What was the last movie you've seen?

[Forlorn Drifter]

I don't think it was a Frankenstein reference due to the context and everything. It seemed like a sign for the character to do something different than he was, so that is why I thought it might be a biblical reference. It was also the only source of light at the time, excluding the character's flashlight.

It just seemed that Alvarez put in a lot more religious references in his version. I've heard a friend I know argue that Alvarez's version is actually supposed to suggest that people who don't follow traditional values will be punished, although I don't really get that out of it.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I don't think it was a Frankenstein reference due to the context and everything. It seemed like a sign for the character to do something different than he was...

To me, it sounds more like a reference to Robert Redford's adaptation of The Natural...

[Luke]

I don't think it was a Frankenstein reference due to the context and everything. It seemed like a sign for the character to do something different than he was...

To me, it sounds more like a reference to Robert Redford's adaptation of The Natural...

The lightning striking the tree was actually a nod to Jerry Bruckheimer.

[Luke]

I have not seen the almost three hour movie NYMPHOMANIAC and I won't judge the film until seeing it, but the trailer made me angry. The movie maybe nothing like the trailer, but here are a few major issues I have with the basic premise of the film, spoilered for language:

Here are a few things I don't want to see in a theatrical release: An actress sucking cock, an actor eating pussy, an actress spitting semen out of her mouth, long sex scenes for shock factor.

I still hate the bj scene in BROWN BUNNY. Hold on, hate isn't a strong enough word. I abhor that scene. It's pointless and is only there so the director could get an actress to suck his dick and blow his load in her mouth. Disgusting.

If the dozens of sex scenes serve a purpose in NYMPHOMANIAC, fine, but I doubt they will. Time will tell. But as Hitchcock said, what happens off screen is more shocking than what is onscreen.

So far it seems like the movie only exists for shock value or to break some barrier that doesn't need to be broken. But, this is coming from a man who doesn't like sex scenes in movies in the first place. Rarely do they ever serve a purpose. A teen skinny dipping at Crystal Lake? Sure. Great! A quick glance of a set of boobs for the guys in the audience. Full out sex scenes? Gross. If I wanted to watch porn, I would have watched porn.

That said people who want to watch porn will probably get what they want from NYMPHOMANIAC. But from the long drawn out trailers and scenes I've watched, this movie looks like empty filth.

[Jmustang1968]

Ehh I mostly disagree with you Luke. Seems like more of the overly conservative US mindset on sex. If done well and if it fits in with the theme of the movie, be it depravity or sensuality, then I think it can enhance the impact. If done just for the sake of come see this movie so you can see popular actress' boobs then meh.

[fastbilly1]

Gravity followed by All is Lost. So Sandra Bullock panting alot, followed by Robert Redford panting alot...

Gravity would have been a better movie if done completely from first person or completely from third person - the mix of the two was jarring. Well that and the technical inaccuracies. All is Lost was a better film in all regards, but they both have very similar vibes in that they are lost at sea movies.

[Luke]

Ehh I mostly disagree with you Luke. Seems like more of the overly conservative US mindset on sex. If done well and if it fits in with the theme of the movie, be it depravity or sensuality, then I think it can enhance the impact. If done just for the sake of come see this movie so you can see popular actress' boobs then meh.

I'll admit I'm a bit weird with this subject as I think porn stars should go all out, but people who claim to be professional actors and have actual, not simulated, sex on camera are whores. I don't think sex is degrading, but the way it is handled in movies usually is. Porn and movies are two totally separate things in my eyes.

Yes, an actor's job is to do what is told, but everyone should be able to draw the line at "hey you, go have sex with this person you've never met". Not sure how to put it into other words other than "it makes me sad". There is no art to sex in movies, making it pointless in my eyes. Sex sells, but you don't have to have graphic sex to sell. Maxim has proven that side-boob sells better than depictions of penetration.

I guess what it boils down to for me is that it isn't about moral standards, but about a feeling of self worth. Like the guys on Jackass, there is a complete lack of self respect that makes my stomach turn. "Sure I'll swallow a load to be in your movie" isn't something that up and coming actors should be saying.

And even though I know a bit about the movie industry business, I'm still naive on what goes on behind closed doors. I'd rather stay naive and think that not every actress and actor is whoring out themselves for their fifteen minutes.

[AppleQueso]

gratuitous gore is a-ok, gratuitous sex is horrid filth

[Ack]

Ehh I mostly disagree with you Luke. Seems like more of the overly conservative US mindset on sex. If done well and if it fits in with the theme of the movie, be it depravity or sensuality, then I think it can enhance the impact. If done just for the sake of come see this movie so you can see popular actress' boobs then meh.

I'll admit I'm a bit weird with this subject as I think porn stars should go all out, but people who claim to be professional actors and have actual, not simulated, sex on camera are whores. I don't think sex is degrading, but the way it is handled in movies usually is. Porn and movies are two totally separate things in my eyes.

Yes, an actor's job is to do what is told, but everyone should be able to draw the line at "hey you, go have sex with this person you've never met". Not sure how to put it into other words other than "it makes me sad". There is no art to sex in movies, making it pointless in my eyes. Sex sells, but you don't have to have graphic sex to sell. Maxim has proven that side-boob sells better than depictions of penetration.

I guess what it boils down to for me is that it isn't about moral standards, but about a feeling of self worth. Like the guys on Jackass, there is a complete lack of self respect that makes my stomach turn. "Sure I'll swallow a load to be in your movie" isn't something that up and coming actors should be saying.

And even though I know a bit about the movie industry business, I'm still naive on what goes on behind closed doors. I'd rather stay naive and think that not every actress and actor is whoring out themselves for their fifteen minutes.

No, this particular film is already notorious for this, though Blue is the Warmest Color apparently has unsimulated sex scenes as well.

That said, I think the point of this is to show such sexual acts as degrading filth intentionally. I mean, isn't the film about how this woman's nymphomania is ultimately destroying her life? It's supposed to be sick and disturbing to convey that this woman is diseased, it's just a different kind of body horror coming from gratuitous sexuality.

[AppleQueso]

That said, I think the point of this is to show such sexual acts as degrading filth intentionally. I mean, isn't the film about how this woman's nymphomania is ultimately destroying her life? It's supposed to be sick and disturbing to convey that this woman is diseased, it's just a different kind of body horror coming from gratuitous sexuality.

Heh, if this is the case, then I don't care for the premise either.

I don't think enjoying sex should be portrayed as "degrading" or "sick." Unless we're talking rape or something.