Ain't It Cool News (

Are you a tad pissed about the Edited version of EYES WIDE SHUT dvd coming out... but no Unedited version in sight'

Hey folks, Harry here. Since we don't have an email address that we can scream at... I figured what the hell... right? Ol John Boy here wrote in with a concerned letter about this whole fuck up by Warner Video, following the debacle that Warner Theatrical made out of the whole thing. Sigh. Well, what's a geek to do? Why... COMPLAIN THAT'S WHAT! If you happen to find out more ways to reach folks at Warner Video... post them below in TALK BACK. This is an outrage that the last film from Stanley Kubrick is being treated like PORNOGRAPHY, especially when most EVERYONE IN THE FRIGGIN COUNTRY FELT THAT THE MOVIE WAS ONLY RISQUE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF 1950's America! Remember... be polite, but unrelenting.

Hey man, what the fuck is up with Warner Brothers releasing the edited version of Eyes Wide Shut on DVD. No fan is going to want to buy that on DVD with those stupid CGI hoods ruining the scene. I'm surprised that people aren't more pissed off about this. We need a way we can email Warner Bros and complain. I got a contact name and fax number but that's it.

Warren Leiberfarb (President, Warner Home Video)



John Boy

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Jan. 20, 2000, 4:38 a.m. CST

    First , & totally pissed!

    by Darth Siskel

    THose fuckers!! I want to see the few scraps of nudity Kubrick shot. The effects cover up looked stupid, and I just realized something. THIS IS FUCKING AMERICA!!! Remember that word WB?!?! AMERICA!!! 'AMERICA' ONLINE OWNS YOUR ASS! Stop treating us like children! Eyes Wide Shut was an adult film. As adults we can buy XXX porn, horses fucking your mothers in the ass, so why can't we some some softcore shit?! If Kubrick wanted the scene altered why the fuck did you release it unaltered in other countries?! I WILL NEVER BUY EYES WIDE SHUT UNTIL YOU RESTORE THE SCENE!

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 4:41 a.m. CST


    by Cinemaphile

    i dont really care, the movie sucked ass anyway. BUT, they could easily put both versions on there with the "seamless branching" function of dvd, and use parental lock if peopke dont wanna see it (why i dont know)

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 4:54 a.m. CST

    great timing on my part

    by Lazarus Long

    I just posted a huge EWS rebuttal in the talkback on Mysterio's Top 10 (yeah, it's still going!), and now there's a whole new EWS forum open for business. Has Warners even issued a press release with their reasoning on this one? Because they at least gave us a line of shit about the U.S. theatrical version. Don't they realize that there's only a small percentage of people who liked this film at all (I am in that small percentage), and videophiles/film geeks are more likely to buy it in an unaltered form? If they want to censor the VHS rental version, whatever. But jeez, you'd think a DVD is safe. How many "children" are buying obscene DVDs and playing them at home? And America Online buying Warner doesn't exactly make one hopeful for any reversal of aformentioned decision...

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 5:07 a.m. CST


    by swiggles

    ....but not this time because I can see the uncut version because I'm in England but also should I feel the need (very unlikely) I could see the cut version as someone pointed out that I can change region code using my remote control (so if it's that easy then why the hell did they invent region codes???)

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 5:21 a.m. CST

    While we

    by Alexandra DuPont

    This is an outrage

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 5:46 a.m. CST

    Aw, grow up

    by Jaymin Pepper

    Once upon a time, you couldn't even own a copy of a movie. Why is everyone so spoiled to think they have to be able to have any movie they want, much less every version they want? The one that was made available isn't all that different from the (correctly labeled) pornographic version that theaters made known they didn't want to show. It's just not worth getting all that upset over. I'm sure the MPAA rating is printed right on the box, so it's not like you were ripped off.

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 6:04 a.m. CST


    by Jabba the Dog

    In response to Jaymin Pepper claims of the "pornogrpahic" version of eyes Wide Shut I think he's been watching the wrong kind of porn. The orgy scene in Eyes Wide Shut was so tame it almost shocked me. I went in to the film expecting close to pornographic imagery because of what the media made out of it. What was in the film was totally different in fact. There were no close ups, no tits for no reason. The camera moved through the room never focusing on anything hard-core and in fact is one of the most beautifully shot sequences I have seen in a hell of a long time. I'm in Ireland where we were allowed to watch the unraped version of the film and I personally can't imagine what it looks like with digitally created robes, nor could I give a shit. It's like a big fuck off to the memory of Stanley Kubrick that his final film should be butchered to suit an audience.

