MovieChat Forums > La vie d'Adèle (2013) Discussion > Hilarious trash

Hilarious trash

posted 8 years ago by Falconeer
8 replies | jump to latest

Wow, talk about thinly disguised garbage, masquerading as art. It is just so painfully obvious that the silly, vapid story was merely an excuse to show ENDLESS lesbian sex. I saw it with a group of people, (and not fraternity boys either, but serious film fans, obsessed with the works of Godard, Bunuel, Kurosawa, Bertolucci, Dreyer, Bergman, etc.) In fact we are admitted "film snobs," who don't even like Quentin Tarantino because his stuff is just too low-brow. Well, what an embarrassment for the person who chose THIS title. Not only was this thing simply scene after scene of tired, raunchy sex; but the sex scenes weren't even competently filmed. They were ugly, generic exercises in poor taste. You know you are watching straight up porn when the camera lingers on certain body parts, leering at a breast or vagina, while forgetting there is a head attached to the body. 2 of our film group are gay, and were excited to see a movie based on a same sex relationship. They were most offended that a movie, claiming to be legitimate, actually was an exercise in exploitation. Yeah, I'm sure the men are going to love this one, if they can stomach all the psuedo intellectual lesbians sitting around talking during the non-sex scenes. I guess they can use the fast-forward button. I notice it happens once in a while, that a piece of excrement like this, gets praised for being "Risque," or "cutting edge" or "avant garde." it's truly a mystery how this happens. Now for anybody who is interested in washing this ugly movie out of your memory, check out something like Lukas Moodyson's "Show Me Love," which is a genuine, effective, lesbian-themed love story that offers sincere insight, rather than T&A and vagina in your face.

Fabio Testi is GOD

[–] TrangPak2 8 years ago

While I agree that the level of sexual exploitation does leave a foul taste in my mouth, I simply cannot allow myself to dismiss film because of it. The acting and the heartbreaking story manages to rise above the tawdry sex scenes which would have been much more affective had they contained more tenderness, more love...
As they were the sex scenes went on far too long and were so cold I didn't feel... Anything..

When I first saw the film I didn't think much of it but I noticed days afterward the story would creep into my mind and I decided to give it another view without letting the sex scenes detract from the film and I was truly moved. I'm not sure I'm expressing coherently, I just think the film is much more than tawdry exploitation.
Anyway I respect your opinion, sorry this film wasn't your cup of tea.
May I ask, What films do you like?

[–] lovebigcats 7 years ago

Sex scene after sex scene? There were 4. Adéle and Thomas, & 3 with Emma. It's a 3 hour movie, "The Life of Adéle". It also showed her eating, studying, dancing, working. And because of that, it was incredibly realistic. The fact that all you got out of it was the sex scenes, well that's unfortunate. You missed the point entirely and so did your film buff friends.

[–] lazarillo 7 years ago

Well, since you're expending a little too much energy to just be trolling, I'll respond to this. It is beyond me how anyone who is not female or very, very gay could POSSIBLY find sex scenes with these two actresses "ugly" or "disgusting". It's like a sunset over an ocean--however incompetently you film it and however "gratuitous" it is, it's not going to be "disgusting". How do you stomach ACTUAL sex with the kind of (certainly less attractive) people you have sex with in real life? I guess you've never had a "vagina in your face" in real life.

This is just as good as "Show Me Love" and better I think if you can get around 11 minutes of sex scenes and see the forest despite this one particular (sexy, sexy) tree. And if gratuitous sex bothers see that genius Moodyson's "Hole in My Heart". I didn't like it, but it was the self-righteous sanctimony, not the sex

Also, I get tired of the term "sexual exploitation". That's like saying "A Dog's Purpose" is "canine exploitation". People like dogs and people like sex. I'm a big fan of old-style sexploitation and often not for the sex (the actresses back then were often far, far less attractive than Adele E. and Lea Seydoux), but because they could be interesting movies because they had a "captive audience" they could play around with. Actual porn is awful, but not because it has sex in it. Taking the sex out would make it even worse!

