This movie sucked big time!! And the sex scenes in it were just inappropriate and quite graphic. Although you didn't actually see much it was still just like a bit of porn thrown in! I mean what relevence did having sex with some random girl in the bathroom have to the movie?
The first butterfly effect was amazing, this was nothing like it. You can't even call it the sequel in my opinion. It was just crap.
[deleted]
I agree fully. This was terrible. It seemed like sex was the only thing keeping this bland movie going...which is not a good thing.
Pluto was rejected as it was too far out there. Years later, it will become the Death Star.
the sex scenes were put in to hike hte movies rating up to 16, its not good press for horror movies and thrillers to get less than that so sometimes they shove random sex/ violence to hike up the rating... its sad really, and a sign of a poor movie.
notice how the girl in the toilet doesnt come up again? i thought that was going to ruin his relationship but nope... just sex
I wouldnt have classed this as a horror film, but you're right, the sex scenes were inappropriate. I was expecting them to get interupted or something major would happen.
All I can say is that Eric Lively must've had a great time filming them - his hands were all over Erica's boobs!
the sex scenes werent inappropriate? What makes sex inappropriate? Everyone does it, its part of nature and to be honest i thought the sex scenes were good. The chick was super hot and it was quite entertaining to watch.
shareoh my god im tired of these naturalist points of view. 'its natural! part of life! everyone does it!' so what man? doesnt make it appropriate. its a private part of life, do not turn sex into something as normal as brushing your teeth, its more than that. im tired of people trying to turn it into a commonplace thing, let it be special private and a big deal.
share[deleted]
there are actually
they're just not graphic or of major importance
They Say Quitters Never Win But We Walk The Plank Of A Sinking Ship . . . </3
It's the same reason we don't really care to see someone wiping their butt after they've just used the toilet. We know everyone does it but it's really not appealing to just throw it in randomly with no relevance to the story.
shareI wouldn't say they were inappropriate, just irrelevant and unnecessary.
shareExactly. in reply to josh: Whta makes the scenes inappropriate? The same things that makes a scene about a guy taking a dump or girl menstrating inappropriate. These are natural, bodily functions, and should only be used in movies to further a plot or enhance a story, not to get you off on watching some hot chick.
sharethe alleged common aspects between an attractive sex scene and wiping one's behind somehow elude me ... i prefer that to random scenes of violence, to which somehow hardly anybody objects.
---
esse quam videri.
Except, nobody (almost) would like to see that whereas everybody (almost) are interested in seeing sex.
You're going to die screaming... and I'm going to watch. Am I telling the truth?
Clearly, your views on "appropriate" are not embraced by everyone.
Like you and most people, I have no desire to see people use the toilet for defecation or menstuating.
Most people agree with us, filmakers know it, and thus they don't film someone taking a dump.
Many people have no problem watching others have sex, or more correctly, watching actors pretend to have sex. That is why such scenes are filmed.
For those who dislike them, there's always the 'skip' button.
"Whiskey for my men! And beer for my horses!"
T. Keith
I'm tired of the people who take sex so seriously, it's NOT a big deal, it only is if you think it is. At least for me it's not a big deal and I LOVE LIFE XD
- Love is a mix of art and spirit
Everyone does not do it over the sink in the public Men's Room.
shareshouldn't we see ALL the characters POOP at least once a day (film time). now THAT'S natural!
shareThere's plenty of movies with characters spending time taking a dump, though no one sticks the camera down into the bowl, just sitting there reading the paper makes it natural enough.
Parenting movies; however, are far too censored when it comes to poo. Though there might not be to many proud fathers of newly toilet-trained children that take to the streets in their underpants shouting poo poo and waving the offending article around, I would at least expect to see more poo footprints on walls, projectile diarrhoea, and turds being thrown around for a family film to be natural.
The girl in the bathroom is the boss's daughter who he had an affair with which broke up his relationship with Julie. Think to the club scene where she's shooting a fashion show, they are talking, he gets a phone call, and she says something like "its her isn't it?"
There is a reason for that scene and that girl, but the movie is still crap
I agreed their were alot of inappropriate sex senes but I loved the movie I thought It was a good movie
"That's an evil f u cking room."-Gerald Olin-1408
Yes, I agree that the sex scene with Grace was necessary because it showed why Nick and Julie broke up but I think that the sex scene with Julie was unnecessary and it took up too much time.
shareI thought the movie was definately a step down from the first ones, but the reasons had nothing to do with sex scenes.
The first scene with Julie was a little over long, but I thought it helped to illustrate that in this, the first alternate reality, the two of them were very happy together.
The scene in with the bosses daughter in the bathroom was also important, as it illustrated that Nick, in the current reality, was no longer the faithfull lover to Julie.
I had no real problems with the sex scenes, and to be honest, I actually think there's a talent to filming an erotic sex scene without showing any actual nudity.
I had a much bigger problem with the idea that stealing the file to lash out at Dave sets Nick on the road to being a cheating a-hole.
"Whiskey for my men! And beer for my horses!"
T. Keith
Maybe the scenes had some importance, agreed. But they were far too long and, to be fair, seemed like scenes from a soft porn movie :)
share"Inappropriate sex scenes!?"
That's why its STV
I agree with the OP, the sex scenes were totally out of place. It would have been ok with just one scene, and not too explicit...
I hope those scenes hadn't made people change their minds about the movie, cuz the movie sucked!!!! It was horrible....
"I agree with the OP, the sex scenes were totally out of place. It would have been ok with just one scene, and not too explicit... "
What is wrong with explicit sex scenes? The Human Body is a beautiful thing, espcially the Bodies of sexy actors. You never hear anyone complain about scenes with a Beautiful sunrise How is this different? because it's about sex?
I believe that deep down the ONLY people that have a problem with explicit sex scenes have a hang up about sex in general. The pleasures from sex are amazing.... so are the pleasures of eating Chocolate, and when you combine the two... Ok I digress, but you never see anyone complain that showing someone On a Movie eating Chocolate cake is Inappropriate.
If you have a hang up about sex that is a personal problem. There is a reason we live in a free country. If you dislike a scene fast forward. I don't see why you try to impose your sense of morality on others. It's like " if there must be sex it Must be relevant and it must not be too graphic or explicit or show any naughty bits..." How old are we 5?
I can tell you've never seen porn before.
shareU thought 2's sex scenes were bad...wait til U see 3...
**
Recent:
Butterfly Effect 3: 4/10
Butterfly Effect 2: 6/10
The Spirit:5/10
Død snø:8/10
Perkins 14: 7/10
There Will Be Blood:6/10
Hmmm.. U guys should come 2 india. U wud be saved of all the 'irrelevant' sex scenes, cos they are always edited n never shown any! (well, at least in legal mediums like cable, non-pirated dvds n theatres)
share