porn sex hot girl young mal
content
The film intertwines the story of four couples and one threesome as they have one sexual encounter each, divided into specific chapters: prelude, foreplay, sex, interlude, orgasm and afterglow. Each couple represents a specific relationship archetype. The first of the five is called The Best Friends because the characters, Matt and Kristen, decide to become friends with benefits. Their 20-year friendship initially makes this awkward as they know everything about each other – except that they each secretly knew the other once had romantic feelings for them. These feelings are rediscovered and acknowledged as they become intimate.
The second archetype is The Couple, Abby and Andrew, a long-time couple who are having trouble trying to put spice back into their lovelife. On his birthday they try something new: a strap-on dildo Abby had received as a gag gift at a bachelorette party. Through role reversal, they are able to find satisfaction and a new understanding and appreciation for each other.
The third archetype is labeled The Exes. Mia and Eric have dinner after breaking up some time ago, and end up back at her place. They decide to have sex and while they say they're over each other, they have clear feelings. To their regret, it isn't enough to overcome the unstated reasons they separated.
In the fourth archetype, The First Date, womanizing Ken returns to the apartment of flirtatious Jamie, a new employee at his workplace where he has slept with every other woman. He feels a connection and worries about ruining a possible relationship, resulting in awkward sex. Unsatisfied Jamie admits to pretending to be an ingénue to appeal to Ken, and calls him a hypocrite when he complains that she lied to have sex. Ken is upset as he leaves but quickly turns his charm on a woman in the elevator.
In the fifth and final archetype, The Roommates, Gord invites his roommate Dave to have sex with his girlfriend Inez. Gord initially demands affirmation and directs them while watching. Dave later prompts Gord to admit his insecurity that he is enough for Inez, who is enthusiastically permissive and will happily do anything Gord wants. In this moment of honesty Dave quietly admits to a fetish which has made it difficult for him to form a relationship but Gord and Inez don't seem to hear. Dave and Gord find respect for each other and reaffirm their friendship, though Inez suggests that she'd like to watch Gord and Dave together.
Cast
Writing and development[edit]
Writers Martin Gero and Aaron Abrams had the idea for the movie around 2004.[3] Gero felt that most romantic comedies built to the point of intimacy while sex comedies tended to be about "losing your virginity or masturbating", and that there weren't any films dealing with "the complications of sex" and the resulting humour.[2]
They wrote the film in six months during 2005, Gero taking inspiration from Carnal Knowledge and Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice.[6] They hadn't worked together before and wrote the script one segment at a time, emailing it to each other for rewrites. They intended it as a short film because they didn't think they could get a feature deal. Halfway through, they realized it was an "actor's movie" that would rely on its performances.[3]
The title was a working title that stuck. According to Gero, "we wanted to be frank and honest and uncensored". Gero said that he and Abrams, as male writers, were initially most concerned about the depth of the female characters and that in their first draft the male characters were comparatively underdeveloped.[2] Their first female notes came from Sarah Polley, who Abrams knew from Slings & Arrows.[6]
Production[edit]
In November 2007, three weeks prior to filming, the project's distribution deal collapsed when ThinkFilm was sold to American investors. Producer Steve Hoban moved quickly to secure a new Canadian distributor and investor which would accept the project without cast, director or script changes. On the strength of the script, Montreal-based Christal Films came on, also seeing the film as a way to help expand into English Canada. ThinkFilm retained US and international distribution.[6]
The movie was shot in Toronto over 19 days[6] and cost $1.4 million. It received $200,000 in federal and provincial tax credits,[1][7] and Telefilm Canada had a 30% stake in the film.[7] Labour costs were about $1 million.[7] The crew were mostly hired from a children's show, where they were accustomed to sensitive performers.[3]
$160,000 went to rights for the music used, though the filmmakers had difficulty finding music which suited the scenes and gaining the necessary permissions given the film's title. They could not get permissions for any recognizable products in the film, not even brand-name condoms. For the shoot, the film was called "Young People", as the location manager didn't think he could negotiate permissions under its full title.[3]
There were few technical shots in the film, as there was a tight schedule for the shoot and Gero wanted to avoid technical delays or the semi-dressed actors getting cold. The movie was shot on film due to the close spaces as it consists almost entirely of interior shots. Production designer Diana Abbatangelo created the warm scenes. After the shoot, the filmmakers spent 18 days with director of photography Arthur E. Cooper doing colour correction for a "richness and crispness" to make it look like a high-production movie.[3]
