Comments about this movie

See all comments about this movie and its vehicles

Author	Message
Jale ◊ 2011-10-20 22:11	I'm not sure if I should put this film. It's referred to as porn, but in reality it's rather artistic cinema, albeit with a few close-ups of the erogenous zones (and - frankly - blowjobs, but without any detailed intercourses). However, it has some nice cars... It seems also, that exist edited version (I watched full version, without cutouts): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Image_%28film%29
Lateef ◊ 2011-10-20 22:19	I'm for it it's listed on IMDb and has historical value. Err... scratch that last one.
tonkatracker ◊ 2011-10-20 23:04	This movie sure has a nice selection of automobiles, it is definitely an asset to the site.
Jale ◊ 2011-10-20 23:13	I have same problem with "Le sexe qui parle" from 1975 ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190780/ ), but this one has detailed intercourses...
antp ◊ 2011-10-21 16:20	As long that you do not post here images of these details, I do not see the problem to list these if they are real movies and listed by IMDb
ingo ◊ 2011-10-22 00:33	Lateef wrote and has historical value. Err... scratch that last one. No. Why? The value is undeniable existing /vehicle_442699-Volkswagen-K70-Typ-48-1973.html
dsl ◊ 2011-10-22 00:44	Lateef wrote scratch that last one. Image removed.
ingo ◊ 2011-10-22 00:49	Jale wrote I'm not sure if I should put this film. It's referred to as porn, Oh, please continue to contribute all these trashy movies Who else shall do that? Not everyone can bear this concotions, not even for just spotting car. We need more of this embarassing 70ies shit here! And not uncountable masses of family-compatible Hollywood-made series with all this product placement-cars (and annoying masses of Crown Victorias ) As Antoine said, please avoid the porno-scenes. Not because Americans could feel harrassed, more because of the artistic taste. This stuff is usually so un-erotical, that it causes pain, even nausea by viewing and vicarious embarrassment, too (Oh, not only in German we have this neologism http://www.dict.cc/?s=fremdsch%C3%A4men )
antp ◊ 2011-10-22 11:27	My concern is rather about legal issues of what is on the site/server, and keeping the site more or less kid-compliant (despite we all know how they can be annoying when they start to post a lot of comments )
Ford_Guy ◊ 2011-10-23 10:44	ingo wrote Not because Americans could feel harrassed, more because of the artistic taste. I've never felt harrassed with any type of pornographic images on this site, I just don't think this is the place for them
Lateef ◊ 2011-10-23 11:54	ingo wrote No. Why? The value is undeniable existing /vehicle_442699-Volkswagen-K70-Typ-48-1973.html Hey, don't go taking that out on me, I wrote that comment BEFORE the K70 was found (by me).
ingo ◊ 2011-10-24 21:30	Ford_Guy wrote I've never felt harrassed with any type of pornographic images on this site We are always discussing only about visible pornographic items, but ignore always the sound Last Saturday night I was very irritated about a strange buzzing sound, while driving my car a bit speedy at home The reason, which I saw at the next morning:
ingo ◊ 2011-10-24 21:31	Lateef wrote Hey, don't go taking that out on me, I wrote that comment BEFORE the K70 was found (by me). O.k., I will accept this apologize for now
G-MANN ◊ 2011-10-24 22:32	ingo wrote Oh, please continue to contribute all these trashy movies Who else shall do that? Who else? You know who, Monsieur Six Cylindre...
ingo ◊ 2011-10-24 22:48	Naah, now you're doing wrong to sixcyl He's very orientated into the opposite direction and contributes mainly intellectual movies, many auteur-movie-stuff, not this B- to Z-class porno- or action-trash. O.k., watching this kind of cineastic pieces is often not more bearable. Jale- and stronghold-style-movies are sometimes unwillingly funny, because they are so trashy. These over-intellectual, social-critic, gloomy films, sixcyl is often presenting, is not my cup of tea either. It even causes bad rememberings. To my school-times in ghe high-political 80ies, where the teachers in my left-winged school have maltreated us with Fassbender et al. Huh, terrible thoughts, even after more than 20 years.
G-MANN ◊ 2011-10-24 22:50	ingo wrote He's very orientated into the opposite direction and contributes mainly intellectual movies, many auteur-movie-stuff, not this B- to Z-class porno- or action-trash. So he says. And how would you know the difference between this and some of the things he's added unless you've watched them yourself
Nightrider ◊ 2011-10-24 23:07	G-MANN wrote unless you've watched them yourself Ingo had foreseeing intuition.
G-MANN ◊ 2011-10-24 23:15	Oh yes I forgot, he doesn't need to watch something to form an opinion on it. -- Last edit: 2011-10-24 23:16:34
