Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Boardwalk Empire (2010)
This is a fantastic series; its the kind of outstanding, must-see programming that drives new subscribers to HBO. The series has superb production values and masterful direction by Scorsese. The acting is first-rate all around, especially the portrayal of Rothstein.
Nucky's girlfriend (played by Paz de la Heurta) spices the show up with wonderful flashes of her beautiful nude body. The dressing room scene in episode #3 where she strips naked is magnificent to behold! The lady is a work of art...
There is also a subtle complexity to the character of Nucky. He is not just a "bad" villain; a simple,one-dimensional caricature. Instead, he shows loving emotions, such as his desire to have children and his attraction to the good-hearted, honest immigrant girl. (who on the surface appears to be his antithesis) He doesn't just commit crimes or violence for enjoyment of evil, but its often part of a Machiavellian purpose.He doesn't just take from the community, but he gives back as well. Perhaps he is the benevolent dictator or Philosopher King that Plato imagined. In many cases he redistributes wealth to those who need it most. Even if he is primarily doing it to serve his own interests, he is providing a critical function and service to the community and time in which he lives.
The series also makes stinging criticisms of how the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and how powerful political and economic interests often manipulate naive, well-intentioned fools. Even today, soft drugs like marijuana are illegal, while far more addictive and socially harmful products (such as tobacco and alcohol) are legal. Marijuanna has been kept illegal because the powerful alcohol and tobacco lobby groups don't want competition to cut into their profits. But dumb people still believe the politicians who outlaw soft drugs like this are doing it to "protect" society.
In any case, this series is highly entertaining and will help people to understand the futility of prohibition policies and start to think about the real political and economic interests that are operating behind the scenes. The show is fun and addictive. (hopefully the government won't outlaw it) Watch it; you'll be glad you did.
Piranha 3D (2010)
Went for the 3D nudity, stayed for the fun!
I only went to this movie because of the great underwater nude ballet scene in 3D that everyone was talking about. There has been WAY too much male nudity in movies over the last 2 years and virtually no really good female nudity. So it was about time to show my support for a film that has some good female skin for a change.
The nude scene did not disappoint! Nothing like two beautiful naked woman showing it all underwater. There was even a brief flash of the pink taco. My only complaint is that they didn't show enough female genitalia. It bothers me that several Hollywood movies have showed full male genitalia, including clear close-ups of the penis and testicles, but we never get to see a clear shot of the vulva. We usually only get non-genital nudity of women (breasts and butt) in mainstream movies. Even this film (that sold millions of dollars worth of extra tickets due to the gratuitous female nudity) didn't show a clear shot of female genitalia (the labia/clitoris, or anus) Why can movies like Bruno show a semi-erect penis close-up for 10 seconds swinging around and even show the dick-hole, but we never get that type of graphic, close-up female genital nudity in a mainstream movie? In any case, I went to the film because I wanted to see that beautiful, underwater ballet scene. The thought of it in 3D was enough to get me to shell out my $12. (Sure, I could have stayed at home and watched a soft-core porno instead, but that isn't on a 40-foot screen and in glorious 3D!)The FEMALE nudity was great! We definitely need more of that. It might not be "politically correct" and the feminist crybabies might whine about it, but it sells tickets.
However, I was also pleasantly surprised at how fun the movie was! It was supposed to be a bit of a spoof on the old 70's/80's horror films. The type that had over-the-top gore, lots of gratuitous female nudity, and non-stop action. It succeeded. Its not meant to be a deep, intellectually challenging masterpiece.....just a fun time. Lots of thrills, chills, blood-spatter, and naked girls. (with a few laughs thrown in) What more can you ask for?
Grande école (2004)
Exploitative Gay Cheesecake
This film was nothing more than exploitative gay cheesecake. It was not an "art" movie; just an excuse to show several gratuitous, exploitative, over-the-top scenes with extensive male genital nudity. There was a locker room scene involving over a dozen naked men. The camera zooms in on the men's asses and penises as they are portrayed for several minutes with their dicks in full screen view. There are several scenes in this film showing penis after penis. It gets redundant REAL fast and makes it impossible to take this film seriously. I was wondering if I was watching a Playgirl video by mistake. If these same scenes were filmed using women (ex: totally naked and showing their vaginas repeatedly) it would be quickly dismissed as just softcore porn and an excuse to show a lot of eye candy...which is all that this film is. Any artistic merit got flushed down the drain of the gay ghetto mentality. The themes of class distinction, homosexuality, longing-desire, etc. were simple and superficial; no more developed than what one would expect from a first year philosophy student. Just cut to the chase and rent a gay porn instead.