  • ...will have anything to do with this version of EYES WIDE SHUT on DVD or VHS. Very disappointing.

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 8:45 a.m. CST

    lay the smackdown on Warner Bros.

    by JohnnyClay

    Somebody PLEASE help me out here: Where was this info published or reported? It's not surprising, however, considering all the bullshit that surrounded the EWS release. Too bad Kubrick isn't still alive so he could tell Warner Bros. to take their "edited" version with both, turn that sombitch sideways, and then proceed to SHOVE IT DIRECTLY UP THEIR CANDY ASS!!!

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 8:47 a.m. CST


    by marsyas

    I think you need to look up the legal definition of "pornography" my friend. EWS, even uncut, is far from it.

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 9:18 a.m. CST

    That fax number does not work.

    by gsolo

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 9:43 a.m. CST

    Thank God!!!

    by Wheel99

    phew!! And to think I might have seen some naked people!!!!! It's a good thing I have the ratings board looking out for my best interests and deleted all the naughty bits. It's nice to know the puritanical religous right has a firm grip on censorship in this country!!!!!! Bravo!!!!!!

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 9:51 a.m. CST

    'Not Worth Getting Upset Over'?

    by Anton_Sirius

    That was some pretty sweet trolling there, my friend, because you have unleashed what the French call 'Le Shitstorm'. WB anally raping Kubrick's memory (not to mention his last film) not worth getting upset over, is it? We should be GRATEFUL for the desecration? Stanley Kubrick was universally acknowledged as one of the great artists of the twentieth century and for a bunch of studio suits to fuck over his art in the name of Mammon without even waiting for his corpse to cool is not just an affront to those of us with the brains to appreciate Kubrick's work but it diminishes anyone who works in the creative field. The callousness and greed of Warner Brothers sickens me right now. In the name of simple human decency if nothing else WB owes it to the largest film-watching nation in the world to release an unaltered version of the last film by a recently deceased genius. Why does that not make sense to you? No other artist on the planet gets this kind of treatment, except for the occasional activist Third World poet who gets executed. Is that OK with you too? And no the comparison isn't extreme. In the public eye an artist IS his or her art, and to destroy or maim one is to destroy or maim the other. And that's exactly what Warner has done, maimed Kubrick's work. I don't care if you think the change was minor; I don't care if they tinkered with two frames of film and altered one word of dialogue. It is not their art to change, and the fact that they did it after the man was dead just goes to show the depth of their cowardice too. Their decision is one motivated purely by the desire for profit and shows a complete and utter lack of anything remotely resembling human feeling. I have more respect for Puff "Pimpin' My Best Friend's Corpse For the Benjamins" Daddy than I do for Warner. This is not about how many units Warner Video can shift. This is about the final work of a deceased artist. It's funny, in other fields the respect an artist receives goes UP after they die. Not so in the film world, I suppose. I suddenly have a good idea why Greenaway wants out, why Malick only makes one film every twenty years, why Welles and Chaplin had to flee to Europe. Fuck Warner. As of this moment, and until they announce plans to release an unedited Eyes Wide Shut in the US, I am personally boycotting everything their entire corporation pushes. I will not see a movie released or even co-produced by Warner, I will not buy an album on one of their labals, I will not read a book or magazine they publish, I will not watch their television shows, I will not pollute my mental environment with any product of theirs nor enrich their coffers with any of my money. Fuck those soulless scatmunchers, and fuck you too for allowing them to flourish with your 'it doesn't affect me' attitude. It DOES affect you, moron, but you'll be too stupid to realize it until the last creative spark has already been extinguished, and you start whining about there not being any good movies any more.

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 10:20 a.m. CST

    Think about all the money to be made off the controversy.

    by Iaidoka

    It never fails. This kinda controversy *ALWAYS* makes money! If you won't release it because it is the artisitcally and morally right thing to do, then release it because your shareholders will thank you! DVD players have a built in sex and violence rating system. Explore that possibility for the "Uncut Special Edition" if you must, but please release it somehow!

