Talk:Sleeping Beauty (2011 film)

}}

world of beauty and desire

This world of beauty and desire is one in which Emily Browning's character prostitutes herself in a high class brothel in a game where she takes sleeping pills that would fell a rhino and allows dirty old men to sleep with her while she is unconscious. (But with no actual penetration). Real beauty there, eh what? Emily Browning was chosen coz when she did the screen test she sounded and acted like she had ALREADY dropped a handful of Nembutal. So she was a natural. The dialog, as especially when the Madam explains what she has to do, is far too uppity and la-di-dah for Australia. In Oz, the Madam would say something "Ok Cindy, you got it. Customer can cop a feel but no jiggy jiggy. You get a good night's sleep, and wake up to a nice cuppa." I'm making a sequel in which I also star: it's called "Sleeping himbo". Girls pay good money to sleep with me while I'm pissed to the eyeballs and out like a light. What a life! Eh? Eh, wot? Myles325a (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Charming, Myles. While we're stating our personal opinions, I noticed the similarity in the premise to meat puppets in William Gibson's Neuromancer. Fences&Windows 20:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Having seen the film, I must admit that Myles' description is more correct. "... is drawn into a world of beauty and desire" was straight from the advertising bureau and hopelessly inadequate. I replaced it with something more along the lines of Myles. Anybody care to add a "Plot" section? Debresser (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the purpose of the plot - to retell the plot?? Not to state whether you did or did not like a movie??? Ok, you didn't like it. I did. In fact, it was the most moving, disturbing, beautiful thing that I've seen in a long time. Neither of opinions is relative to the plot section. 69.119.232.155 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Plot?

It's been out for a while now, why hasn't a plot been put up? I myself would like to know exactly who that random friend she kept visiting was meant to be and what the whole point of that was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.34.178 (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No point to much of the "plot". The central character was simply a prostitute, doing various peculiar jobs.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you personally did not like the movie, it is not a reason enough to say "no point in putting up the plot". Myself, along with many other viewers, found the movie beautiful and deeply moving. No need to impose your shallow understanding on others. Cosainsé (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

'College'

This is an Australian film in an Australian setting. Why are American terms being used in the description? Can we change this to university please? 120.29.48.80 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Bridmann's death

I was under the impression that Birdmann committed suicide, not overdosed on drugs as the article says (meaning intentional suicide, not accidental overdose). When Lucy comes, she picks up a pack of factory-packaged pills. Though I guess its not a hard proof. However, suicide would mirror the ending - Bridmann wanted her to comfort him before his death, just as the host of the party did at the end. Any thoughts? Cosainsé (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Why no Imdb, Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic ratings

Almost all current movies have a sentence or paragraph devoted to the reception of the film by film review sites. Why not this one???? I'd post the info myself, but Wikipedia has a problem with biased editors reverting facts they don't like and I don't like wasting my time. For anyone wanting to improve the article, here's the current, correct information as of 2015Apr27, Imdb is 5.3....Rotten Tomatoes is 49%.....Metacritic is 57%. N0w8st8s (talk)n0w8wt8s — Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Added these, see next section. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits of this date

I added the requested Metacritic and RT ratings, and adjusted the lede content to reflect their content. (Addition was to the "Reception" section.)

Based on the content of those sources, I have also called for review of Reception section, a look at the neutrality of that section. If the metacritic and RT sources are correct (if no other sources can be found to alter these conclusions), then critics are evenly split. This split is not accurately conveyed by this section, which overemphasizes the positive, in shear weight of material. No side in this fight, just stating the obvious academic conclusion.

Otherwise, the academic section needs attention, for nearly all of its sources are incomplete, and variously formatted. I have fixed two as an example.

And the appearance of bare URLs has led to an article tag, to alert the ever illustrious editor Bull, so he can work la magie anglaise. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sleeping Beauty (2011 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120608192648/http://www.santafefilmfestival.com/sleeping-beauty-2/ to http://www.santafefilmfestival.com/sleeping-beauty-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)