Disturbing
-
LaraOSF — 16 years ago(May 11, 2009 02:14 PM)
Wow, great example. "Quality nights" spent with many twenty-ish year old "girls" in Thailand.
Thailand is the playground for socially challenged and middle-age men to frolic with under age and trans-gender/she-male prostitutes who turn to such lives due to poverty.
Disturbing? Your comment is. -
okwong-e — 16 years ago(May 27, 2009 12:06 PM)
BLAME IT ON RIO, while we all know there have been cases like the plot in real life, unfortunately comes across as an icky misogynistic fantasy which, more offensively, isn't even a good enough movie to justify it eyebrow raising concept.
-
mcfly-31 — 16 years ago(May 28, 2009 02:54 AM)
If anything, this film totally tells an accurate acount of how certain nymphs can be easily swayed into thinking they're in "love". Drew Peterson, anyone? The guy has two dead wives (one he met when she was 19) and another in tow at 23 despite his track record!! Or these geeks who write letters to serial killers on death row. Some girls just lack common sense or dig on the father figure angle. IT HAPPENS!! Others are gold-diggers, while some are unstable morons. The girl in this film was your typical 17-18 year old girl who mistook a childhood crush (she mentions fantasizing about him when she was a little girl) and thinking it's truuuuuue love. Then note how quickly she gets over Caine and is galavanting off with another guy at the end of the film.
Sure, the writers were in fantasy mode (Gelbart and Peters were in their mid-40s and 50s themselves) and wrote from a beyond-middle-aged guy getting a divorce point of view. They even tried to make Caine somewhat reluctant to the whole situation, but finally reach a point of "a busty, horny 17-year-old is thrusting herself at meoh well" mindset. When in real life they probably wouldn't have thought twice and used the girl for all she was worth. -
-
estella2 — 16 years ago(February 04, 2010 10:57 AM)
i would agree that i found this movie a bit disturbing. very perverse. in someways, soft porn. the creepy thing is, i couldn't get myself to turn it off! the cinematography was beautiful. it made me want to go to rio. I will also say, that personally, i've had a crush on michael caine ever since i saw him in the muppet christmas carol when i was a little kid. don't ask me why! and he was 59! something about him. yikes! lol. i could accept the whole younger woman older man thing.but what grossed me out was when the dads looked at their daughters topless. there was something very incestuous about it that made me want to puke. i tried to shake it off, but it continued to disturb me. and i mean, it was really creepy how the daughter demi moore knew about it and was sleeping in the house while it happened! and the girl goes back to bed and asks her "do you hate me", (or "are you mad at me?" (can't remember exactly how she said it) and demi is just like "oh no it's alright." WHATT???? ur married dad is sleeping with your best friend in the room next door and you don't care?????? that is not believable. and if it was believable i'd be concerned for mankind. and the dad finds out and is just like "whatever." ummm how is that possible if he said a couple minutes before that he would kill the guy who slept with his daughter. ??
-
Charmed02 — 15 years ago(April 27, 2010 01:37 PM)
This is on the TV at the moment - I think this is a really fun film. Didn't Demi Moore's character mean she had a crush on the father of the other girl - she wasnt saying "me too" about her own father.
Michael Caine has been utterly gorgeous for years. I've fancied him from Alfie onwards. Shows how old I am now! -
sigold999 — 15 years ago(April 27, 2010 06:11 PM)
This is a film - nothing is taboo, I believe, in film-making. Having said that this is a very innocent comedy romp. Maybe your disgust is more within your own mind. These things happen and is fair game to the scriptwriter etc. What must you think of Lolita! Anyway each to is own and personally I really like the film.
-
mjz688 — 14 years ago(March 15, 2012 02:12 PM)
I think the point being missed by the naysayers (like the one above) is that BIOR treats a very problematic subject (a middle-aged man having sex with his best friend's under-aged daughter and his own daughter's best friend) as broad humor. That's what was disturbing about it in 1984, and was still disturbing when I watched it again the other night on cable. Lolita, for those who like to cite it without understanding it, was a drama in which the older man's life was ruined by his obsession with a teenage girl. A woman in her early 20's hooking up with an old guy fine. But 17? Such a relationship is fitting material for dramatizing on screen, but not as slapstick.
