Anyone see this movie?
Posted on 06/21/2004 8:16:46 AM PDT by Paul Atreides
Re lucky kid comments: Yeah, but 10-year old characters are often played by 14 or 15 year-old actors. The symbolism might be screwed up for the viewer, but it wouldn't be so bad for the actor on the set. "No pre-pubescents were molested for the film." Like dolphin-free tuna, so to speak.
Oh grose! Where are the boy's parents in all this?
Not this time, though ... Cameron Bright was born in '93, which makes him 10.
At the bank cashing the check from the film studio is where they are.
Publicity "nightmare" my buttocks...this will be a nightmare just like all the controversey for Passion was a "nightmare."
This nightmare will go all the way to the bank...
Yeah, it was a jole. But there is a lesson here, too. It's awfully easy to project myself onto this 10-yo kid. That's the real danger of the "it's art" crowd, BTW. They forget what damage their "art" or their own sexual desires can cause to kids.
So much for a good idea ... teenage girls are often played by actresses in their 20's, too, but it doesn't work if the girls are supposed to be pre-adolescent.
I have four young sons, and, especially in view of Carlo3b's comments, I think this whole thing is absolutely gross. It's tempting just to say that anyone who even dramatizes "adult-child sex," even if it's an animation, just ought to be removed from the environment of normal people by any means necessary. The people who think of it are perverts, and the people who want to watch it are perverts, and they shouldn't be anywhere around children.
Geez, this is sick.
relevant article
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157364/posts
Well then, its not dolphin-free, to use my metaphor. I don't disagree on the symbolism, and now you've told me the actor is too young. Nicole's got great stuff, but she has made a career of flaunting it. I guess this one splashes over the top.
Well, then, that's a weak plot. And it isn't even original. Cybil Shephard and Robert Downey, Jr. did that years ago ... except that he was supposed to be college-aged.
To clarify my earlier remark: was this in the context of a woman going crazy, seeing her dead husband in the young boy, and were there consequences for this behavior? Apparently, this is not the case, and I couldn't find this acceptable in a film. (And even in context, an explicit, extremely passionate kiss would be over the line. An implied kiss might not be automatically.)
TS
Hollywood...pure, unadulterated TRASH!
"Also, if this film gets to protect itself behind the banner of being "art," what is to prevent the manufacturers/performers of child porn from doing the same?"
Or the makers of beastiality films as "art". There is such thing as common sense and the liberal left lacks any and panders to no boundaries in the name of freedom of speech. They twist, warp and degrade it till it's garbage.
Which I am certain is their intent all along.
"This little boy's parents should be thrown in jail"
I totally agree, it's not as if a child has the knowledge or maturity to understand or comprehend what he/she is getting set up for in the form of such a movie scene as this. These kids are being used as tools by all the adults involved.
Where are the boy's PIMPS (parents) in all this?
At the bank cashing the check from the film studio is where they are along with the rest of the pimpin parents selling their kids souls for a materialistic world.
Looks like Tom Cruise might not have been the bad guy.
Anyone see this movie?
You're right. And let's not forget "Lolita".
Summer of '42
Yes I saw it and the male lead college aged actor was of legal - consenting adult appropriate age NOT a ten year old grammar school aged boy!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.