Controversy[edit]
The film was at the centre of a Canadian political controversy.[7] In October 2007,[8] the Canadian federal government introduced the 560-page Bill C-10 which passed through the Commons unopposed. In February 2008, news broke that it contained a clause allowing the government to retroactively strip tax credits from films deemed "contrary to public policy" by the Heritage Minister. What that meant and how it might be applied was unclear, and was followed by several months of investigation by the Senate banking, trade and commerce committee with testimony by the arts community and religious activists.[7][9][8]:346[10]
Writer-director Gero stated: "I think we're an easy target – we've got a swear in the title. And also no one's seen it. So it's easy for the pro-C-10 people, whoever they are, I've only met one, to say...this is obviously pornography, we want to shut it down".[11] Gero and Abrams noted that the publicity worked to the film's benefit, and expected that the bill would die when the film came out and audiences saw it wasn't objectionable.[2]
Distributor Maple Pictures invited senators, members of parliament and staffers to a special screening in Ottawa on May 29, 2008,[12][13][14] but Conservative MPs declined to attend and Conservative aide Victoria van Eyk was fired when she ordered tickets for herself.[12][14] New Democratic Party heritage critic Bill Siksay found it "troubling" that the film was said to be undeserving of tax-credit support. "I think lots of people will have a good laugh when they see it."[7] Liberal heritage critic Denis Coderre rated the movie 3 out of 5 and stated "My Canada includes freedom of expression, and I do not think politicians should get involved in creation".[14] Heritage Minister Josée Verner admitted that she was privately against the clause.[15]
Backlash to C-10 was strongest in Quebec,[9] however some amusement was taken at the prudish Conservative reaction to the film in English Canada.[2] Marc Cassivi of La Presse called it hypocritical and wrote that the film had merely "le sex ontarien" (literally, the Ontario sex) with no pornographic material, no genitals to be seen and breasts usually clad in brassieres.[13]
Release[edit]
The film premiered on September 6, 2007, at the 2007 Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). It opened the Canada First! programme[16][6][17] of films by first- and second-time Canadian directors and established Canadian filmmakers not previously represented at the festival.[18][19] It was also shown at the Vancouver,[20]Seattle,[21] and Philadelphia film festivals.[22]
The film was to have had a limited Canadian release in February 2008,[23] but Christal Films faced financial difficulty and waived its rights to the film. By mid-March, Maple Pictures took over and pushed the release back to June 13 to accommodate a modest advertising campaign[24][2] while taking advantage of publicity from the Bill C-10 controversy.[23][20][1][7] Maple hoped that the quality of the work would allow it to play as "counter-programming" to the summer Hollywood blockbusters.[24] The film opened in nearly forty theatres across Canada, including Quebec.[22][23]
The film was rated 18A in Canada, except for Quebec where it was rated 16A (titled Jeunes adultes qui baisent ).[2] The film was rated NC-17 in the United States, which meant few theatres would show it and many publications would refuse to run advertisements. Rather than censoring material for an R rating, Hoban insisted on the original cut.[25]
The film had a limited release in the United States[23] and in the United Kingdom. In those countries, the film was titled YPF.[2] ThinkFilm International had deals in place to distribute the film in France, Spain, Italy, Russia, South Korea, South Africa, Turkey, Poland, Greece, Israel, Thailand and the Balkans.[26]
Reception[edit]
Commercial performance[edit]
Opening weekend grosses in Canada were just over $100,000, making it the eleventh most-popular film for the weekend of June 13–15. It remained among the top-twenty most-popular films for the next three weeks,[23] and played in Canadian theatres for three months.[3]
In early 2009, it became the most-downloaded film on the Canadian iTunes store.[28]
Critical response[edit]
Metacritic rated the film 39/100 based on five reviews.[29] The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported 35% of 20 surveyed critics gave the film a positive review; the average rating was 5.3/10. Among the site's "top critics", all of the favourable reviews came from Canadian publications[30] and the film generally received a better reception in its home country. Liam Lacey of The Globe and Mail rated it 2.5/4 stars and described it as a well-paced film which showed "an emotionally vulnerable and funny side" of sex, but that the characters were uneven. Lacey called it appropriate for an American cable TV series.[31] Peter Howell of The Toronto Star rated it 3/4 stars and called it "very funny and insightful".[32] Now Magazine rated it 4/5 and noted that switching between the segments "gives the film the momentum of a door-slamming bedroom farce."[33] Ashley Carter of Exclaim! called it a "thoughtfully hilarious psychosexual study" with consistently solid performances.