There are so many creepy moments in BIOR, many mentioned above (such as when the fathers leer at their topless daughters at the beach). One not cited was the scene where Balogna's daughter crawls into bed with him in the morning and snuggles with him. I mean, c'mon. I raised three girls, and once they were in their teens, that sort of behavior was not on the board. -
Howlin Wolf — 13 years ago(May 29, 2012 04:56 AM)
1984 wasn't as politically correct as we are now. It's not all that different to other films made in a ten year span from it's release ("10", "Woman in Red" ) It's saucy seaside postcard humour that was very "Carry on " in style, just with more bare flesh, and very few people complain about that series. It's really not like it was the first film to be bawdy about sex. We don't get a lot of movies like it these days, that's true, but there were quite a lot of them back then.
The fathers weren't actually leering; the audience might well have been, but don't impose a possible viewer reaction on the characters They are two separate things.
Some father and daughter relationships are tactile, and it's really only a problem if you already have inappropriate thoughts in your head.
Born when she kissed me, died when she left me, lived whilst she loved me -
ginda2000 — 13 years ago(November 25, 2012 02:47 AM)
The film is disturbing not due to the premise (which could be deemed digestable had it been done in a different way), but subtle other points which are added in along the way. For example she calls him 'Uncle Matthew' which has overtones of the creepy, he then makes references to his kissing her bottom when she was a baby and various things like that. I think had Matthew not seen Jennifer for many years and then she appeared and he didn't know who she was - it may have been a different scenario. However (for me) the film relies too much on the 'Uncle' aspect and references to their previous platonic relationship to feel comfortable. There is a clear difference to when a couple are attracted to each other (regardless of age) and see each other for who they are now, to an attraction which was born from a childs crush on her 'Uncle' and then this man making references to her as that child. It's icky and unsavoury.
What helps the film is the fact Michael Caine is playing the lead. Caine doesn't have anything sinister about him which ultimately helps make the film somewhat more acceptable. However - with that exact same script, had an actor like George Segal or even someone such as Gene Wilder or Alan Alda played the part it wouldn't have got this liberty at all. The irony is, Michael Caine is so miscast in the role that it distracts from the overall script and much of the dialogue they are saying.
Also, Michael Caine is famous for choosing films due to the locations (as he likes spending several months in warm weather), this would have been the only reason he took this job (as he did Jaws 4). I can promise you a lot of other actors were offered this part before him, simply because Caine would have been the last person you would have thought for that role. I'm guessing all those other actors turned it down due to the content! -
odd_duck06 — 12 years ago(May 09, 2013 12:34 AM)
I don't find this movie disturbing at all. That kind of thingolder man/younger woman relationshipshappen a lot. Yes, Jennifer was 17, but honestly, she's an adult. Maybe not legally, but she had a grown up body. Now, if she had had a body of a twelve year old and Matthew was still interested in her, that would be weird. But she was verywell developed. He was attracted to her because he viewed her as a woman, not as a child.
What I find weird was that Matthew loved Jennifer, romantically, that is. She didn't really seem like his type. She was very, very airheaded and childish in her behavior. I could see him being attracted to her, but love? No. That part is the only creepy part; why would he love someone with that has basically the mentality of a child? However, this still doesn't particularly weird me out because I am convinced he loved her with his dicknot just literally.
Also, I found Michael Caine extremely attractive in the movie. I truly believe women are more attracted to older men more for their intellect and maturity than their bodieskind of like Jennifer was attracted to Matthew in the movie "because he was a man and she didn't like boys."
Ever since I was a child, (think, 5 years old or younger) I have been attracted to men. Yes, full grown men, and I wanted to 'marry' aka 'get together' with them at that age, even though I didn't really understand what that meant. Justlike Jennifer did. Huh. So to the people who said that doesn't happenhaha, right.
Make her yours forever -
lazarillo — 12 years ago(October 13, 2013 08:25 AM)
I don't find THIS movie at all disturbing because I first saw it when I was a teenager myself. It's a remake of a French movie and the French made A LOT of movies like this at that time (check out the work of David Hamilton sometime).
We are WAY too PC these days, but I am not entirely disappointed that they don't make movies like this today (even in France too much). This is a common middle-age male fantasy, but it should definitely STAY a fantasy (even if there probably are SOME teenage girls interested in accommodating it). All heterosexual men become strongly attracted to teenage girls when they are teenagers and THAT never really goes away (even probably when you're 80), but the prospect of doing anything about it gets more and more ridiculous (and in some states illegal).
I don't feel the least bit bad about drooling over teenage girl in a MOVIE (especially with someone like Michelle Johnson who is older than I am). And, besides, most "teenage" girls in movies are usually much older in real-life. But that certainly doesn't translate to real life. Fantasy is fantasy; reality is something else entirely.