Coco Chanel (2008)
Good, but should have toned-down the feminist dogma
I liked this television series overall, especially the fine period costumes, romance, and interesting storyline, but they really should have toned-down the feminism. I know this series was made for a women's television network and therefore I guess the producers felt obligated to include "politically correct" messages of female empowerment, but some of it bordered on misandry and all of it was disingenuine. Especially as Coco got older, the older version seemed to be a ungrateful man-hater who forgot that it was men who helped her throughout her life and made possible most of her success. Perhaps though, this was the bitterness of a woman scorned and left with a broken heart.
Nonetheless, it was men who rescued Coco several times throughout the story when she was nearly destitute. First, it was Etienne, later it was Boy, and finally it was Marc. Coco initially had no business-sense or financial resources; without Boy's help she would have been thrown into a debtor's prison or starved to death on the street. There certainly would have been no hat shop. But instead, on the verge of bankruptcy, it was men who always came to her aid. Thus, it is somewhat offensive when later she seems to think that she was soley responsible for her success and arrogantly mouths feminist comments. Even her line that "Women don't dress for men" is false. In truth, most women do in fact dress to impress men and capture their attention. If it wasn't for Coco's beauty and attractiveness, she wouldn't have captured the hearts of so many powerful men and benefited from their favors. Instead of living in a mansion and enjoying the finest that life had to offer, she would have been scraping by in a slum somewhere. They taught her how to ride a horse, how to drive a car, inspired her to find her own passion in life, funded her business ambitions, and helped her at every turn. So although the story was interesting and showed her rise, I think they could have done it without the male-bashing comments and been more truthful in acknowledging the profound importance that men played in her life and helping to nurture her success.
I did enjoy the romantic themes, the costumes, and the beautiful settings. These type of romantic, period-piece settings whisk the viewer away to a forgotten time. They are needed and its unfortunate that we don't see many of them on TV anymore. The long love affair with Boy and the self-denial of true happiness made for a compelling theme. Barbora Bobulova is beautiful and a good actress, and I think she deserved more recognition than she got. Overall, the series was an enjoyable and heart-wrenching story. Worth watching.
Emmanuelle 6 (1988)
First film to show a vagina and still get an R-rating from the MPAA!
This movie is NOT a hardcore film, therefore one shouldn't expect to see any explicit sex. It is a beautiful softcore movie. It's plot line is disjointed but it serves its purpose....to show lovely women in the nude. There are several scenes featuring gorgeous ladies in the buff, including every square-inch of the spectacular Natalie Uher. In fact, this film is GROUND-BREAKING as the first movie to clearly show a woman's vagina and still receive an R-rating by the MPAA. Usually the MPAA gives full female genitalia (the labia and clitoris) an NC-17 rating. The MPAA typically employs an unfair and discriminatory double-standard where they will allow penises to be shown in R-rated films but not vaginas. This film breaks that double-standard and sets a new precedent by clearly showing the lead actresses' vulva as she sunbathes. So if you are watching this film to see lots of good female nudity then you will enjoy it. If you are expecting Gone With The Wind or Deep Throat then you will be disappointed. 5/5
Body Language (2008)
Good Softcore Series
This is a pretty good softcore series that can be enjoyed by singles or couples. The episodes all revolve around a strip club, called "Body Language", and its dancers and patrons. Each episode has its own unique story. The stories are decently written, some better than others. This is softcore erotica, not porn, so there is no actual graphic sex but it does feature some really good nudity and simulated sex scenes. Its one of the few late-night series that actually shows full female genitalia (the labia) occasionally. Its great for couples. It currently runs on Moviecentral 2 in Canada on Friday nights usually around 1:30 am. Season 1 recently finished production. Hopefully Season 2 is on the way !
Man-Hating Feminist Propaganda
This so-called documentary was anything but objective. It was produced by a feminist with an axe to grind. It took a predetermined negative stance towards pornography and had a clearly one-sided, unilateral, anti-porn agenda. It only showed the hardest, roughest forms of sex and avoided showing the much more prevalent sex-is-fun films. It tried to claim the women were being "degraded" and portray them as victims, while failing to mention that everything that occurs to women in porn also occurs to men. Men must "cum on command", they are "objectified" too,and there are numerous porn films where men are portrayed as inferiors. (slave-films, femdom, domination, etc.) In fact, one of the porn actresses in this film (who enjoyed her work) was so angered over the edited and skewed manipulation that the director had used to make her appear as a "victim" who was against porn, that she later went on to become a filmmaker herself in protest. This film was obviously a hack-job that didn't even accurately portray its subjects and intentionally tried to artificially portray them as victims of the porn industry. Obviously, this was nothing more than a feminazi propaganda film.
