IMDB really is an amazing resource; I mean, where else could you get list of props and abstract concepts featured in a film but from that web site’s plot key words? It’s the only way I can decide whether a film is worth going to see or not. Who in their right mind could resist the prospect of a film with plot key words such as “laptop, whiskey, pantyhose, set on fire, wife murder”?
Also, it’s rather good fun to play bingo with the list of keywords. An especially fun game to play when you’re just going to the student cinema to make the most out of your ten pound membership fee. Perhaps a drinking game could be invented around it? Something to keep me busy for the holidays.
I can’t help but think that alot of the IMDB reviews are written by perves and the terminally sexually frustrated. If there is even the merest hint of nudity or sex then these words and their synonyms will be listed at the very least 5 times. Listening to IMBD, you would think that Ang Lee’s Lust Caution was nothing more than brutal porn rather than an espionage thriller, needless to say mybestmateben was horrifically disappointed.
Anyway, yes, I liked the film lots, despite the lack of brutal sex. I’d give it 8.5. Worth every penny of the £2 I paid to see it at the student cinema.
If there’s one thing bingo lacks it’s an element of subjectivity.
[...] I’m going to have to take issue with the title alone. The clothes are seriously not the causal factor if clothed sex does happen to be “hot”, it’s the spontaneity and intensity of feeling and rampantness that make it hot. Not , for example, the fact you couldn’t arse yourself to take off your flannelette pyjama top, or he’s riddled with verrucas so has to keep his socks on. To give the props – the incidentals – the credit for good sex is to completely miss the point and see the world like an IMDB contributor. [...]