Originally posted by Tech Kinetics:
Priscilla Queen of the Desert & Lie down with the Dogs - I'm not into queer movies so watching commercialized male porno makes me want to vomit!!
At what time during the 1990s did you begin to walk erect?
I agree with you wholeheartedly about "Lie Down With Dogs"--its a VERY bad underground gay film that;
1) most gay people who saw it hated it &
2) as it is SO obscure & such a low budget failure, generally ONLY gay people know about it.
There is just NO WAY that anyone saw "Lay Down With Dogs" & did NOT know that it was about gays & that it was explicit. It was rated NC-17. I mean c'mon thats like saying "Gee I just happened to watch "Shaving Ryan's Privates" & I was shocked, SHOCKED by what I saw". By the way, at least you didn't have the experience with "Lay Down With Dogs" that I did. A friend of mine used to be friends with the editor, so we saw the film at a free screening with the cast & crew & their friends & family, which meant that I couldn't walk out of it when I realized what a piece of crap it was (I beleive that was at the 20 minute mark). It was the most excrutiating 80 minutes of my life!
As for "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert", you may not like the film BUT there is NO FUCKING WAY in this universe that it could be called "Male porno" or even "commercialized Male porno"!! There is not ONE nude scene, not one sex scene, fuck there isn't even a kissing scene! Even the prudish MPAA gave it a PG-13 rating! Calling "Pricilla" 'commercialized male porno' is like calling "Shakespere In Love" a snuff film or calling "Shrek" a football film or calling "Benji" a bukake movie (props to anyone who gets the "bukake" reference). Either you NEVER saw this film & are confusing it with something else or you are betraying a hangup about your own sexual feelings.
[
[ 08 November 2002: Message edited by: cydonorb ]