Erotic and sexual images have been viewed by people since ancient times. Such images have been found in every ancient culture in the world and were commonplace and acceptable in ancient Rome, Babylon, Egypt, and India. It is absurd to think pornography is somehow new or "harmful to women". LOL Only the media has changed. Attempts by man-hating feminists to outlaw pornography are nothing more than misguided misandry. Feminists want to outlaw pornography as a method of oppressing men and taking away men's freedom. They don't want men to be able to masturbate and satisfy themselves sexually, but want women to have a monopoly on sex and use it to control men. That's the REAL reason why man-hating feminists seek to outlaw it. There is no legitimate, objective evidence whatsoever that porn leads to "violence against women" or is harmful to women in any way. Its just an attempt to take away men's freedoms and oppress men. Outlawing porn also takes away women's freedoms too. In fact, cultures where porn is illegal (like Iran) are cultures where women have the least rights, and cultures where porn and prostitution are legal (like Denmark/Sweden) are where women have the most rights. If anything, the empirical evidence shows a positive correlation between pornography in a culture and women's status. In a society that really respects women, women would be free to do what they want with their OWN bodies. If a woman wants to strip, perform in porn, or perform sexual acts then that is HER choice and should be respected. She doesn't need some dumb feminist trying to take away her right to choose by outlawing porn. I thought it was "Our bodies, our choice" (the famous feminist slogan regarding abortion). If that's the case, then why do feminazis insist on interfering with other women's rights to do what they want with THEIR bodies? Each woman should be allowed to choose to either do porn, or not. Feminazis try to take away that choice by attempting to outlaw porn and prostitution. Feminists are the REAL oppressors of women!Each woman should have the right to choose to do what she wants with her body.
Commissions were formed in the 80's by the Reagan administration to try to form links between porn and social harm to provide a "justification" for outlawing porn, but even these commissions had to concede that no harm whatsoever can be shown. The Supreme Court in the USA and Canada both made several modern rulings on pornography and came to the conclusion that pornography should be available to those consenting adults that choose to view it. Those who don't like it don't have to watch it. The feminazi's lost their war, thankfully. Now we can view porn easily through mainstream media such as pay-per-view and the Internet. Hooray for men's rights!! The feminazi's failed to oppress us; even with inflammatory one-sided propaganda films such as this!
I give it 5/10. Zero for intellectual content (since most of this was misinformation and politically-biased feminazi propaganda), but 5 stars for the good skin and explicit sex shown.
A beautiful, sexy art -film!
Rendez-vous is a beautiful, sexy, art-film. It won several prestigious international awards and is critically acclaimed. Juliette Binoche is completely uninhibited and gives a brave, fearless performance where she bares herself completely...both emotionally and physically.
Thus, this film is not intended for the immature. Those with childish minds who cannot handle looking at a beautiful woman's body (such as feminists or other philistines) are advised too avoid this. Another reviewer called it "pointless drivel" and complained about the "gratuitous nudity". If seeing a woman's vagina is too much for the immature mind of that viewer to handle, him and his kind should avoid high-art cinema such as this. His kind would be better served watching gay-porn garbage, loosely disguised as a "comedy", such as "Bruno". That type of film is more suited for those misandric simpletons who prefer looking at male genitalia. Those who appreciate complex, beautiful art and appreciate the female form will enjoy this.
Nina (Juliette Binoche) moves to Paris and she becomes the love interest of three very different men and has tumultuous concurrent relationships with each. Multiple plot and character lines develop from this. This movie will challenge you and you'll find yourself pondering some of the scenes days later. Highly recommended.
Les anges exterminateurs (2006)
Great erotic scenes!
It's about time to see an art movie that has good female nudity. Lately, most of these so-called "art" films have just been an excuse to show erect penises or exploit the male body. (Like Shortbus) Although the closet-homosexuals like movies like Shortbus, heterosexuals will find Exterminating Angels far more satisfying.
Even though the director does show some pretensions, particularly with the concept of the angels involved in his life, this was MORE than made up for by the great erotic scenes. I watched this movie 3 times on cable just because of those scenes. In particular, one of his actresses uses a small rubber ball to masturbate herself to orgasm. Very sexy.
The movie is loosely based on the director's life and his experiences with some actresses who were unhappy that he did not choose them for a role in one of his films. As they say, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" and they went after him by claiming "sexual harassment" (even though they were willing participants)and even taking vigilante action. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. You will have to watch the film to see how everything unfolds but the underlying message is clear; women can be like the Sirens of Greek mythology, their beauty and sexuality lure men to their destruction. I highly recommend watching this film.