have partially succeeded because the dregs of society aren't pretty. Of course he only uses these character to make loads of crap sex jokes and he hasn't exactly done anything with the characters that would allow him to hide behind some sort of bigger aim. The cast are mostly poor because the material is so bad for them. Vegas is good at what he does but the material doesn't work for his strengths and he is mostly unfunny – fans of his will get more from his recent PG Tips adverts with "monkey". Crook is no good at all and just stands round stiffly during all the rubbish he has to say. Gatiss and Coleman have unfunny material and can do nothing to improve it. Davis is wasted and the only appearance I found funny was Nick Holder in a weirdly amusing turn.

Overall then a film that is crude and unfunny to the point of being almost totally unenjoyable. Even the occasional moment that showed invention or wit (eg the Broadway style moment at the swingers party) is rendered awful by being so heavily crude. Containing nothing to really laugh about and plenty of low shots that still don't hit any target, this is a fairly pointless and laugh-free affair that will barely appeal to drunk teenage boys, far less anyone else.

I saw this at the cinema when it came out and had no idea it had been mauled by the critics. I laughed as much as I ever have done at a film and plenty others there seemed to find it just as funny. There are some great lines in the script and excellent performances from Mark Gatiss, Mackenzie Crook and (in some ways) Johnny Vegas.

The attacks on the film have been ridiculous. It is not smutty. It is not a revival of Carry on or the Confessions series. It has nothing in it for teenage onanists. Every other movie coming out of Hollywood these days spends half its time ogling its stars in lingering close up. Potato Men does not contain a single scene like that, nor was anyone cast as eye candy. Quite the opposite...

It shows a coarse, poor, bleak life in a coarse, bleak, but humorous way and does not try and convince anyone that we are watching the Salt of the Earth. It was probably that element that shocked the reviewers. Well received British movies like The Full Monty and Billy Elliot seem self- conscious about this issue. It is as though we have to be packaged for an imaginary American audience, who might otherwise have us down for horse riding snobs.

I am not claiming it to be a masterpiece. It has some weak elements that can be attributed mainly to the episodic plot and a low budget. There is a review here from trinitybay9 that sums it up very well. There are four sections and the one concerning Tolly is quite poor. There are some excellent comedy performances in the film but Dominic Coleman's is not one of them.

The real shame though is that the director is never likely to make another film. With the honourable exception of Johnny Vegas, even the cast responded gutlessly to the bad press. It is easily the best thing Mackenzie Crook has done since The Office, but he seems to consider it to be, artistically, a black mark on a CV that contains the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

Being a girl this is the sort of film that I was warned about watching, but being an open minded individual I decided to give it a go.

I hate to say it but I found Johnny Vegas' acting not overly great, however Mackenzie Crook was very good, very believable character (I loved him in the office and I was worried that I would be put off by his acting ability in this film, but I was pleasantly surprised!)

This film shows a humorous side to kinky areas of sex that some people get up to which I found really funny, and quite a lot of it true !! Some people are very weird in the bedroom!

There's not really a detailed plot line, but judging on the title of the film I didn't hold out much hope :)so i wasn't disappointed!