ksaelagnulraon
Iscritto in data dic 2001
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
I nostri aggiornamenti sono ancora in fase di sviluppo. Sebbene la versione precedente del profilo non sia più accessibile, stiamo lavorando attivamente ai miglioramenti e alcune delle funzionalità mancanti torneranno presto! Non perderti il loro ritorno. Nel frattempo, l’analisi delle valutazioni è ancora disponibile sulle nostre app iOS e Android, che si trovano nella pagina del profilo. Per visualizzare la tua distribuzione delle valutazioni per anno e genere, fai riferimento alla nostra nuova Guida di aiuto.
Distintivi4
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Recensioni54
Valutazione di ksaelagnulraon
Typical, US-inspired cheapie, with US unknown Hamlin in lead role, has next to no plot and even less credibility. Okay, it was never supposed to win an Academy Award, but the least Lahiff could have done was tie the thing off correctly! Waste of the combined talents of Holden, Waters & Co.
I've got a number of observations to make, in no particular order:
1. I would hardly have thought of seeing this film if not for the (rather raucous) efforts of those seeking to ban it. I can't see why any film should be banned (assuming it's not snuff, real-life rape, etc...) so I was pretty intrigued. I don't like it when people have opinions about things they don't know anything about. Therefore, to have an opinion, I had to see the film and see what all the fuss was about.
2. 48 of the 50 people in the cinema - including myself - were male. I counted. That's 98%. A vast majority was by himself, and middle-aged. I reckon there are certain, distinct types of people who will see a film like this: (a) those in for a good old fashioned perv; (b) those in for a good old-fashioned perv under the pretext that they're there for academic reasons - this is probably me; (c) those who believe the film should be banned and want to see the film so that people take their opinions seriously; (d) people without like controversy; (e) women who go with their husbands; (f) extreme female liberationists; (g) people who have to see it because it's their job; (h) people who absolutely don't want to see it for moral reasons but cave in under peer pressure. I've probably missed a few out but that's the general demographic.
3. Behind all the vivid sex and violence was a distinct women's lib sentiment: the film is based on a book written by the director, who is female, and who wanted to make a statement along the lines of "this film is mainly for women, but just you watch, lots of men will try to get it banned because of their hangups." True to an extent, but certainly the audience, now that the media has jumped on the bandwagon, is going to be predominantly male. As soon as people hear that there is real life sex in a film, men will come in droves and not particularly care about any hidden message, whereas the women, who the film is aimed at, won't even bother most of the time. For this reason, the director has failed in her attempt to make a film just for women.
4. Without doubt, this film - and probably the book which preceeded it - is controversial for the sake of being controversial. No-one would attempt to include closeup scenes of penetration in today's society without wanting to offend, or at least be intentionally unconventional. Trouble is, the vast majority of films/books/plays/etc which are designed simply to churn up controversy (despite the director's so-called real intentions) are critical and, to an extent, commercial failures. If the film could have somehow incorporated the graphic scenes into the context of a plausible story - and let's face it, it simply can't be done, not when the scenes are of such a graphic nature - then it may have been almost acceptable. Let's not forget that a sex scene even fifty years ago - that's maybe a generation and a half - was defined as having two people on a bed without feet on the floor.
5. If this had been classified as porn, and I had been viewing it with mates on a home VCR, the non-sex bits would have probably been fast-forwarded and the graphic penetration scenes paused (or at least slo-mo'd). It's amazing how different it is when you're in a theatre with a bunch of other people you don't know, many of them much older than yourself, a couple of them middle-aged women. I'm not sure if I was actually offended myself, or embarrassed for the others.
6. Maybe it was a bit of both. I can't actually work out how it passed the OFLC - it had (or had) very strict rules about violence and sex scenes. Basically, if the sex scenes were simulated, then they were ok; if it was the real thing, then the scenes had to be omitted for release. Any sexual violence was not to be tolerated except in very discreet ways which were essential to the story.
7. Remember the thin, largely subjective line between soft-core porn and mainstream hollywood film? It's been shattered. This isn't even Non-Violent Erotica, which I think is banned in South Australia. It's Violent Erotica, which I thought was banned in Australia full-stop.
8. Having said that, it's still good the film wasn't banned. I think it's important that people see things like this, and make up their own minds as to whether it is acceptable or not. The people who bring up crazy arguments like, "well, if it even makes one person out of 1000 go out and commit rape, then it should be banned." I think if you followed that argument through, then we'd still be sitting around watching movies like THE SOUND OF MUSIC, which was a good movie, but there's only so much of it you can take. Then again, does it have to be this violent? I think I'll have to think about whether i'm a democrat, or part-socialist, or just confused. I agree with some governmental intervention, but not to the extent of banning films, unless they contain snuff scenes, or scenes of real-life torture &c for exploitation purposes. Documentaries, however, might be a different thing altogether...
9. All in all, the film was essentially crap. Between the essentially needless violence and sex, there wasn't actually much plot, and it didn't differ too much from your average porno except that it contained violence, which I hadn't actually seen before in a porno film.
