When I first began watching this film, I was absolutely frustrated with Jane's thinking she should keep the money based
-
Uvtha — 12 years ago(August 16, 2013 09:05 PM)
I like/love a LOT of mediocre or bad films. Quality of the movie doesn't necessarily equate how much you enjoy it.
I do think the sex scene was gratuitous, didn't need to be a long or as graphic, but it didn't hurt the movie or anything. -
karasmi1 — 12 years ago(July 14, 2013 07:34 AM)
some people are turned off by that kind of portrayal of sex.
well, maybe folks with such delicate sensibilities shouldn't have this film suggested to them.
kind of ironic that an explicit sex scene would turn people "off" -
isurvivedscene118 — 12 years ago(July 20, 2013 10:54 AM)
I'm not sure if you live in the US, but I recently watched the film on Netflix and there is both genitalia and penetration shown. All the NC-17 talk is exactly that, not PR.
It was gratuitous and even discomforting to an extent.
Especially
if you're watching the movie with another person. The scene was everything you'd see in porn, minus the "money shot". -
ElectricKoolaidAcid — 12 years ago(July 21, 2013 11:25 AM)
I do believe it was cut down for NX streaming; there was barely even a "scene" to talk about, as it only lasted maybe half a minute. I don't recall seeing any genitalia, either. I just wish they had developed Jane's character more; by all accounts she really was your typical SFV scantily clad bimbo, with no personality to speak of.
Just sayin' -
skay_baltimore — 12 years ago(July 21, 2013 11:43 AM)
I watched it on Netflix and there was brief some genitalia. Nothing major, IMO.
As far as character development goes, I thought they developed her character in an interesting, somewhat non-linear fashion. I don't think she's a rocket scientist, and I think she's probably typical of a lot of the folks in the porn industry, but by the same token, she did seem to have a good heart, and did not appear to be as messed up as Melissa.
"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss) -
skay_baltimore — 12 years ago(July 21, 2013 09:00 AM)
I don't think it was gratuitous at all. I think it served notice of the hard edged lifestyle she was living, despite here "girl next door" look. That scene drove that point home quite well, IMO. That's who she was, and that's what she did; so no, it's not gratuitous at all. It wasn't like she worked in a diner and they tossed in some irrelevant scene just to show some skin.
"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss) -
lukejbarnett2002 — 9 years ago(April 25, 2016 07:51 PM)
exactly and also the fact that it's so unrealistically shown and is so blocked and done in such an obvious blocking way, blocking the nudity and blocking things to hide the fact that it's not real sex and they did that in the most unrealistic and fake way. I mean there are soft core porn movie sex scenes that are more realistic and believable than that scene. in fact I've never seen a movie sex scene that is as unrealistic, choreographed and acted out looking, and obviously fake as this one. and the fact that the main character actress would refuse to show any nudity at all in that scene also takes you completely out of the scene as does the fact that it's so poorly and unrealistically staged.
-
snagswolf — 9 years ago(August 24, 2016 12:29 PM)
You must've seen a different version, because the one I'm watching on DVD isn't fake or 'blocked' at all. Full penetration, penis in vagina. Clear as day on the screen. And there's also some side shots of him doing her doggy style and you can clearly see he's penetrating her.
Not that I mind. -
lukejbarnett2002 — 9 years ago(August 27, 2016 07:23 PM)
and there you go. exactly my problem with it other than the fact that it's so fakely staged and so manufactured looking and choreographed. nothing worse than a body double nudity scene, it's even worse than having no nudity.
-
lukn4frnz — 12 years ago(July 23, 2013 03:36 PM)
Same here.
Enjoyed this movie immensely, might turn out to be my favorite movie of 2013.
But the explicit sex scenes just didn't seem to fit into the movie
I liked that the movie was 'real' in that characters' bad sides were shown, but it didn't need to go into the detail it did during the porn filming scene.
Makes me think it's not easily accesible by teens, and it's such a great movie I think it should be seen by anyone.
Jane decided early on to fess up to the old lady about the money, but old lady wasn't open to talking to her about it. I don't see what you were so frustrated about in that regard. -
zachbraffrocks-1 — 12 years ago(August 13, 2013 11:25 PM)
NR is literally "Not Rated." It's not NC-17. They probably didn't submit it to the corrupt rating system. I'm sorry you had a problem with gratuitous nudity. If you've ever had sex, you've seen more than this movie showed. Common sense dictates that not all movies are for children. Adults should be able to handle adult scenes.
-
Butterfly041532 — 12 years ago(August 23, 2013 11:38 AM)
No one said anything about this not being a family friendly movie and just because someone doesn't want to watch a porn scene woven in to a movie doesn't mean they can't handle adult content. The point is the sex scene was needlessly extensive. We got the point that she was doing a porn movie way before we were shown him going down on her. Like another poster said in another post, they could have cut it when they were laying on the bed and then shown the guy walking down the hall. Was the rest really needed for anything other than shock value? No. When I want to watch a porn then I'll watch a porn, but when I want to watch a movie then let me just watch a movie.
Who Cares.
