top of page

Sugar Warrior Challenge 🚫🍫

Public·184 Sugar Warrior
Matthew Hernandez
Matthew Hernandez

After Sex YIFY

...That MGM really did lose its future when Irving Thalberg died. It was just a matter of time. Granted, it took several years for the downhill slide to begin around 1946, but I think Thalberg could have weathered the post war storm of changing audience tastes.This film is a saccharine Technicolor musical remake of the superior black and white 1939 film "The Women". The original has the same basic story - a woman's pride is wounded over an affair her husband has, so she divorces him, only to change her mind right after the divorce is final. But it's too late, the husband has married the homewrecker.Some things are just not MGM's fault- director David Miller is no George Cukor, the studio system is on its last legs and MGM can no longer command the kind of star power that it did in 1939, and even if they could remedy these first two things, MGM is a studio that has lost its way.This film also loses the gimmick of the original by actually having men in the cast rather than just alluding to them. But the biggest problem is Joan Collins. She is just playing this too nice to be Crystal Allen, the other woman. Joan Crawford in the same role in the 1939 version was just the right balance of scheming, outwardly nice, and closeted nasty to get the job done.And 50 year old Joan Blondell is playing a pregnant woman? Yikes!Can't I say at least one thing good about it? The musical number with the revolving purple cellos is super cool.I'd skip this unless you are a student of film history. In that case I'd watch 1939's "The Women" first, and then this film.

After Sex YIFY


As entertaining as this is (and remarkably well cast although a few talents are greatly wasted), when you compare this to the original screen version of "The Women", you just have to ask yourself "why?". There's a bit of irony in this though which makes it more a curiosity piece considering some of the casting, particularly two Mrs. Dick Powell's, the former (Joan Blondell) and the current (June Allyson), sharing a few scenes as social acquaintances yet not the best of friends. Allyson has taken over the Mary Haines role and now she is a former nightclub singer who gave it all up to marry Leslie Nielsen ("Shirley, you can't be serious!") and raise their daughter. He is bored and takes up with Joan Collins' Crystal Allen (Ironic considering her rivalry with Krystal on "Dynasty"), a showgirl who is roommates with the future Morticia Adams and briefly Mrs. Aaron Spelling (Carolyn Jones) and performs with her in a musical revue that gives the pregnant Blondell morning sickness after eating a huge banana split and having to view the tacky production number "Trees de Banana".If that isn't enough, there's future "Depends" commercial star Allyson singing a song called "Cling to Me" in a horrid looking pants suit (of course complete with "Peter Pan Collar"). At least she gets to reprise "The Young Man With a Horn" as she had in 1944's "Two Girls and a Sailor", once again accompanied by Harry James on his trumpet. Dick Shawn joins Collins, Jones and Jim Backus in the tacky title song in which Backus gets to be amusing giving us his Thurston Howell/Mr. Magoo laugh. Dolores Gray, singing the title song over the opening credits, takes on the Rosalind Russell role, and is the one who ends up marrying Buck Winston rather than the countess, played here straight by Agnes Moorehead. Ann Miller as chorus girl Miriam Aarons has no musical number whatsoever, ending her MGM contract on a sour note, yet at least gets a great catfight with Gray. By this time, the MGM musical was a "hit" ("High Society") or "miss" (this), resulting to remaking their old masterpieces either for the big screen or T.V. ("The Thin Man"), and with many of their contract players on their way out the door (this was long after Louis B. Mayer had left, although he was attempting a take-over around the time this came out), and it is sad to realize that their golden era wasn't quite over but yet never the same as it had been under the old master. A few more musicals and some biblical epics and film versions of Broadway plays would keep MGM a major player, but with T.V. keeping viewers away, it was obvious that they would never recapture the former glory.

The film follows the sex lives of 6 related couples after the birth of children and in one case, once the children leave home. The film deals with issues of being tired, growing unattractive, and infidelity.The movie is indie style. It is humorous and deals with the topic in a quirky fashion. The film talks about sex in the beginning by a "doctor" in a manner that I thought I was going to watch a fifties soft porn film. However the film didn't digress that far. Worth a watch for indie fans.Parental Guide: F-bomb, sex, nudity. Explicit sex talk.

SEX after KIDS must SEE Film filled with funny ,funny ,adorable moments must see at least once . Hysterical one liners heartwarming real life emotion for every kind of relationship . The actors chemistry portrayed brilliantly in this film A+ acting .Must see at least once comedy won't be disappointed .Zoie Palmer & Paul Amos & Kris Holden Raid should do a comedys together because their chemistry is Hysterical portrayed for comedys in shows and films .what more can i say but amazing, funny , adorable, sad, funny,great acting,A+ ,Zoie Palmer ,Kris Holden raid , Paul Amos funny .I'm not much of a writer "IMDb why you giving me hard time good lord . Just post it i know you want 1,000 words omg this all i got I'm not much of a writer sorry " .