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 10:22 a.m. CST


    by Jabba the Dog

    Anton Sirius has the right idea. I don't know about boycotting all their product but it's time the studios realised that just because they front the money that they have creative control. It is the work of the film makers that pays their salaries and that makes the film industry one of the biggest in the world. When the suits start comprimising an artists work, thats when the artists will start moving away from studio backing. The recent surge in independent films taking in massive amounts of cash at the box office is testament to this. Granted, these films are picked up by studios and marketed but the film world is slowly moving towards indepenence. Just a small word of warning to the studios. Leave the art to the artists

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Fax number works fine

    by Gruesome

    I just finifshed faxing the number and it worked just fine...

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 11:52 a.m. CST


    by Jabba the Dog

    I think we would because if they had censored a shoot out scene from the film it would have been just as bad as censoring the nudity. It wasn't what was censored but the fact that it was censored at all thats the problem. The artistic merit of the film can be discussed by the film going public and the media afterwards but for a body to dictate what we can see and judge for ourselves is a violation of our rights. Regardless of what they take out.

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Major suckage...

    by spider-man

    I'm a huge Kubrick fan...I even remember playing hooky and standing in front of Full Metal Jacket on opening day. Not a big deal except I was in high school at the time. The reason I stayed away from the theater when EWS came out is that I REFUSED to give Warner Brothers my eight bucks to see a digitally altered film. This was Kubrick's final film: no matter how flawed, and it deserved to be seen as he intended. Wake up the right thing!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 1:37 p.m. CST

    Warner Bros. just doesn't fuckin get it...

    by mynock1138 one is interested in seeing something that has been fucked with by studio half-wits instead of the Master's original vision. They could make a killing by releasing the Unrated cut. Kubrick fans would scoop this baby up just to have the complete version, while Mary and Joe Blow from Anywheretown USA would be interested to see the "controversial" version (with all the naughty parts put back in) of a film they may not normally want to see. What's the big deal anyway? It's just plain stupid not to have an Unrated, uncut version. Give your R-rated, clean cut version to Fuckin Blockbuster (like you would, anyway) and give the cinemaphiles the version Kubrick wanted us to see in the first place.

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 2:26 p.m. CST

    You must CHILL!

    by FilmAddict

    I know this will inflame another temper or two, but what's the big deal? 1) We're talking about less than one minute of film right? Without any change in dialogue (since there wasn't any) or cinematography, right? The flow of the film is not interrupted, unless we geek the fuck out and obsess about the figures (which I will admit I did for a second or two when I saw it). If Kubrick agreed to the changes then he reasonably must have believed that they in no way changed the character or overall vision of the film, so why should there be so much bitching? 2) Buy a foreign copy of the DVD. If you don't know how to change regions on your DVD player, learn. 3) Wasn't such a brilliant movie anyway. I agree with some of the earlier posts that what we really need is a masterfully produced box set - all his films, all well made DVDs. I wanted to buy the current box set but wasn't sure of the quality... now I've heard enough about it that I'm going to wait. So let's put our energy into getting new transfers of the good films, ok? -Film

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 2:53 p.m. CST

    Cruise missle..

    by AIKI

    Is it just me, or does anyone else remember the Great and Powerful Tom Cruise saying that he would put his career on the the line for this film? That he would not allow Warner to alter one iota of film? Hmmm... I guess now that EWS tanked at the box office, and everyone seems to be getting all wet for the second weakest performance in Magnolia (the auspicious honor of numero uno going to fuck fuck Julianne fucking Moore fuck fuck), he seems to have forgotten the one film he's done lately that will be very highly regarded later. By the way, just to head off any flames I'd like to say that I've seen Magnolia twice now and I think that they shouldn't even bother having nominations this year. It was easily the best picture of the year, with strong performances across the board. It's not that I think Cruise was bad, but how can you think of nominating him for "Respect the Cock..." and not his tortured, brilliant work in EWS?

