ElijahCSkuggs Like everyone else who sees this flick I was instantly drawn to the title. Sexual failures you say? Then count me in! Failing in a sexual venture is without a doubt the non-physical shot to the crotch. You may or may not see it coming, but when it hits it hurts bad. So, obviously this flick should be a huge success. Really how could a film about someone's sexual failures be...a failure? Well, you'd be surprised.Chris's History of Sexual Failure was an alright flick, but no way the spectacle you're hoping to see. We follow Chris as he calls and interviews past girlfriends. We see him deal with erectile dysfunction. We see him cry, talk with his Mama, get drunk, and hell, we even see his John Thomas. But more importantly we get to know Chris, but I can't say for sure, it's the 'real' Chris Waitt, we're seeing. The movie overall has a very sneaky mockumentary feel to it, that I don't think many people are picking up on.For a flick like this to flourish, you need a lot of entertaining things going on, and you also need to relate to and like (or really dislike) the person that everything is centered around. And with Chris, we get a monotone, narcissistic personality that seems to make a total of five facial expressions. He really reminded me of a that 'artsy' kid in high school who came off like he tried too hard. And that also makes me think that a lot of the 'real' moments with Chris solo was just him acting. He always felt like he was trying to keep a straight face. The more I think about it, the more I remember how staged some things felt. But whatever with that, Chris, just simply wasn't the right person for this movie. Carrot Top would've been a much better fit.Besides my drawbacks with Chris, the film did deliver a moderately entertaining 90 minutes. Chris is a solid film-maker, and it's obvious he tried hard to deliver something appealing. Sh!t, he was whipped butt-nekkid by a dominatrix. Very funny scene by the way. So overall this quirky albeit not totally likable film is falling into a love/hate relationship it seems, but it's no way as near as bad as some people are making it out to be.

ztoical There is no redeeming quality in this "film". Its a badly made film of a badly developed idea. Looking at the directors other films on IMDb it seems this is just a remake of his early fiction films. Talk about beating the same idea over and over. The whole film feels like a film school graduate who wasn't bad but at the same wasn't very good at film making and now is just a hipster wannabe screaming for attention.The director has none of the wit you get with other documentary makers and given his lack of film making skill you just get a badly filmed piece of rubbish. Only good thing I can say is I got the DVD from a friend so I at least didn't pay money for it.

aidanbennett Normally i don't comment on films on this site because people get to caught up in the semantics of the film and forget all about what the film is. Let me start by saying i hate documentaries normally, because they are intrusive and they people who make them are normally assholes who don't know how to just leave it alone. This film however is a great self analytical journey exploring, life relationships and sex, the filmmaker puts himself in a very vulnerable position. The structure of the film is so solid, he begins with nothing and the pace is very slow, so you become aware of everything he is doing, analysing everything he is doing and thats where it truly shines because the pace quickens and the comedy kicks in. Most of it i believe has not been staged, well the emotional moments at least and a little bit of info for all those who complain about the "staged" moments....every documentary has been staged to make it seem more interesting, he just so happens to make it fit rather nicely and i don't give it a 9 very lightly as it has restored my faith in documentary filmmakers.

transient-2 I'll say first that I empathize with this narrator and I found this film to be well worth the time. However, having seen far more personal and daring attempts at catharsis I was put off by the film's consistent, crass disingenuity. Within the first ten minutes, it becomes clear that the narrator's quest to pursue the "history of his failed relationships" is merely a narcissistic attempt to further reinforce the high opinion he holds for himself. This is a fantasy rock-star gratifying himself with a wink to the camera, evidenced more by the passive-aggressive and flippant attitude he displays toward the people who've touched him than by the headphones he costumes around his neck. At the beginning of the film we are introduced to a list of his ex-girlfriends, which we should note is average or above average in length for a man his age, a man who is not physically unattractive. He crassly reintroduces himself to each of the lovely women who've left him with obvious disregard for the people they've become, and we retain the impression that he's carried his camera crew with either bitterness or adolescent bravado to their door for a boast. We see him coaxing smiles from attractive young women on the roadside who giggle and coo for his attentions; we see his mother chide him for having ignored the amorous letters of the many women who've adored him, even as he suppresses a smile; we see him make a fool of "geeky" skateboarders, as if his own ostentatious display of guitars didn't evidence some puerile naivete. All this within the first ten minutes - and is all this to establish some wobbly foundation from which he'll fall, and in the throes of personal agony lay himself raw to some revelation? Perhaps, in the last ten minutes. The majority of the film speaks more to pathos than tragedy. The story unfolds as we loathe to expect: he returns to each of his ex-girlfriends to remind them of how he humiliated them the first time, and it will be a pleasure if he can do so again. He even goes through the motions of finding a new girlfriend (since by now we've established firmly that finding a new girlfriend has NEVER been the problem) just so he can vent even more hostility in systematically rejecting and dismissing them all. He just can't seem to find the committed, genuine anger or the beating he wants as a response - not from a counselor, whose words lack the pain and not from a dominatrix, whose pain is misspoken. By the time our hero takes his Viagra and we're equally convinced his problems have nothing to do with sex, just as our 'documentary' seems to devolve into a time-wasting farce, he narrows to his last, most meaningful interview. Hostility is funny but it can't replace an apology. Now the perennial question 'why did you dump me?' is marked by a more tender, anxious delivery. Even as our imagination pads the brevity of this conversation with some depth, one can't help but wonder to what extent, wiping her tears, this woman also felt used. Who couldn't love the way it ends.