not porn , really

Rating: 3/10 (6 October 2015)

avoided the movie due to-its 20 minutes of porn-reviews.saw it in the end,and though not good its not porn,abuse or anything like that. and for all the appalled,worked-up,snobs that gave it an awful review all i have to say is this-if this movie was black and white,in an European language that you cant really hope to ever understand,with an actual abuse or beating in it,obscure music and presented at Cannes it would have been called a film and all your reviews would have praised it.everybody is a movie critic these days it seems. that said,the movie wasn't great.there is no chemistry between the actors,gives the impression that there's major parts in the story that have been skipped(haven't read the book,so i cant say for certain if there are parts missing or not).has a bit of sexy,a bit of romantic,little bit of drama.as for it being porn-really is not.but i think the light bondage and the fact that they show more of him almost naked than of her made people formulate that absurdity.people are used with seeing extra boobs,small bikini,see- through clothing,etc., on women and its very sexy-maybe even artistic.see a guys backside-get out the pitchforks.now if he wasn't half naked in the semi-dark but in wet shorts by the pool it would have been okay.as it is the male body-(even if only hinted at being naked)-wins the -its porn- title. as i said the movie isn't great but not awful either.see it and if you found it light and entertaining OWN IT,don't be a snob.