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 3:09 p.m. CST

    RE: You must CHILL!

    by Jabba the Dog

    I think it's easy to say that the edits make no difference to the film itself but if Warners were to decide that for the re-release on DVD of The Shining that audiences didn't need to see the withered naked lady in the bathroom and cut the scene, or edited it so that it was more suitable for viewers. Equally if they digitally covered over the nudity in A Clockwork Orange. There would be uproar if that was to happen because those films are deemed classics are therefore shouldn't be tampered with. It is equally as important that Eyes Wide Shut should be left complete and unchanged regardless of how minor the change is.

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 3:25 p.m. CST

    NC-17 version probably isn't all that different, Have you seen t

    by golgo-14

    What's with this obsession with seeing Tom Cruise's dick. I'm sure he has a very nice dick but do I really need to see it? Anyways, the unrated version of Eyes Wide Shut probably isn't all that different. I have friends who bought the unrated supposedly naughty version of American Pie and they all regret it. What a fucking disappointment that dvd was. Only one scene was different- the part where the kid with the big nose fucks the pie- and it isn't even that shocking. Am I to believe that the MPAA was going to give that film an NC-17 rating just for showing that kid's pale ass? Bullshit I say. Either the MPAA is more uptight than ever or the filmmakers are just trying to exploit our curiosity and desire to see more tits and ass and blood. It's probably a little of both. The modifications that the MPAA forced on Eyes Wide Shut weren't all that big. I saw the movie and immediately noticed what was CGI'd out. All censorship is bad but in this case, I think you guys are just exaggerating it. If anything, I want to see all the scenes Kubrick deleted from this film. Jennifer Jason Leigh's role in this movie was entirely cut out. I would be very interested in seeing that if the deleted scenes are included on the dvd.

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 4:14 p.m. CST


    by FIDELIO

    This is absolute bullshit. 100% . I truly was anticipating my DVD uncut version of EYES, and now I'm not going to get it? Why don't the people at Warner Bros. pull their heads out of their "AOL merging, Felicity-Dawson's Creek, Wild Wild West" asses and do something here! Is there not one person over there arguing this? It's shit like this that inspired me to become a marketing executive; could they actually be this stupid? "Oh, Mr. Kubrick wanted it this way, so this is the way it'll be." Bullshit again. I bought the Kubrick box set. It's a bunch of shit. The transfers are lousy, the sound sucks, and the packagin itself is second rate, worthy of a cheapo box set of early Mel Gibson movies. i don't doubt we'll get Eyes Wide Shut with a shitty new video cover, devoid of any extras save for 2 (yay!) theatrical trailers and language tracks. And, of course, with those big fake looking pansies blocking our view. Here's what I propose: EWS lovers, and just plain movie lover...if you go to any interactive film site, especially for DVDs or video, post something about WB's decision. Make something't buy the new EWS DVD because the, uh, the head DVD worker is racist! Then, maybe a good chunk of the public won't buy it (not that they would anyway) and then maybe WB will finally just release the real version. And if they don't, we can just get an insider to steal it for us, right?

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 4:15 p.m. CST

    A partial solution

    by Jai

    Does anyone know if Canada will be getting the unedited DVD's? It's fairly close to us, and I'm pretty sure the regional coding is the same as the US. Any thoughts?

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 5:35 p.m. CST

    Harry and everyone else are idiots!!!

    by Dextarin

    Listen, I'm going to say this once, and once should BE enough! Warner Bros. contracted Kubrick to deliver an 'R' rated movie! Only through the edited elements could this have been achieved. Now, how would you feel, if you commissioned a painter to paint you a picture of a cat but instead drew one of a dog? Wouldn't you be upset if the painter only drew what he wanted to and not what you were PAYING HIM to draw? Who cares if the version of Eyes Wide Shut being released is censored? Warner Bros. paid for an 'R' rated movie, not an NC-17 one! They are obviously NOT going to release something that they did NOT pay for, something that was NOT in the original contract! By releasing work that didn't fall under contract specifications would be like honoring a Kubrick for violating his contract. If you should be complaining to anyone about this, you should be complaining to the MPAA, for threatening an NC-17 rating for the uncensored version. It's their fault that it had to be censored anyway. Besides, the point of the orgy scene was clear without seeing the penetration. The fact that you all keep complaining about it, makes it seem like you are just a bunch of horny geeks who want to see your own sexual fantasies up onscreen uncensored, so you can masturbate to your heart's content. But, that couldn't possibly be the case, could it? (sarcasm hinted)

