[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
literature

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 5198)
Message
File  []
close
ms.jpg
519851985198
>> No. 5198 Anonymous
20th May 2013
Monday 1:35 am
5198 spacer
So they were able to film this? I always thought 8-year-olds doing fisting was Hollywood material.
Expand all images.
>> No. 5199 Anonymous
20th May 2013
Monday 1:42 am
5199 spacer
I keep passing over this on Netflix. I take it it isn't worth it.
>> No. 5200 Anonymous
20th May 2013
Monday 1:49 am
5200 spacer
>>5199

I haven't got round to the film but I've just finished the book. The book was excellent actually.
>> No. 5201 Anonymous
20th May 2013
Monday 1:51 am
5201 spacer
>>5200

I just wonder how they'd skirt around some of the themes like one lad who got nonced really liked it.
>> No. 5202 Anonymous
20th May 2013
Monday 9:00 am
5202 spacer
>>5201

Why would they skirt round it? If there is noncing then the Mail etc will be up in arms anyway irrespective of how it's done.
>> No. 5203 Anonymous
20th May 2013
Monday 9:10 am
5203 spacer
>>5202

I think it was a little indie film that flew under their radar.

One lad was extremely traumatised by it and the one who liked it had a dead dad and an alcoholic mum and was looking for affection in the wrong places and idealised it.

Every sex scene in that book is extremely icky though. There was one where the gay guy is hustling and he has to massage this guy who's all covered in AIDS lesions then jerk off in front of him. The other guy has this fat and aging spinster throw herself at him and the details of that are nearly as off-putting.
>> No. 5224 Anonymous
1st June 2013
Saturday 3:04 am
5224 spacer
>>5203
I watched it a while ago and recall it being pretty grim

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password