- Hannah Dakota Fanning
- Conyers, Georgia, USA
Dakota Fanning's Sexy Filmography
Movies this celebrity has appeared sexy or nude in...
|2013||Very Good Girls||0 Reviews|
|2012||Now Is Good||2 Reviews|
nudity reviews for Dakota Fanning member submitted
Dakota Fanning plays a teen with terminal leukemia. At various points we see parts of her chest and side, but (a) she's careful to keep her breasts out of shot, and (b) it's in a medical context, so not exactly sexy. We do see her bare back as her boyfriend bathes her, but it's all well above the waist and all those bruises are a bit offputting.
Not quite a skinny dip
As noted by the previous reviewer, most of the exposure from Ms Fanning is rather too clinical to be sexy, but he missed out the scene where she and her putative boyfriend go for a nighttime swim. For a moment, he thinks she's suggesting a skinny dip, but she swiftly puts him straight, then strips down to her bra and panties (the latter being quite tight and slightly tucked up the crack of her butt). The movie merits a half-star when all the scenes are added together.
NO NUDITY WHATSOEVER
I'm adding this entry simply in order to prevent the inevitable nudity claim by someone who hasn't seen the movie but has fallen hook, line & sinker for the usual Chinese whispers. Ms Fanning isn't even 13 yet, so what are the real odds this this film includes a graphic sex scene? Yes, it does include a rape, but I'll quote an interview with Ms Fanning, conducted by AP writer Debbie Hummel and datelined 24-01-07: "It's not a rape movie. That's not even the point of the film... It's not really happening. It's a movie, and it's called acting. I'm not going through anything... And for me, when it's done it's done. I don't even think about it anymore." Hummel adds background: "The disturbing scene lasts a few minutes but is not graphic. There is no nudity, the scene is very darkly lit and only Fanning's face and hand are shown." However, adds Hummel, this isn't enough for Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission and publisher of the website movieguide.org, who "claims [the film] "breaks federal child-pornography law. He said the law covers material that 'appears' to show minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Hummel then quotes Baehr: "Even if they're not actually performing the explicit act, we are dealing with a legal issue here... Children at 12 do not have the ability to make the types of decisions that we're talking about here. If we're offended by some comedian's racial slur, why aren't we offended by somebody taking advantage of a 12-year-old child?"