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 5:56 p.m. CST

    That's not all that was censored...

    by Renard

    There wasn't a big deal made of it at the time but although the UK version was uncensored visually there was a blatant climbdown by WB on the music that is playing in the background at the masked ball. It was apparantly some Eastern religious holy chant but a few radicals got wind of it early on and it was replaced (how it was replaced I honestly can't remember). Seems to me like a case of a big corporation wetting itself in case it is considered insensitive to some cultures. WAKE UP! By pandering to the politically correct few who constantly hop on and off the scandal bandwagon you are alienating the masses who actually appreciate and PAY to go see these movies! Tom Cruise, if you are reading this please please please use some influence to stop this WB hatchet job on what is IMHO a very underrated masterpiece. Kubrick can't defend it now so please don't let WB walk all over it...

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 6:32 p.m. CST


    by Harris

    If what you say is true, why would WB only alter the American release? Why would they release the NC-17 version outside of the US? ---- BTW, nobody tells Kubrick what kind of product to put out. Had Kubrick not died when he did, WB wouldn't have touched a single frame of film. They should be ashamed of themselves!

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 6:40 p.m. CST

    Warner can suck cock when it tries

    by jsavio007

    I don't know why they would even consider releasing a DVD of Eyes Wide Shut without an unrated version in mind. Fuck, if fucking Universal can release both a rated and unrated version of fucking American Pie, then Warner has got to put their best foot forward and give us the version that Kubrick intended. For Christ's sakes, it's not like people were turning out in droves for the rated version in the theatres. And I would also say that it would need commentary by Tom and Nicole. Why would they even bother releasing it without something extra special to go with it, something that no one has ever seen or heard before? It was Stanley Kubrick's FINAL FUCKING FILM!!!!!!! Do it right, or don't fucing bother.

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 6:42 p.m. CST


    by Sorcerer

    I suppose you prefer the "Love Conquers All" version of BRAZIL to the original cut. You sound just like Sid Sheinberg. The thing is, the current management at Warner Bros. has shown itself to be wholly incompetent. When they re-edited THE AVENGERS after a bad test screening, they deleted several key scenes, hence making the story disjointed and hard to follow for many. EYES WIDE SHUT was promoted as a steamy erotic thriller instead of the subjective reality mindwarp it really was. And I don't suppose I have to mention a certain film whose title starts with "I", ends with "T", and in the middle is "RON GIAN". It's gotten pretty bad.

  • Hey, this movie was SUPPOSED to be out in December according to the six-month rule! And why it did not I have no idea, because this is one of the best Christmas movies ever! And I had to get around this complication by buying a bootleg VCD version to get my holiday spirit this holiday season. That is right Warner Bros.: I bought bootleg copies for me and my friends, because #1: You skipped out on a seasonal movie, and #2:I, unlike you guys, have respect for the artist and want to see the whole thing, even if it means a few extra seconds! You guys lost out at the box-office for your prudishness (just think of the ticket-drawing controversy!), and you are losing out now as well by not only being late, but also by not bearing gifts of extras in your tardiness. I will buy a DVD of it, but only when your little "special edition" comes out someday. Until then I will continue to watch my faded but superior copy. But anyway, I would love to know where this news comes from anyway, because I check every single day to see if they will ever get a release date for it. What is the hold-up WB? This is not the Phantom Menace or E.T., so why wait 8 mos.-a year(s) to get this out there?

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 7:54 p.m. CST

    Eyes Wide Shut

    by L Topo

    I must be slow, or un-informed. Can't you just order the un-cut version from Amazon.UK and have it shipped to you?

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 8 p.m. CST

    No You Can't

    by Sorcerer

    First off there's region coding. Also, British VHS tapes are in PAL format, a higher resolution than America's NTSC format. PAL movies won't play on NTSC players, and vice versa. There might be a bootleg converted version somewhere down the line, but nothing official for a while, it seems.