When I saw that Celebrity Sex Tape was released by The Asylum, and after reading the first few sentences of the plot synopsis, I became very curious to see just what was in store for me in this film.A lot of reviews of this film that I've seen have offered critiques about the acting, saying that there is a lot of over acting in particular. For what I saw, I think the opposite is true. There is a lot of under acting in this film as, with a comedy film like this, over acting, for better or worse, is the feature, not the bug. As a result there are some unintentionally funny moments involving actors making some kind of exclamation but having no facial expression or body language to back it up, so it looks like something out of a satire. That said, I will say that there were parts of Ross' big monologue at the end which I found a bit funny as far as the performance goes and I think it captured the film's intent as an absurdist comedy the best.This is not a very good film, of course, but before I got into explaining why, I do have to compliment the film on one aspect, at least. I could easily see a situation where a Hollywood production would produce a film with a similar premise and have similar marketing including the obnoxious promotional images, but when it comes to what the film actually shows, it would pull punches so it could get an R rating so it can be shown in as many theaters it can be. This film, could have easily done something like that, even if it wasn't rated, and yet it didn't and it doesn't pull punches and, coming from an American film production that isn't pornographic, I was genuinely surprised but also had to pay some respect to the film because of that.It doesn't make the film good, but it does, in fact, deliver what it promises and that has to count for something.The film still isn't very good though. There are a lot of issues with it, especially when it comes to the style of humor it has. Maybe among high school boys back in 2012 it would have been funny, but its low bar shock humor has long since curdled like year old spoiled milk left out in the sun for a year. The really bad Asian portrayal, the fat jokes, the homophobic jokes, etc. are all products of a bygone age where it would have been considered acceptable and funny. I almost felt like there could have been some kind of commentary going on about sexism in nerd culture with the way the main characters obsess over losing their virginity before graduating college as if it's a necessity and how women are only portrayed as objects that can serve as a means to that end and that is where their value is derived from. But as I saw the film play this portrayal straight, where the moral ended up being the equivalent of "bros before hoes" in tone I realized that that was just what the film was - a nerd fantasy - if you will.Celebrity Sex Tape is a shock comedy that is a rung trashier than the trashiest major production studios in Hollywood can put out. This film pulls out all the stops and takes no prisoners, for better or for worse, and while it does, indeed, flaunt its being unrated as its promotional images suggest, there is very little substance here that is really worth seeing unless you on't mind watching stupid, offensive-for-the-sake-of-it shock humor schlock. You aren't missing anything if you don't see this.

LANGUAGE OF LOVE (1969) was apparently quite groundbreaking for its day, basically the Scandinavian answer to Matt Cimber's MAN & WIFE and the first film to present explicit sex onscreen in Sweden. However, in contrast to its more prurient American cousin, LANGUAGE OF LOVE truly seems to have been made by folks who believed in what they were doing, resulting in a film that's 98% dialogue, 2% sex, and, in this reviewer's opinion, ungodly boring. The same team returns for this follow-up, though thankfully they seem to have figured out the formula for success in the interim, cutting down on gum-flapping and expanding the earlier film's vignette structure into a more diverse and interesting group of people.Focus here, after the predecessor's strictly hetero, monogamous marriage manual structure, is sexual anomalies, and give the film credit, it's unafraid to go there quickly. Immediately following the titles, the returning sex researchers dive right into a discussion of homosexuality, and it's barely 10 minutes before the movie is presenting a totally uncensored view of gay lovers in flagrante. In pleasant addition to this sequence, however, is the footage that surrounds it: the couple hangs out in their apartment, cuddles, and acts intimate in a completely casual, normalizing way that's still rare to see today in media not specifically directed toward gay viewers.Next segment covers a pair of lesbians and runs the risk of stylistic repetition, but handles things compassionately and effectively. Subsequent sections cover transvestism (and a bit about transgenderism), sex among the mentally and physically impaired, etc. The latter is particularly stunning, as the subject of sex among the handicapped is still a topic that makes people uncomfortable; yet, like all the rest of its segments, the film presents it with a remarkable amount of empathy and candor.Things slow down a bit toward the end, which features a section on pornography and sex shows that feels like filler. Nevertheless, this was exactly the breath of fresh air I needed after so many crummy US exploitation pseudo-docs: a film that dedicates itself to covering non-mainstream subjects and does so with sensitivity, tact and - dare I say it? - even eroticism. I still haven't seen the final entry in the trilogy, LANGUAGE OF LOVE XYZ, but I hope it kept up the momentum, a vast improvement over the well-intentioned but stodgy first entry. 041b061a72


Welcome fellow sugar warriors! This group is to try and help...

Sugar Warrior

bottom of page