It's confirmed guys from the TIFF. Connelly once again does whatever it takes for a role and shows her bush and a close up of her pulling her panties down.
That's going to be awesome!! She looks still looks great for her age, and a women of her age....well you just know it's going to be real and not a merkin.
You're going to be disappointed, it's just the fuzz.
share[deleted]
How much fuzz are we talking about here? A full 70's bush or does it look trimmed/shaved? I feel like Jennifer would be pretty hairy down there if she didn't trim.
shareHere you go my man.
http://www.celebritymoviearchive.com/tour/movie.php/47515
Is her bush full, trimmed, or shaved?
shareHow much fuzz man? full bush, landing strip?
share[deleted]
Seriously ? You go to movies to see pubic hair?
I'm sure you'll be super disappointed once you actually see the film, there is absolutely nothing sexy about either of those scenes, her character in one has hit rock bottom and injects herself with heroin in her femoral artery, hence the slight pulling down of her underwear. The other her character is forced in two occasions to choose between herself dying, then a loved one dying and performing sex acts with a creep security guard who is taking serious advantage rather than help another human being out.
The scene doesn't have to be sexy, that's not the point of this thread. Can't stand when people come in with 0.02 and take over a thread. Let the people that are actually curious about the scene and seeing Jen's bush discuss it and stay out of it.
With that said, 90% of the time when an actress does full frontal you're just seeing pubic hair so I wasn't expecting to see anything else. At the same time though, I read that it's a full bush shot so it had me curious as to if you get a good look at it or not.
Pretty simple...
The scene doesn't have to be sexy, that's not the point of this thread. Can't stand when people come in with 0.02 and take over a thread. Let the people that are actually curious about the scene and seeing Jen's bush discuss it and stay out of it.
With that said, 90% of the time when an actress does full frontal you're just seeing pubic hair so I wasn't expecting to see anything else. At the same time though, I read that it's a full bush shot so it had me curious as to if you get a good look at it or not.
Pretty simple...
The whole point of talking on a message board is for people to add their two cents on the topic at hand. I was just saying that your sub topic is demeaning to the main topic, the actress herself. They (especially Jennifer in this film) put so much work into these roles to reduce it down to how many centimeters they pull their panties down is demeaning.
That said, as others have posted,you'll be disappointed, you don't see much, she doesn't pull them down all the way and her hand covers it all most of the shot. So don't bother watching just for that. (Though it's gross to think anyone would no matter how much it was) Do bother watching because she knocks it out of the park with her best performance in years. This is right up there with her very best work, and might even surpass it in some respects. As jarring as some of the more graphic elements are, they actually on second viewing aren't actually as graphic as they feel, they are jarring and intense and somewhat graphic that causes them to feel even more graphic. People who have said it's worse than Requiem on that front I think are wrong. On it's face Requiem is more graphic, but she used a double for the worst of that, she does not seem to use a double for any of this. (Though the cgi could have been better on the most shocking element, as I could tell it was cgi, which was probably a respect things they could have easily done a practical effect instead but it would have been far more demeaning to shoot than adding it in after.
All in all the graphic elements are some of the weakest parts of the film as that whole story thread they are part of seemed a little heavy handed on the bad things keep happening at an unbelievable rate front.
Anyway I would be sorry for as you said taking over your thread, but I think it's a stupid thread, and I did as an olive branch of not wanting to be a total jerk, answered your query.
[deleted]
That was my exact question and point of the thread and it still hasn't been answered.
So you don't get that great of a view....great....
Still doesn't answer my question. Anyone see it and able to provide an answer?
What is CGI? This film doesn't seem like the type that would use CGI, and I absolutely hate it when movies do it unnecessarily. Pretty much if it is drama I don't want to be watching CGI.
Can you elaborate on this for me? Is it unnecessary, does it look really bad?
wearemegatwins: I heard there is a scene where she takes a cumshot on her face. Probably from the security guard who takes advantage of her. I think that might have been where they used CGI (added in later), or possibly banana cream. As its unlikely that she really let a guy shoot on her face for the film. So she probably was just holding her face in position, and the Computer Graphics were added in later to simulate the goo. Too bad it wasn't real...
shareThanks so much for the reply. I don't think I will mind that being fake as it will probably look real.
I was just worried that Connelly's entire body would be CGI like in Breaking Dawn (I almost died during that film I was so embarrassed for it). Anyways, I know Connelly is suppose to look quite thin, I was just making sure they didn't use the CGI to make it even more noticeable, although I really doubt that would be necessary in her case.
Thanks again!
I read that scene has no CGI. It cuts from the creepy security guard taking advantage of her to her walking with white stuff on her face, feeling humiliated. Those scenes are the opposite of sexy and arousing.
shareShe wasn't walking she was just static in the shot. They cut from her walking on a bridge in the deadly blizzard trying to get to Brooklyn (after refusing the sex for a safe place to sleep out of the cold swap offered) but the weather is just too bad and it's too far for her to reach the only open shelter left (as it's deep in Brooklyn) and the wind and snow is nearly knocking her over, it then cuts to her back in the boiler room with white stuff on her face implying she decided she'd rather not die in the storm so had to take him up on his sick offer. I guess it could easily have been a practical effect, but during the post production of the film someone working on it posted about doing the VFX for that specific scene, and I don't know what they'd be doing if not adding it, as there really is nothing else going on in that scene it's pretty clever how much they are able to imply with just a single shot of her framed in darkness just in the center of the frame not even saying anything. Totally heart breaking though as you see all the subtext in her expression. Her acting in this film is brilliant.
shareplease can you answer the question of whether jennifer is shaved, landing strip, trimmed bush or full 60s bush? Thanks!
share[deleted]
Nice to know she still has no shame to make up for a lack of talent .
Let face it, people hate art movies. Especially when they are not expecting an art movie
jenn showing bush not a bad thing shes and attractive lady showing off the goods seems to be her signature shes doing it all now while it all looks good and her career ends because shes a decent actor
Humankind cannot bear very much reality
Gross.
share