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 8:09 p.m. CST

    Dear Mr Cruise,

    by L'Auteur

    You are cool. You have great taste in directors and you use your clout well. Now, do the right thing and fix this problem. Warner Bros, you guys fucking suck. Jack Valenti, you suck too. I just watched SOUTH PARK again last night and it reminded me how truly fucking stupid you are. When a man gets decapitated, its PG-13 family fare (WILD WILD WEST). When a breast is shown (its not even friggin genitalia!), its NC-17. Thats Christian values for you. A beauty of nature (sex) is evil, but ruthless violence is just dandy. Fuck American values, Fuck Christian valiues, Fuck Jack Valenti, and FUCK TIME WARNER/AOL!!!!!

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 9:30 p.m. CST

    Jennifer Jason Leigh's part

    by Lazarus Long

    Jennifer Jason Leigh originally played the widow who comes onto Tom Cruise, from what I remember. Harvey Keitel originally portrayed Sidney Pollack's part. So the footage of them was scrapped when Kubrick got the new actors. I don't think any "extra" scenes will surface. I doubt Tom and Nicole will do ANYTHING for the DVD, because they are probably pissed off about how the release and censorship of the film was handled. I would like to see a critic who really supports the film do a commentary; Roger Ebert's audio track on Dark City was very informative and insightful.

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 9:32 p.m. CST

    On the campagin for a restored un-altered version of EWS

    by Kubrick

    While, I thought EYES WIDE SHUT was okay and certainly not the worst movie Kubrick ever made, I'm afraid I agree with people like Pauline Kael, and David Edelstein both film critics who have said in two articles (Kael in an interview in an issue on Entertainment Weekly and Edelstein on that while they don't like film censorship, they object to all the fuss over those who didn't like the film edited and digitally altered because how could it showing the original unaltered cut of the film change a film that was terrible and crap in the first place. EWS was okay but not great and I don't think it's the worst but can't muster a defense for it, like I could previous Kubrick films when people decried them. Sorry, I've defended Kubrick's earlier films like 2001, Dr.Strangelove, The Killing and Spartacus but this time, you all are on your own. The late Edward Margulies pretty much said it all in his MrShowbiz article dubbed Star Tours, "there's no denying Kubrick was in artistic decline in his later years. Consider all the other great directors's careers end up in artistic decline such as Billy Wilder, Fellini, David Lean, Preston Struges, Hitchock. It comes with the territory. Kubrick made made great movies, just not in the last 28 years." While, I didn't hate The Shining and Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket as much as Margulies did and nor did I think Clockwork Orange or Lolita are masterpieces, I must agree here with Ed. Plus, Ed gave the word and a run-down of the plot for David Lynch's would be-TV series pilot Mulholland Drive. Now that I'd campaign for and would love to see on TV. From his description it sounded great and was saddened ACIN didn't take time to get the word out on what could have been one of TV's great news shows. Also, consider Edward took out time to champion the reconstructed four-hour version of Greed which aired on TNT in October. Or that Jeffrey Wells took out time recently in his column to discuss the restored re-release of Rear Window (opening January 21st) and taking about the dismissal of Manhola Dargis from Entertainmeny Weekly Magazine's Critical Mass section because of the negative grades she kept handing out to movies and how EW wishes it's film critics' revies of movies to be more upbeat and less negative order words to create a world in which a person must always say a movie is good or great but never bad. In order words, no incentive for a film critic to be honest because if you're not quoted for saying you liked a movie, you don't get famous and people will think your overly negative about the films you pan and you'll get fired for just doing your job of decent honest film criticism. I praise Mr. Wells for reporting this news (the Hollywood Confidential article dated September 3, 1999 can be found in the Confidential archives at because this is a serious issue for those who love film criticism and those who practice it. Sorry but it saddens me to say this, but compared to the groundbreaking movie news and film criticism opinon reporting by various columnists (both alive and deceased) and other various websites (MrShowbiz, Eonline, Reel)and magazines (Entertainment Weekly, Movieline, Premiere), ACIN has in recent years slipped up and lost it's edge and smarts.