[34] Reviewing the DVD for the same publication, Mark Carpenter found it to be a rare film that underscored "Hollywood genre imperatives" with the hipness and character relationships associated with Canadian cinema.[35] Ken Eisner of Georgia Straight found the film worked well and had some insights but did not probe deeply into the subject matter.[36] François Petitclerc of Septième art wrote that the structure punctuated the film's fluid and convincing writing, and that each actor commanded their role.[37]However, Wyndham Wise of Northernstars.ca wrote that the film was unsurprising despite clever dialog that was well delivered by the cast.[38] Brian Johnson of conservative Maclean's magazine wrote that the film was well shot with some good performances, but found the situations unbelievable and suffering from "squeaky-clean mediocrity."[39][15] Shaun Lang of Hollywood North rated it 5.5/10 and found it complicated and inconsistent, lacking a meaningful message.[40]
Justin Chang of Variety wrote, "Neither as extreme nor, for that matter, as interesting as its troublesome title, Young People Fucking delivers what it promises," though he found the characters lacking and the dialogue repetitive.[41] Leonard Klady of Screen Daily wrote, "Neither documentary nor hardcore, it's an ingeniously constructed pastiche of sexual encounters presented affectionately and with humour."[42] Carrie Rickey of The Philadelphia Inquirer rated it 2.5/4 and called it "pleasant rather than pleasurable."[43] Martin Tsai of the New York Sun found it "humorous and provocative" but felt it might have worked better as a play.[44] Kurt Halfyard of Thirdrow.com felt the film was an entertaining comedy, but lacked a substantial story or a sense of impending tragedy to elevate the humour.[45] Jason Whyte of eFilmcritic.com rated the film 5/5 and praised Gero's directing and the cast, writing that it was a movie "for couples that will absolutely relate to the material in one way or another."[22]
Film Threat stated that it "shoots Judd Apatow-styled raunch into previously uncharted stratospheres of frank sexual humor" but that the cast were too attractive to be believable.[46] Mark Peikert of Strausmedia called it "smart and funny", set apart from similar films by details in the realistic characters.[47] Felix Vasquez of Cinema-crazed.com hated the "pseudo mumblecore" whining of beautiful people, but appreciated the turnarounds in the second half and its message about "the fragile nature of love".[48] Maryann Johanson of FlickFilosopher panned the film as boring and inadequately cast, devoid of intimacy or resolution.[49] Mariana McConnell of Cinemablend.com rated it 4/5, and felt the well-constructed script kept the segments isolated as a "simple treatise about desire", praising it for exploring humour in realistic sexual situations.[50] David Nusair of Reel Film rated the movie 2.5/4 and called it a "fast-paced and very funny look at contemporary relationships."[51] Stephen Garrett of Time Out rated it 2/5, full of "jarring skips" that reduced the film into uninvolved sketches.[52] Rob Hunter of Film School Rejects gave a C+ rating to the DVD, finding the film entertaining but uneven and erratic.[53]
Lacey called it appropriate for an American cable TV series.[31] Howell and Lou Lumernick of the New York Post likened it to a raunchy reboot of 1970s TV series Love, American Style, sharing a format of characters working through their romantic issues.[32][54] Carpenter felt the quality was "remarkably consistent for an ominbus film"[35] while several other reviewers found the film uneven – though they frequently disagreed on which segments and actors they found better than the others.[47][31][53][40] Jim Slotek felt the film stood out over time and included it among his recommended Canadian films for Valentine's Day 2018.[55]
Awards[edit]
The film led the Canadian Comedy Awards with eight nominations across all four film categories, receiving multiple performance nominations for the ensemble cast.[56]It won the Beavers for Best Direction, Best Writing, and Best Male Performance by Oldring.[57]
Kristin Booth won a Genie Award for best supporting actress. At the politically-charged ceremony in Ottawa, Jay Stone of The National Post wrote that it was a "vindication" for the film.[58] Booth was also nominated for the 2008 ACTRA Toronto award for outstanding performance by a female.[59]
Sonja Bennett won for Best Supporting Actress in a Canadian Film at the Vancouver Film Critics Circle (VFCC).[60]
| Award | Category | Nominee or recipient | Result | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genie Awards | Best Supporting Actress | Kristin Booth | Won | [61] |
| Canadian Comedy Awards | Best Direction – Film | Martin Gero | Won | [62] |
| Best Writing – Film | Martin Gero and Aaron Abrams | Won | ||
| Best Male Performance – Film | Peter Oldring | Won | ||
| Josh Dean | Nominated | |||
| Ennis Esmer | Nominated | |||
| Best Female Performance – Film | Kristin Booth | Nominated | ||
| Natalie Lisinska | Nominated | |||
| Carly Pope | Nominated | |||
| Vancouver Film Critics Circle | Canadian – Best Supporting Actress | Sonja Bennett | Won | [60] |
| ACTRA Toronto Awards | Outstanding Performance – Female | Kristin Booth | Nominated | [ |
Comments
Post a Comment