Tried too hard to make this movie about a whore into a tear jerker
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Sweet November
trompos — 16 years ago(June 23, 2009 07:15 PM)
It's like they wanted to make the audience cry. It was like scene after scene of Theron's BAD ACTING and bad crying and that stupid locked medicine cabinet (what was that about?) And in the end, she's a WHORE! She banged a bunch of guys and made them think they were special when they were just another notch in her stupid dying belt. That DUMMY!
If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature! -
-
theoutsidersgirl — 14 years ago(November 24, 2011 05:19 AM)
I disliked the fact that she slept with every guy that she "helped" but for me I just kind of disregarded that for the benefit of the movie. I just focused on Sarah and Nelson story and that was beautiful. As for the rest ie the sleeping around yeah, I think it was in bad taste of the author of the original novel to make it like that. She did not have to be promiscuous (spell?) to be able to show Nelson how to live life freely and enjoy the beauty around him and not be a workaholic. In fact, I personally am not sure if a person who can sleep with a different guy every month is able to see such things as true beauty of nature and the world and being free from constraints and throw out watches and cell phones. So yeah that is a big mistake on the authors part. Somehow when people describe freedom they first of all imply sexuality like she could sleep with whoever she wanted to ie she was free. I don't think so. Freedom of your soul is not the same as freedom of your body.
IN the book she was supposed to be a bit of a hippy and that's the whole thing (which I by the way also disagree with) free love. Let's make love not war. But being drugged up on LSD and running around naked in the field having FREE sex has NOTHING to do with REAL freedom or REAL love, but that's already on a different topic:)
So yeah, I love the love story of Nelson and Sara but I pretend that the sleeping around with the other guys thing never happened and it was only the two of them, who met and fell in love:) -
LaGringa — 14 years ago(December 27, 2011 08:56 PM)
Freedom of your soul is not the same as freedom of your body.
I would assert the exact opposite and I think this statement sums up your complete misunderstanding of the point Sarah's "promiscuity" (which I would also assert is HARDLY promiscuous).
So yeah, I love the love story of Nelson and Sara but I pretend that the sleeping around with the other guys thing never happened and it was only the two of them, who met and fell in love:)
Love is not about someone's first and only encounter with sex or partnership or love! That is a naive and false view of love and the vulnerabilities that comes along with loving someone which was the ACTUAL point of the film. Vulnerability. Sarah wasn't actually attempting to save any one from the monotony of "a responsible life" as Nelson put it, but rather she was protecting herself from the fear of losing her own life, and using these month to month trysts as an excuse to not except her fate. Bad taste on the authors part? It was the VERY point the author was trying to make. My suggestion for you is to get over your sexual hangups, mature your understanding of love, and watch the movie again.
That being said, I just watched this film after about six or seven years. And it was terrible.
The old lie: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori