well?!?!?
i thought the sex scences were a bit much.
sharelol my professor thought they were a bit much too
but i guess when you have a character
defined partly as a prostitute
you're going to have sex scenes
There was nothing wrong with those scenes. I love this movie I first saw it when I was seven on PBS.
sharei didn't think that they were too much...they were rather comical really. like when she was a whore to that old guy and he was full on loving it, but her face was like "oh god get me out of here now!" hilarious!
but i can't remember there being any reference to her having a lesbian relationship in the book...or is it really written THAT subtly and have i therefore missed it?
i'm not a slut...i'm just popular
Do you know Tom Ward?
he said he had a love scene in the film.
True?
I'm not a bitch! I'm just complicated
There was nothing wrong with those scenes. This production was brilliant. Some people seem to have major issues with sex scenes. Granted, some are a bit over the top...but most are very well done and do fit with the film. But I don't have a problem with sex scenes in films. P.S: Anyone seen "Quills"...now THAT'S raunch for ya! *me: big period flick raunch fan!*...hence the fact I dig Quills! LOL
It's a Geoffrey Rush thing, you wouldn't understand!
[deleted]
Nah the sex scenes were fine
I thought they were appropriate to the character of Moll Flanders, showing how she used her sexuality to survive
this face, the infection which poisons our love
[deleted]
[deleted]
Ye gods - outside of a porn film I can't recall the last time I saw so much heaving bosom, tremulous thighs, and so many bucking buttocks!!!
But very tastefully done, of course.
"Stone-cold sober I find myself absolutely fascinating!"---Katharine Hepburn
I personally thought that the sex scenes were great!
Spike- Love isn't brains, children, it's blood-Blood screaming inside you to work its will.
I thought they were tastefully done and quite necessary to the character of moll
I didn't feel uncomfortable with them at all
ya great gullah!!!!
Just got thru watching this for a British History class. I loved it and rooted for Moll all the way.
I watched the VHS Masterpiece Theater version that ran for 205 minutes. 102 the first part and 103 the second part. On this IMDB site the run time is 216 minutes? What did M.T. cut out when they ran it?
So how true is it to the book? I find the book 'difficult' to read since he uses no paragraphs, or chapters. The end was a bit different but had the same end result.
I have never read the book but I do mean to one day. I think its always hard to read the book for the first time after seeing the film tho
ya great gullah!!!!
The end actually was close to the book, just that it left the last part of the novel out, perhaps for dramatic effect, or to save time. In the book, when Moll and her husband return to Virginia, they meet (I believe it was) one of her sons by her ex husband that was also her brother, who by now is blind and demented, and they all settle down happily on her farm, with her son's family living nearby to her.
One difference of course was that by the end of the book, Moll is already in her 60s, something that is not apparent in the television adaption, as she seems not to have aged much (the actress playing her was in her early thirties when this was made) They seem to have chosen not to worry about that part, and I think it worked well, since we are more focused on the story than how old everyone is anyway.
The other difference with the ending, especially the time she is in jail focuses a lot less on her repentence. DeFoe spends a lot of time in the novel relating how she is repenting her sins, and how the priest comes to counsel her, which they touched on only tangentially in this adaption. Again, I think it worked well, as it kept the pace of the story moving along nicely. DeFoe's book was one of the first, if not the first "modern" novel that explores the feelings and emotions of the characters in a comtemporary sense, sometimes, it drags, which the TV adaption manages to avoid very well.
Indcidentally, the Virginian husband has an American accent, during the 1650s, there was no difference between the accents in England and the colonies, but once again, this doesn't really matter, as it makes it easier for a contemporary audience to remember that he is supposed to be a "colonial" and not English born.
Full marks to the producers of this masterpiece.
No way were the sex scenes (from the uncut version) too much! This was a huge part of her story and character. The scenes were meant to be amusing, offensive, shocking, or touching.
"Don't get chumpatized!" - The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)