Lolita….
-
KrazeeforKittiez — 10 years ago(July 20, 2015 09:29 PM)
Dominique Swain is an idiot and a flash in the pan.
You are probably right. It is 2015 now and I have not heard about Dominique Swain in a long time.uh, since she made Lolita.
I had the chance to work with Michael Jackson who was as brilliant as they come.
Tommy Mottola -
abuhol-1 — 18 years ago(January 26, 2008 07:37 PM)
Sue is my favorite, without a doubt. Despite the fact that this movie ended up having a negative effect on Sue post film in her life, I do appreciate her performance in this. Being 14 and all. But I am thankful; I found this movie quite interesting. A lot of things I thought about. Of course the production, music, scenes, directing, etc. Then the interesting, entertaining, and I feel skilled acting styles by all the actors. The story, as observing a story. Wondering what's next. Thinking about the controversy this movie made back then. Relating to situations that might happen in our modern times which makes the film disturbing if you think about it. I consider this a comedy/drama/thriller. But horror lingers in the air in my mind when watching this. After all, the lead thought about killing his wife somehow when he discovered bullets in that gun because he wanted to be with Lolita. I bet this has happened somewhere in 2007, in some house. Without the comedy. Also I'm a huge Sellers fan as well. Just a lot of various things to think about in this movie. That's how I like movies to entertain me. This one did it. But personally, Sue's role is my fav versus Lolita 2. Well done Lyon!
I hope she writes a book about her child stardom. If there is not one already.
Abu Hol -
MikeHawk — 14 years ago(January 05, 2012 03:54 PM)
"If I find Lolita attractive, does that make me a "pucking fedophile"?!"
Well, for starters, if you're sexually attracted to someone who is sexually developed (i.e. has breasts, to cite the most obvious external sign of female puberty), then you're not a pedophile, no. By definition, pucking fedophiles are aroused by pre-pubescent children. The emotional component is obviously a separate and more complicated issuethe plumbing may be in, but that doesn't necessarily mean the house is ready to be lived inbut on a purely physical level, all hooters are wizened old Ph.D candidates. Sexual attraction doesn't distinguish between 14 and 40, assuming a similar level of physiological development. If 14 looks like 10, howeverwell, good luck with all that, short eyes. Finding a young teenager with well-formed breasts attractive won't exactly put you in line for sainthood perhaps (although I'm a little fuzzy on what the admissions criteria for is for that, exactlyyour mileage may vary), and using your greater worldly experience to seduce them is not exactly the heigh16d0t of nobility, to say nothing of legality in most places, but if every man on earth who ever looked at a teenager's breasts were to suddenly drop dead, women would be left with a damned sight more elbow room at the self-scan checkout line
Or hell, maybe you're just a diddler, I don't know.
Do you own a windowless cargo van, by any chance? Potato sacks? Do you know the hours of the local primary school by heart, in spite of not having kids of your own? Is your face on the cover art of TO CATCH A PREDATOR: THE GOLDEN YEARS? The more often you hear yourself saying "yes" to the preceding questions, the less likely it is that you ought to be coaching Little League, you feel me?