So what is up with these flicks these days? So many of these low budget horror-torture films must be made by gay writers/directors, since they have the guys stripped down and tortured graphically while the smoking hot girl is completely covered up from head to toe. If the guy is going to get topless, couldn't that at LEAST strip the girl down to her underwear or something?
Sheesh...
what are you talking about? the girl IS naked! I didn't watch the TV edited version (they probably took it out), but if you get the DVD, the girl is very naked. She's nude in the love scene, getting into the lake and I think one more place, but I can't recall.
Rent the DVD. You'll see. And then I might suggest you edit the topic line so you don't look silly.
[deleted]
Why are you asking me? The OP seems to know all of them.
Don't hate me because I am right. Be upset with yourself for being wrong.
I don't think I'm being silly at all. Don't know how you can compare quick flashes of a female body double to the long, lingering shots of the guy.
shareIt wasn't a body double. Did you see the long panning shot of her entire body while they were in the tent? It gets her face and breasts in the same shot. Or how about as she stripped and walked into the lake?
The guy, if I recall was shirtless exactly 2 times while being beaten.
I think you saw what you wanted to see. And not what was actually in the movie. And your descriptions of the man are rather, well, vivid.
You have some issues you need to work out. Because if you saw more man naked than woman... well... I think you wanted to see the man naked. Even your ID name is curious. "Stanthemann"? Hmmmm.
Because as a female, I thought there could have been more shots of him. Why only his chest was bare? You saw all of her - her butt, topless - everything, but on him just his chest? That's not fair.
[deleted]
Watch the tent scene again. The final shot before reveal of the shadow goes from her face all the way down her body. And then compare that shot to all the others... It's her!
And I guess since I saw the film in theaters, it was easier to tell it was her by the lake.
[deleted]
You really have no clue. Keep the fact that I know the director, the editor and several of the actors out of this. You are telling me that on a low budget film, with an unknown actress they used a body double? Why?
It's her. Leave your JFK conspiracy theory at the door. I'm not sure why you are so hard-up on it being a body double. Don't you have a life? This is what you do in your spare time? Read something. Go outside.
And your keen eyes have not picked up that the shot that goes down her body isn't the same girl in every shot of that sequence? Look again. The skin, the hips, the breasts? You can't double that. At least not on a low budget film in Romania. And the necklace is your smoking gun? Ask yourself this... if it WAS a double, don't you think the necklace would have been the first thing they made sure was in every shot? It would only help to "sell" the double better. Also, since you've never had sex you may not know this, but, sometimes things move. Necklaces can shift. Her hair is long and golden. When she's on top the neckless dangles, when she's on the bottom, the neckless falls off to the side and might have hid among the golden locks.
Elementary my dear Watson, it was the neckless! I solved the mystery.
Please.
Alexandra was a stand in on the film. A stand in. Not a double. Facebook her. And ask her yourself.
And, like I said, since I saw the film on the BIG screen in the theater, it was much clearer that it was her by the lake. But since you don't read very well, I have repeated this.
Big budget films with big name stars get body doubles. Not low budget, eastern european films with no name stars. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Seriously, I am telling you the truth. Any further posts would just humiliate you even further. I'm doing you a favor here.
[deleted]
In the future, you don't have to cut and paste everything I say. People can scroll up and see. Another one of your hobbies, I guess. I might comment now and then, but as far as a hobby? I wasn't talking about your posting. I was talking about your analyzing the tent scene like some have analyzed the Zapruder film. I'm not at home going frame by frame through films checking to see if someone's a body double.
I don't have to ask the filmmakers why they made it look like a double. It doesn't. What you choose to take as an insult, wasn't. You don't have a clue was meant that you don't know much about filmmaking, etc. Have you been to Romania? The girls don't look like Brianna there. Trust me. It's Brianna. You said it's better knowing it's the star rather than a double, so why are you going out of your way to manufacture evidence that's not there, that it's a double?
That long panning shot, you can see her entire body. The whole idea of bringing in a double is to NOT show what the girl really looks like. Especially if the shots are all part of the same sequence. Here you are going from skin-to-skin. Even the BEST body double in the world could not double that well. Well, maybe they could, but only on a studio film with all kinds of money. this film was not that.
The necklace was your smoking gun. You're trying to spin your original post. Nice try.
Even if someone is shot from behind, on a mammoth 40ft screen, you can tell who it is.
This was screened at Screamfest in 2007. This is where I saw it. The entire cast and crew were there. They fielded questions. Brianna spoke about the nudity in the picture. She went on to say it was spelled out specifically in her contract what she would be showing.
Copy and paste all my comments again, it still won't change the simple facts: It's Brianna. Not a double. And you are wrong.
[deleted]
If you had checked any of my previous posts about this film. I mentioned Screamfest and the actor's discussions numerous times. I don't make a habit of writing the same thing on every board.
And the fact the director mentions she performed the scenes didn't convince you, what will?
from this interview:
http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=3869
Shock: Was finding the right couple to play Mike and Sheryl difficult?
