Robert Cooper41 said:I’ll admit, I was skeptical at first: a theater director, plus the first "real" actress to perform a blowjob on screen...
Exactly: "as." 😉
If I hadn't been sitting in the back row, and if I didn't have to practically stand up an entire row of people just so my tiny self could slip out of the theater, I would’ve walked out after fifteen minutes.
A wasted Saturday.
analogmaker7 said:Sex as a tool to patch up the emotional voids of incapable 21st-century individuals. People who lack the capacity to feel a single genuine emotion. A depiction of modern society's intimacy.
A depiction of intimacy without—if you don't tear apart those pseudo-profound, rambling sentences and refrain from laughing at how much taxi drivers can actually penetrate the secrets of the human spirit—you'll realize what these ultra-boring freaks are aimlessly droning on about for nearly two hours.
I don't get it. After it was "discovered" that you can show raw fellatio, thick semen, and penetration across the whole screen in "prestige films," everyone went crazy trying to lure audiences in with these cheap tropes, even though everything between the two sexual encounters isn't even half as important.
And then the lustful sycophants sit there and hand these geniuses prestigious awards.
After the "clash," I promised myself I wouldn't watch anything that doesn't earn over $50 million on its opening day. But, damn it, I couldn't help myself... 😉