Did I Miss Something?

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that someone who is so utterly incapable of rational thought or argument should find something worthwhile in this film. If the only manner in which you can react to someone making a genuine attempt at obtaining an opposing viewpoint is by making baseless, immature accusations, then you are a very sad, pathetic person and I pity you.

PS You call this a "gay film". Do you mean that, beyond the gay sex, there is some manner in which a gay audience is supposed to identify with the film? If I'm being ignorant, please excuse me, but I am not aware how, besides the fact that the lead character engages in gay sex, that this is a gay film. Instead I saw this as a film about a particular character who happened to be gay and who is no more representative of gays in general than any straight character is representative of all straights; after all the idea that a gay character is representative of gays, or that a black character is representative of all blacks, etc., is a uninformed manner of thinking.

So what, in your opinion, does O Fantasma say about gay culture or gay individuals? Surely the message isn't that gays act like dogs. I won't engage in pointlessly arguing that you are homophobic for drawing parallels between dogs and gays, and from this conclude that you are gay yourself. That is the sort of inane argument or baseless accusation and illogic you might engage in. In fact I doubt that's what you mean. But I am curious, what is there in this film that gays are supposed to identify with, thus rendering it a "gay film"? If the lead character is supposed to represent the "gay experience", how does the director make this intention clear? And why isn't the director homophobic (or, to be more generous, prejudicial)? What point does this film make besides attempting to shock the viewers with the lead characters' behaviour (i.e. his act of rape)? If all the director is doing is attempting to shock the audience, isn't it objectionable that he tries to do so with a graphic depiction of gay sexuality, as if there is something inherently shocking about it? Or is he deliberately catering to immature reactionaries like yourself? I'd like to hear your opinions on this, and this time try putting a few more of your brain cells into play.

You are looking for what I am.

[deleted]

Ooooh, this sounds fun. I'm going to go post comments on threads on message boards of movies I haven't seen. What the???

The movie's softcore. But that doesn't mean it isn't also telling a story. And it might be telling the story well, on top of that. One can have 'art' that is deemed 'pornographic' by sectors of society... look at the Marquis de Sade. Or Anais Nin. Henry Miller. William Burroughs. On and on, back through history to the Songs of Solomon.

Why the hell do you have an opinion if you havent' watched the film? So is it fair to say, i don't know, finding Nemo is a movie about Sydney because Sydney is in the movie? You're being an ignoramus. Please stop with the asinine comments.

LOL Good luck with your career aspirations.

I have to agree that it was quite visually interesting and the performances were good. The rest I have to agree to disagree on. The film still seemed utterly absurd to me. The director could not even decide if the lead was into domination or submission and wound up settling upon general all-around horniness, which I think Porky's did a better job of capturing.

[deleted]