Thomas in Love (2002) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

I didn't like this movie all that much, but I give it props for some bold inventiveness.

It takes place in the near future, when the internet dominates entertainment to such a point that some people haven't been out in years. The hero (Thomas, who is never seen) hasn't ventured from his home in eight years, fulfilling his sexual needs with "cybersex", which is achieved by wearing a special space suit and logging on to an appropriately wired web site. The cyber-casanova chooses a partner from a menu, slips on his suit, and the internet does the rest. These scenes are seen through Thomas's eyes (as is the entire film), and the cyber partner is a very sexy and naked cartoon.


There is cartoon nudity.

DVD info from Amazon

  • The Making of Thomas in Love" exclusive documentary

  • A look inside the making of the sexy animation sequences

  • Widescreen anamorphic format

I suppose about 75% of the film consists of images on Thomas's computer screen. Some of the images are wild. Even Thomas's real-life apartment is so filled with bright primary colors that it looks as much like a fantasy as the online images.In the course of the movie, Thomas works his way toward conquering his agoraphobia and meeting real women.

I think I might have liked it better in English, but it's in French with English subtitles. Therefore, in addition to never seeing the hero, we never hear him speak a line we can understand. The entire film experience consists of watching a computer screen and reading sub-titles while we listen to someone speak French.

That's a difficult experience, even though the movie's premise is fairly interesting.

The Critics Vote

  • Roger Ebert 2/4

The People Vote ...

  • a French film with Englishg subtitles, it maxed out at three screens in the USA


The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this film is a C+, I guess. A clever, wildly inventive experiment for a small audience.

Return to the Movie House home page