It IS true scenes that the sex scenes are filmed a little too much like porn. But PORN is not filmed on 35 mm. with TRULY beautiful girls' it's filmed on digital video with tattooed, fake breasted (albeit somewhat attractive) skanks. Besides, typical Hollywood sex scenes are filmed in very cliché and unrealistic ways too because the actresses have "no-nudity clauses" and you're not allowed to see their naughty bits. That's a lot worse in my opinion than tending towards porn. But as I keep saying, why not focus on the OTHER two hours and forty minutes of this movie.

"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream"

[–] Falconeer 7 years ago

Of course I don't find sex ugly and disgusting, in fact I enjoy it as much as the next guy. When I used those words I was referring to the WAY the scenes were filmed; I don't care if it was shot on real 35 mm film. Those scenes were filmed artlessly, and crudely; so much so that they should have shot it on digital video. The actresses weren't "ugly," but the way they were filmed was. Aesthetically speaking, this is an "ugly" film in general. Have I ever had a vagina in my face? Sure; multiple times. Do I want a vagina in my face when I'm watching a non-porn film? Not really. That adds absolutely nothing to the story, or the artistic integrity of the film. It was crude, and artless, and THAT is what offended me. Believe me, I love eroticism in film, and in fact erotic films might be my favorite genre. I have immense respect for the beauty of the female body, and that is precisely why I hate this film. I found myself feeling sorry for the actresses, because it was obvious from the way the director filmed them, that he had no respect for them. Objectifying a certain body part, like a vagina, is "pornography." In porn films (which I have nothing against), we get close-ups of genitalia. If the guy behind the camera presents close-up shots of the actor's genitalia WITHOUT having their face in the shot, it's pornographic. Even if this film was captured with the same camera and film that was used to make "Lawrence of Arabia," this would still be cheap, low-brow film-making. It's perfectly fine if people find this movie "sexy," or the actresses beautiful; but it's beyond me how they can call this "art" or even a serious film. Because shoving the camera between a girl's legs immediately de-legitimizes the whole production. And as far as "concentrating on the other 2 plus hours of the movie," that is impossible as well, because it was an insipid, pretentious BORE. After seeing this ugly movie, I just wanted to re-watch Jean-Jacques Annaud's "L'amant." Now THAT film is a true work of art. In fact "The Lover" remains in my top 10 favorite films of all time. So you see, I have nothing against sexuality in film; when it is done right. I have seen you on these boards for quite some time and have much respect for you, and your views on film. But we must disagree on the this one, as I couldn't find anything to like about this movie.

Fabio Testi is GOD

[–] Inu_Ranma 7 years ago

You turned it off at the one hour mark. You lose all right to judge the film by any merits or have an opinion on it. Sorry.

You want any high ground? Watch the whole film. Shoo.

[–] Falconeer 7 years ago

Really? You mean this pig excrement magically turns into a good movie at the one-hour mark? I find that hard to believe. And yes, you are indeed "sorry," if you are one of those people who were duped into thinking this low-brow perverts fantasy was actually a serious film. I'm surprised that someone is still posting comments here. I assumed this cinematic abortion had been forgotten already...

Fabio Testi is GOD

[–] lazarillo 7 years ago

I'm still posting comments here--now and then--because I LIKE the movie, but I don't know why YOU are wasting your time trying to tell people that have actually SEEN the whole movie that it's "pig excrement".

Anyway, I took the time to respond because I thought you weren't just a troll. My mistake.

"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream"

[–] Falconeer 7 years ago

I have seen the whole movie. I responded to you because i had respect for comments you made in the past, regarding other films; my mistake. You turned out to be another bitchy, sarcastic moron who calls people "trolls" because their opinion differs from yours. And no matter how much attitude you throw, it doesn't change the fact that this film that you admire so much, is still ugly, poorly filmed, exploitative trash. I regret wasting my time trying to have an intelligent discussion with a pompous ass. I won't make that mistake again...enjoy your lesbian porn; I hope you don't run out of vaseline..I also hope that you talk to a professional about your 'pedo-tendancies.' Good day.

Fabio Testi is GOD