10. Is this going to be the future of filmmaking? Probably not immediately. I don't think it's an all too successful experiment, and i think, like most passing crazes, it will be a passing craze. In 50 to 100 years, however, who can say?
1. I would hardly have thought of seeing this film if not for the (rather raucous) efforts of those seeking to ban it. I can't see why any film should be banned (assuming it's not snuff, real-life rape, etc...) so I was pretty intrigued. I don't like it when people have opinions about things they don't know anything about. Therefore, to have an opinion, I had to see the film and see what all the fuss was about.
2. 48 of the 50 people in the cinema - including myself - were male. I counted. That's 98%. A vast majority was by himself, and middle-aged. I reckon there are certain, distinct types of people who will see a film like this: (a) those in for a good old fashioned perv; (b) those in for a good old-fashioned perv under the pretext that they're there for academic reasons - this is probably me; (c) those who believe the film should be banned and want to see the film so that people take their opinions seriously; (d) people without like controversy; (e) women who go with their husbands; (f) extreme female liberationists; (g) people who have to see it because it's their job; (h) people who absolutely don't want to see it for moral reasons but cave in under peer pressure. I've probably missed a few out but that's the general demographic.
3. Behind all the vivid sex and violence was a distinct women's lib sentiment: the film is based on a book written by the director, who is female, and who wanted to make a statement along the lines of "this film is mainly for women, but just you watch, lots of men will try to get it banned because of their hangups." True to an extent, but certainly the audience, now that the media has jumped on the bandwagon, is going to be predominantly male. As soon as people hear that there is real life sex in a film, men will come in droves and not particularly care about any hidden message, whereas the women, who the film is aimed at, won't even bother most of the time. For this reason, the director has failed in her attempt to make a film just for women.
4. Without doubt, this film - and probably the book which preceeded it - is controversial for the sake of being controversial. No-one would attempt to include closeup scenes of penetration in today's society without wanting to offend, or at least be intentionally unconventional. Trouble is, the vast majority of films/books/plays/etc which are designed simply to churn up controversy (despite the director's so-called real intentions) are critical and, to an extent, commercial failures. If the film could have somehow incorporated the graphic scenes into the context of a plausible story - and let's face it, it simply can't be done, not when the scenes are of such a graphic nature - then it may have been almost acceptable. Let's not forget that a sex scene even fifty years ago - that's maybe a generation and a half - was defined as having two people on a bed without feet on the floor.
5. If this had been classified as porn, and I had been viewing it with mates on a home VCR, the non-sex bits would have probably been fast-forwarded and the graphic penetration scenes paused (or at least slo-mo'd). It's amazing how different it is when you're in a theatre with a bunch of other people you don't know, many of them much older than yourself, a couple of them middle-aged women. I'm not sure if I was actually offended myself, or embarrassed for the others.
6. Maybe it was a bit of both. I can't actually work out how it passed the OFLC - it had (or had) very strict rules about violence and sex scenes. Basically, if the sex scenes were simulated, then they were ok; if it was the real thing, then the scenes had to be omitted for release. Any sexual violence was not to be tolerated except in very discreet ways which were essential to the story.
7. Remember the thin, largely subjective line between soft-core porn and mainstream hollywood film? It's been shattered. This isn't even Non-Violent Erotica, which I think is banned in South Australia. It's Violent Erotica, which I thought was banned in Australia full-stop.
8. Having said that, it's still good the film wasn't banned. I think it's important that people see things like this, and make up their own minds as to whether it is acceptable or not. The people who bring up crazy arguments like, "well, if it even makes one person out of 1000 go out and commit rape, then it should be banned." I think if you followed that argument through, then we'd still be sitting around watching movies like THE SOUND OF MUSIC, which was a good movie, but there's only so much of it you can take. Then again, does it have to be this violent? I think I'll have to think about whether i'm a democrat, or part-socialist, or just confused. I agree with some governmental intervention, but not to the extent of banning films, unless they contain snuff scenes, or scenes of real-life torture &c for exploitation purposes. Documentaries, however, might be a different thing altogether...
9. All in all, the film was essentially crap. Between the essentially needless violence and sex, there wasn't actually much plot, and it didn't differ too much from your average porno except that it contained violence, which I hadn't actually seen before in a porno film.
10. Is this going to be the future of filmmaking? Probably not immediately. I don't think it's an all too successful experiment, and i think, like most passing crazes, it will be a passing craze. In 50 to 100 years, however, who can say?
I was actually fortunate enough to see both miniseries back-to-back - I'd hired them from the local library at the same time. They were shot simultaneously (same actors, same sets, etc...) and released in the same year (1987) - which is one way to keep costs down, and the main barrier to making miniseries seems to be the cost factor. POOR MAN'S ORANGE, adapted from Ruth Park's sequel to THE HARP IN THE SOUTH, is an extension of the trials and tribulations of the Darcy family, to whom we were introduced in the first miniseries. Like THE HARP IN THE SOUTH, it's nothing overly special, but the characters are loveable, in their own unique ways, and this certainly won't disappoint the masses. 7/10.