Aren't there laws against this? Even though Kate Bell was in her mid-20's isn't it kind of illegal? Also, was that scene even necessary in the beginning?
The point is, Ted, marriage...is stupid.
[deleted]
I hated those scenes. I mean sure someone might come in and be like "So what? It's artistic" but I didn't like it. The one problem with the movie is what a critic said is that it focuses a bit much on Caroline and Rachel still isn't really seen as a person you connect with. They made her out to be mysterious and maybe lustful-like in Caroline's eyes but it made my skin crawl. I guess that is artistic, but minus the nudity and it would've worked just the same. But that's just me I guess....
shareWhat you said really reminds me of the latest version of 'Lolita'. You're made to see Lolita through Humberts eyes. Which can really gross a person out.
share
No, it's not.
http://www.facebook.com/ainoakeolakauilani
First off, it was Ruth Bradley who was 21 at the time of filming and it's perfectly okay as she was of age.
sharethe nude scene was there to show that she hated her body and was showing her father that he created her and he made her ugly and fat. The nude scene was essential to the plot and not sexual or disgusting at all.
shareI think the OP was talking about the scene of Rachel lying naked in the beginning with Manni on top of her(?) I thought that was important because it turns out at the end it was what she was imagining before she died, lying naked in a garden with Manni and then herself dancing on a stage.
shareYeah, and Kate looked gorgeous also.
share[deleted]