ingo ◊ 2011-10-24 23:16	G-MANN wrote And how would you know the difference between this and some of the things he's added unless you've watched them yourself Oh, it's very easy: just by browsing across the feuilleton-pages of some not too lowclass newspapers and magazines you can pick up names of filmmakers, wihch have (in the feuilletonists opinion) an artistic or intellectual aspiration.
G-MANN ◊ 2011-10-24 23:21	I suspect the "artistic or intellectual aspirations" are really just an excuse to look at tits and pussy That goes for the viewers of these films as well. -- Last edit: 2011-10-24 23:27:54
Sandie ◊ 2011-10-24 23:22	And such films are so boring and so far up their own arse that it's not even worth watching them for those things.
G-MANN ◊ 2011-10-24 23:24	Sandie wrote so far up their own arse Yes, that's the phrase I was looking for. -- Last edit: 2011-10-24 23:24:55
ingo ◊ 2011-10-24 23:31	@Sandie: for exact that reason we can be so happy about those IMCDb-ists, which are strong enough to bear all this stuff, we don't like, either C-class-pornos or high-intellectual brain-melting films, just for presenting interesting cars for us. All of them have deserved a
Nightrider ◊ 2011-10-24 23:32	BTW, "I don't need to watch this BS" method still flawless. Believe me, I use it frequently.
dsl ◊ 2011-10-24 23:45	G-MANN wrote I suspect the "artistic or intellectual aspirations" are really just an excuse to look at tits and pussy. That goes for the viewers of these films as well. Alert - Daily Mail brainwashing is turning imcdb members into zombies. How do we combat this menace and fight off these prejudices??
G-MANN ◊ 2011-10-24 23:47	dsl wrote Alert - Daily Mail brainwashing is turning imcdb members into zombies. Don't you accuse me of that I don't think there's anything wrong with watching such films, just don't pretentiously claim they have real "artistic value". -- Last edit: 2011-10-24 23:48:16
ingo ◊ 2011-10-24 23:54	dsl wrote Alert - Daily Mail brainwashing is turning imcdb members into zombies. How do we combat this menace and fight off these prejudices?? Where's the problem? Who cares? Prejudices about us? So what? May the people outside our dimension label us as eccentrics, nerds, zombies or even marmite-lovers - who of us gives a sh.. on that? I cannot see any reason to fight against the opinion of others. Why should we do that? Our own opinions and beliefs are more substantial. To be precise: exclusively substantial. -- Last edit: 2011-10-24 23:58:53
G-MANN ◊ 2011-10-24 23:59	I think you've misunderstood - he was saying I sounded like a Daily Mail reader (a reactionary British tabloid newspaper)
Nightrider ◊ 2011-10-25 01:10	G-MANN wrote real "artistic value". Depends from definition of "real" or "artistic".
ingo ◊ 2011-10-25 13:21	@G-MANN: isn't that a more flattering assumption than being apostrophised as a SUN reader?
ingo ◊ 2011-10-25 14:32	antp wrote keeping the site more or less kid-compliant (despite we all know how they can be annoying when they start to post a lot of comments ) I understand, what you mean: /yourcomments.php?formovie=86817 /yourcomments.php?formovie=1195935 /yourcomments.php?formovie=317219 -- Last edit: 2011-10-25 14:33:52
Lateef ◊ 2011-10-25 14:40	Some of these kids have provided me with solid entertainment though: /yourcomments.php?search=&id=faroe+93 / /yourcomments.php?search=&id=the+big+bopper /yourcomments.php?search=&id=appy /yourcomments.php?search=&id=lantzs09 /yourcomments.php?search=&id=carsgt4 /yourcomments.php?search=&id=ford78 /yourcomments.php?search=&id=carkid /yourcomments.php?search=&id=honda5 -- Last edit: 2011-10-25 14:44:12
Andre Malraux ◊ 2011-10-25 14:59	Why all this fuss???
Lateef ◊ 2011-10-25 18:23	Because it's IMCDb
Andre Malraux ◊ 2011-10-25 21:39	Right!
ingo ◊ 2011-10-26 21:19	Lateef wrote Some of these kids have provided me with solid entertainment ...which hasn't protected some of them from sacking.
chicomarx ◊ 2011-10-26 21:29	ingo wrote @G-MANN: isn't that a more flattering assumption than being apostrophised as a SUN reader? 'apostrophised'? you really have to stop using that online dictionary, ingo.
G-MANN ◊ 2011-10-27 23:36	And maybe start learning English again Or at least try and be less ambitious with your existing English and use simpler words, stop trying to use all these ridiculous long words that either don't exist or are in the wrong context (you could have just said "Isn't that better than being called a Sun reader?") In answer in your question: Not really (although The Sun is much more dumb) -- Last edit: 2011-10-27 23:48:27
chicomarx ◊ 2011-10-28 22:27	Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

	The vehicle is part of the movie
	Vehicle used a lot by a main character or for a long time
	Vehicle used by a character or in a car chase
	Minor action vehicle or used in only a short scene
	Background vehicle
	Unknown vehicle role
	Seen only in preview/trailer
	Seen only in deleted scenes
	Seen only in an alternative ending
	Seen only in an extra DVD contents

Advertising

Last completed movie pages

The Image, Movie, 1975

Comments about this movie

Add a comment