[Image]
[Image]
[Image]
It's not a child movie , so that I only did a small clip .
You are right, the young actress only has little participation and only appears in the flashbacks, even in the sex scenes the camera passes very quickly, it does not let the viewer at least enjoy it, it is definitely not a movie for FLM.kev wrote:Hmmm..
Off-topic, but might be interesting...
kev.
Cool X-tra info on the film, thanks Night457. I actually had found a uloz link too, downloaded and watched it last night: I was just planning to skim it at first, then I got caught up in the movie and watched the entire thing. For a low-budget, poorly scripted, badly acted exploitation flick I actually found it entertaining.Night457 wrote:Are you necrobumping, kev? OK, I'll play!
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0153225/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
https://ulozto.net/file/zu85N7k5bK3b/to ... 5WnmV3AN==
...Audio Commentary version with critics Heather Drain and Kat Ellinger!:
https://www.film1k.com/toys-are-not-for ... -1972.html
Though I DO agree with you on it being 'Off-Topic', I'll have to disagree as to it being 'definitely not a movie for FLM'. (While an erotic drama [even fitting the 'Exploitation' genre] is is by no means a pornographic film.)Sully23 wrote:You are right, the young actress only has little participation and only appears in the flashbacks, even in the sex scenes the camera passes very quickly, it does not let the viewer at least enjoy it, it is definitely not a movie for FLM.kev wrote:Hmmm..
Off-topic, but might be interesting...
kev.
I smell that off screen I 'love' her too much, that is already very pedophile.kev wrote:As a child she had a VERY loving [non-sexual, but pretty damn close] relationship with her daddy-o.
A kind of stockholm syndrome, where you start to get attached to your abuser, it is known that you only have memories and in the end you realize all the damage.kev wrote:and caused her natural love for her father to morph into an incestuous one..
Holy crap...Sully23 wrote:I smell that off screen I 'love' her too much, that is already very pedophile.kev wrote:As a child she had a VERY loving [non-sexual, but pretty damn close] relationship with her daddy-o.
A kind of stockholm syndrome, where you start to get attached to your abuser, it is known that you only have memories and in the end you realize all the damage.kev wrote:and caused her natural love for her father to morph into an incestuous one..
Spoiler: |
Not understanding your reaction, but I'm beginning to think you have NOT seen this movie..Sully23 wrote:Holy crap
I did not expect that to be the central point, I am surprised she is the one who really has those fantasies and not her father, I do not know if I really have to think about this? ............. I hope someone else's opinion.
I will explain my reactions to you, surprised, crazy (in truth, there is a lack of more faces, that seemed appropriate) and from 'I can't believe it' 'it can't be' missing Kevin Mccallister scared.kev wrote:Not understanding your reaction, but I'm beginning to think you have NOT seen this movie..Sully23 wrote:Holy crap
I did not expect that to be the central point, I am surprised she is the one who really has those fantasies and not her father, I do not know if I really have to think about this? ............. I hope someone else's opinion.
Anyway it's in the 'Off-Topic' bin, so it will be forgotten soon enough...
(But, yeah; another opinion would be nice... )
kev.
((Paranoid?? Me? How does that fit into all this? Do you understand what the word 'Paranoid' means? It does not mean 'crazy', if that's what you might have thought...))