Behind The Candelabra - October 14th, 2013

[FilmFanSam]

Entertainment One (E1) will be bringing Steven Soderbergh's 'Behind The Candelabra' to Blu-ray on October 14th.

The film stars Michael Douglas and Matt Damon.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Behin...Blu-ray/77606/

Based on the autobiographical novel, the tempestuous 6-year relationship between Liberace and his (much younger) lover, Scott Thorson, is recounted.

PRE-ORDER NOW: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Behind-the-C...A3P5ROKL5A1OLE

[bryanfury]

I want to see this film but I have no wish to see grown men fumble with one another's jollybadgers. As Roy from the IT Crowd puts it, I'm comfortable with my own sexuality I'm not comfortable with theirs being waved about in my face..

[LGrima]

Originally Posted by bryanfury

I want to see this film but I have no wish to see grown men fumble with one another's jollybadgers. As Roy from the IT Crowd puts it, I'm comfortable with my own sexuality I'm not comfortable with theirs being waved about in my face..

A film about Liberace and you dont want to see homosexuality?

[bryanfury]

Originally Posted by LGrima

A film about Liberace and you dont want to see homosexuality?

I like steak but have no wish to work in a slaughterhouse sir

[Davy]

Originally Posted by bryanfury

I like steak but have no wish to work in a slaughterhouse sir

That analogy only works if you're going to try gay sex. It's only a movie. It's attitudes like that which stopped the film getting a US theatrical release.

[dvdmike]

One of the best of the year, just amazing will be buying

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by bryanfury

I want to see this film but I have no wish to see grown men fumble with one another's jollybadgers. As Roy from the IT Crowd puts it, I'm comfortable with my own sexuality I'm not comfortable with theirs being waved about in my face..

You're pretty ignorant

[LGrima]

I bet you'd see it if it was a film about lesbians.

Cripes, do I live in the 21st Century?

[bryanfury]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

You're pretty ignorant

I mean no offence dear boy, certainly none worth the casual dismissal

What I do not wish to see is any intense display of any eroticism, gay straight you name it. That is my right as a citizen and I exercise this right by simply not buying that I don't wish to see. Now, for an example of a homosexual love story that works without any explicit scenes try Apartment Zero with Hart Bochner and Colin Firth.

Perhaps in future I will spell things out concisely to avoid any misinterpretation

[rybev]

Good film, I didn't expect to see some of the things I saw. There were two old ladies sat near me and every time a "sexy" but came on I couldn't help wondering what they were thinking.

[bryanfury]

Originally Posted by Davy

That analogy only works if you're going to try gay sex. It's only a movie. It's attitudes like that which stopped the film getting a US theatrical release.

Soderbergh himself backtracked on his original statement that the film was 'too gay' with the realisation that it just wouldn't have been all that popular to warrant a full-scale release. The alternative is that it was all part of HBOs marketing campaign, God forbid a director shouldn't tout an underdog film too raunchy for the cinema. And it worked, people flocked by the droves to see it and defend it on these very boards against people like me apparently...

http://www.motherjones.com/media/201...-hollywood-gay

[FastAndFluid]

Originally Posted by bryanfury

I want to see this film but I have no wish to see grown men fumble with one another's jollybadgers. As Roy from the IT Crowd puts it, I'm comfortable with my own sexuality I'm not comfortable with theirs being waved about in my face..

If you really were comfortable with your sexuality why would you give a tinker's fig for others "being waved about in your face"?

[Sky_Captain]

I hear Narnia has great weather all year round.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by bryanfury

Soderbergh himself backtracked on his original statement that the film was 'too gay' with the realisation that it just wouldn't have been all that popular to warrant a full-scale release. The alternative is that it was all part of HBOs marketing campaign, God forbid a director shouldn't tout an underdog film too raunchy for the cinema. And it worked, people flocked by the droves to see it and defend it on these very boards against people like me apparently...

http://www.motherjones.com/media/201...-hollywood-gay

Erm, he seems to be sticking to his point of view in that interview. He's saying the type of film it is meant is was considered too niche to turn a profit by the studios - because people (like yourself and I don't mean that as a slur) would be put off by the content.

Your original post was a bit odd. It seemed to read "I want to see this film about Liberace and his lover but I wish it didn't have the scenes involving Liberace and his lover!. You've clarified since but it's a shame you're going to forgo the film for those reasons - not only are the depictions of gay sex fairly brief and infrequent (and done more to be fun than to shock in a gratuitous way) but it really is a fantastic film and both actors are great. We had it at my local arthouse and it rans for weeks and just got busier with every week thanks to word of mouth, until it was outselling Gatsby and Man of Steel.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by bryanfury

I mean no offence dear boy, certainly none worth the casual dismissal

What I do not wish to see is any intense display of any eroticism, gay straight you name it. That is my right as a citizen and I exercise this right by simply not buying that I don't wish to see. Now, for an example of a homosexual love story that works without any explicit scenes try Apartment Zero with Hart Bochner and Colin Firth.

Perhaps in future I will spell things out concisely to avoid any misinterpretation

I'm gay and I didn't take offence at your comment and I agree I don't like watching ANYONE having sex on screen either and I don't think it is necessary.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Impossible

I'm gay and I didn't take offence at your comment and I agree I don't like watching ANYONE having sex on screen either and I don't think it is necessary.

People are acting like this is hardcode porn! there is very little in the way of explicit sexuality, it is about two humans in a ****ed up relationship and yes those people have sex!

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

People are acting like this is hardcode porn! there is very little in the way of explicit sexuality, it is about two humans in a ****ed up relationship and yes those people have sex!

It was about 2 people in a VERY ****ed up relationship.

The sex scene was factually inaccurate according to Scott (but he seems to be a pathological liar anyways so who knows) and the things discussed in it could've been discussed anywhere else in the film in any other type of scene.

It just wasn't needed and was obviously there for 'shock' value like most sex scenes in films are.

Maybe it wouldn't have been as repugnant if it wasn't Michael Douglas doing it lol

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Impossible

It was about 2 people in a VERY ****ed up relationship.

The sex scene was factually inaccurate according to Scott (but he seems to be a pathological liar anyways so who knows) and the things discussed in it could've been discussed anywhere else in the film in any other type of scene.

It just wasn't needed and was obviously there for 'shock' value like most sex scenes in films are.

Maybe it wouldn't have been as repugnant if it wasn't Michael Douglas doing it lol

Absolute rubbish, not all sex scenes are for shock and not once was I shocked during the movie

[rybev]

I was shocked - I just didn't expect it to be so "in yer face".

But as my partner and mates say "I am the most un-gay gay ever", I am also a prude

[LGrima]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Absolute rubbish, not all sex scenes are for shock and not once was I shocked during the movie

And in regards to Michael Douglas who flipping looks exactly like Liberace!