And he ends up back in prison in the movie. It was your original position that everyone was stupid because they fell for his ruses over and over. Now you're going back on the idea that they fell for his ruses because he's back in prison. Seems you're talking out of both sides of your mouth to say you didn't like the film.
You're the one that said his ruses must have been good because everyone fell for them. I simply pointed out that they can't have been that good because he's still in prison.
When I said people were stupid I meant that the same people that he kept pulling the crap on over and over kept believing him. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Captain Obvious said:
Considering there was no frontal male nudity or any actual depiction of a sex act I think your description of these scenes as "graphic and over the top" is, well, over the top. Certainly no worse than would be expected in any R-rated love story regardless of gender. Clearly the issue is that it was two men. If those same scenes at the same level of intensity had involved a man and woman you wouldn't have batted an eye.
Hence my wording, "...quite graphic and over the top gay sex scenes...". As far as my wording and your contention that there was no actual depiction of a sex act, your definition of depiction is vastly different than mine apparently. Carrey, buck naked, thrusting vigorously as he stands behind another man in the doggy postion, and that man is screaming, "**** me! **** me! *** in my ***!" left very little to the imagination. I won't bother posting Carrey's response at this point. Again, I think most of society is down with gay characters and gay relationships. It's just when you start showing/depicting what actually takes place in the bedroom that they get squeamish.
I'm just not a wincer. If you're not spending the entire film thinking about how disgusting being a homosexual is, it's actually a really good movie about some pretty atypical individuals.
Actually, I didn't spend the whole film thinking about how disgusting being homosexual is. I only thought about it when they "depicted" it on the screen. I can think of at least three major "depictions" and another half a dozen crude references. You tend to think about what they are "depicting"/talking about while it is on the screen.
The bottom line, it simply wasn't that great of a movie. It was Catch Me If You Can on a small budget with gratuitous gay sex. Hey, if that's your thing. Have at it. It's not a movie that I'd ever recommend for a number of reasons, "depictions" of gay sex acts included.