Giglio: The worry was always finding the right girl 'cause we do have a little bit of nudity in the film and I usually think the female role is the star role. I was watching "Entourage" and Brianna had a small part in one episode, so I looked her up. She came in, we had several meetings - before I auditioned anybody, I went through the script with them to make sure they were comfortable with everything. I'm friends with Eli Roth and he gave me the advice, 'If there's nudity in your film, you have to make sure they'll get naked before you go to a foreign country to shoot.' Brianna came in and lit the room on fire, she fit all of the criteria. I wanted an all-American, good-looking girl who would be on a camping trip. She brought so much to the role and went through an insane regimen to prepare for it. During the film there's a lake that she goes in that is zero degrees. It's not a hidden lake. She strips down, walks completely naked into a lake that was, to the touch, freezing. I felt like I was beating the crap out of her...
When he says "went through everything" do you think he meant only one scene? or the 3 that were in there? You have failed to mention her bare bottom during Deacon's attempted rape scene. But since it's only her bottom and not her face, you'll just scream "double" there too.
Or you can accept the reality that when the director says there's nudity through the script, he means the 3 scenes she would be naked (tent, lake, rape).
Yes, he talks about the lake in the interview, but he mentions that because, unlike the tent, where it was just a couple of people, at the lake the whole crew could see her as well as the lake being freezing temps. He was complimenting her bravery. Not being rude and discussing her sex scene. Anyone who has seen the film understands she's the one naked in the tent and it's not cool to discuss that in an interview.
Stop making lists. You keep manufacturing evidence. Ask a cinematographer about matching skin tones on direct edited shots. Unless the girl was Brianna's twin, it's very difficult. And Romanian woman have olive skin and not much cleavage. They're not Minnesota blondes.
Actresses are very particular about nudity in films. If this wasn't Brianna, do you think the Director would be allowed to say it was?
[deleted]
I just played the scene. For a guy who has claimed to watch the film frame by frame, you must be blind.
Yes, it's edited quickly. It was intended to be a love scene and not gratuitous (that's what they said at Screamfest)
But Sherlock, her breast, nipples and face ARE ALL IN THE SAME SHOT!
Just prior to the "climax". After the shadow clears, there's a quick edit, then then camera pans back up to Brianna's face (at appx 24:07) look in the lower right hand corner of the frame - what do you see? Her breast/nipple as she's riding him, her face FULLY VISIBLE and then she collapses all in the same shot onto his chest. All in one shot, her breasts, nipples and face.
It's quick, but it's there. And that proves that all the shots are her b/c you clearly see her breasts and they look the same in every shot.
Now... Go watch and then come back and apologize. I can't wait for this.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I give up. It's there, dude. Lower right hand corner of the frame. We have the same DVD Check right between 24:55 and 25:04 on yours. It's that 1 continuous shot.
The close call you mention, I froze perfectly on my computer, and got the shot.
And obviously someone else did too.
I'm done.
[deleted]
Upload a naked pic? Um... there are porn sites for that.
What part of I'm done, did you not understand, Perv?
[deleted]
I can't believe how much time you boys spend analyzing whether or not you saw a NIPPLE. Mommy issues, anyone?
As for the OP, if you're not happy seeing other men naked then obviously you're just jealous or have a problem with your sexuality.
There is only light, my light, my naked light, my gift to you all. Experience my bliss.
I know you are a whore, but try and control it, will you? You should be one to talk. Women cream their panties with the dirtiest thoughts possible about men/other women/animals. Get off your *beep* high horse.
Hama cheez ba-Beer behtar meshawad!
nice try, bud
Oh man I can't believe you keep arguing for like 10 *beep* pages. WTF is this so important to you? haha crazy. Anyways even if the actress is technically naked you can't see *beep* anyways so it's pretty lame. This actress is clearly uptight.
><> <><
Quite the whore, aren't you?
Hama cheez ba-Beer behtar meshawad!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Uh these "naked" scenes don't show anything! They never show her boobs, that far away shot of her from behind at the lake is clearly a body double. Google the actress and you will see she is a prude and has never even been topless in any of her films!
><> <><
the young lass in the tent never shows her tits and face in the same shot...
and the lake scene is from so far away it doesn't matter if it's a body double or the real actress
I agree with the OP. It's a body double. To be sure, I googled "Brianna Brown Timber Falls body double" and other sites are saying a body double is standing in for Brianna Brown too.
In any case, when she's in the lake, she's so far away, it's hard to see her naked anyway. Plus, the scenes when she's supposed to be naked are brief.
oh jesus h christ
stfu
its not like they had a full frontal of his pecker and all.. it was his chest.. yes its so convenient to torture someone with whips and branding irons with a shirt on
give me a freaking break.. of all things to bitch about in this movie your mad because there wasnt enough female nudity so you can have your little fantasy at night before bed.. get a girlfriend and get laid.
[deleted]
I agree with SweetKissy. haha.
I think there are far too many movies with gratuitous nudity, anyway.
But, on the technical side, there is far more female nudity.
I haven't seen many full-frontal shots of guys in movies, but there are plenty of pointless shots of full-front female.
Take My Bloody Valentine 3D.
The girl running around the hotel for 5 mins, totally naked. What the hell.
Tasteful nudity is fine on either account, but, all in all, I think there's enough to satisfy both fields nowadays.
[deleted]
It was only his chest that was shown
shareTen years later, do shirtless men still get you this worked up?
share