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 9:52 p.m. CST

    Yes, please calm down...

    by All Thumbs

    I'm worried if some of you don't calm down and send away letters that are anything similar to your rants on here (and yes, I understand stuff posted here and stuff sent to WB Execs will be different for MOST of you), you'll ruin your credibility and therefore become nothing more than an "ignorant, raving nusciance" to those who receive the letter. They're not going to listen to a bunch of lunatics who spout off "stop fucking us up the ass" and such. It's "appropriate" here, but not in a letter to WB, so be careful.***Censorship sucks and the fact they had to digitally change the scene to get an "R" rating from the MPAA sucks even more, but I'm a little skeptical on whether or not Kubrick wanted it "uncut." See, I remember reading an article on Ebert's site with Tom Cruise about EWS and the digital enhancements. Cruise didn't understand why everyone was so upset. He claimed it WAS Kubrick's intention to add those images to the orgy scene all along. He found it more upsetting that people were claiming to know what Kubrick had in mind when he and Nicole knew it was different. Regardless, I do think an "uncut" version should be made available to the public, and also think that maybe they're just yanking the fans' chains for a while before releasing it.

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 10:29 p.m. CST

    no, i wont calm down

    by L'Auteur

    MPAA=censorship. Im fucking sick of seeing movies edited down to R ratings just so Wal-Mart and Loews will distribute them just so 13 year olds can sneak in. ANYONE can get into an R rated movie. Its called buy-a-ticket-for-Disney-and-sneak-into-Tarantino. Thats how I saw PULP FICTION when I was 14. Any twleve year old with half a brain knows this scam. The studios and theaters know it too. They just dont care because thats their main demographic. Hollywood counts on underage moviegoers just like RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris count on underage smokers. Why else would Camel use a cartoon character as a spokesman? Its bullshit. If such films as THE MATRIX, NATURAL BORN KILLERS, and TRUE LIES were really intended for adults, they would be rated NC-17. But Hollywood counts on apathetic parents and lazy theater workers to allow children into these violent nightmares. Yes, I do believe watching Arnold blow away dozens of faceless, stereotyped Arabs is far worse on a child's mind than seeing some titties. Fuck these puritan values! Sex is good, violence is bad...why does Corporate America believe the opposite? I think that adult movies should be rated NC-17 and that should NOT be a mark of box office death...but it you know why? Because kids go to the movies more than anyone else. Therefore, this bullshit system will continue to stand, just so parents can blame Hollywood and Hollywood can blame the government and the government can blame parents. Gee, reminds me of SOUTH PARK...fuck Jack Valenti! Im sick of this guy deciding for an entire nation of kids that sex is evil and extreme violence is OK. You wanna know why Columbine happened? There are a dozen reasons, at least (sorry, finger-pointers, there isnt one easy person to blame, we're all at fault). But I think reason #1 (or maybe 2 or 3) is our completely WHACKED sense of "adult content". We think we are protecting our children by shielding them from tits and "shits" but the bullets never stop flying. I know many of you (like myself) grew up with Lucas, Spielberg, Arnold, and Bruckhiemer, and you (like myself) are not a violent person. BUT, we must accept the reality that NOT EVERYONE is so mentally well-balanced. A culture that sells death and mayhem as cheerily as shampoo and long-distance rates will breed occasional Columbine killers. Its all well and good when all you have to do is read about it on NEWSWEEK. But what happens when its your kid that gets blown away? I know Ive gotten off on a rant, but Ive fucking had it with shit like this. I couldnt give a shit about John Woo, but nobody ever inserts horribly fake looking black robed characters to cover up all the gunshot wounds in FACE/OFF. But when my favorite director decides to show a little bit of intercourse, than the whole fucking puritan country freaks out. Kubrick is my favorite artist ever. I want to see his film, not Jack Valenti's. Since art (especially film) is my passion, I will never calm down about this. FUCK THE MPAA! FUCK WARNER BROS! enough is enough!

  • Jan. 20, 2000, 11:16 p.m. CST

    arse wide open

    by eddie munster

    I fart at the genital direction of the Warner Bross. executive who is responsible for this crap. There is no respect for Kubrick's legacy whatsoever. By the way: You Americans have a problem with cencurship as it is. NO VIOLENCE, NO SEX what's the matter with you. Ever heard of the freedom of expression and speech. Talk to Larry Flint he'll tell ya. No cheers for you pall!!!

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 12:56 a.m. CST

    Kubrick you're an insult to your namesake

    by Lazarus Long

    (This post was originally a response to another of Kubrick's delusional posts on the Mysterio talkback yesterday) Glad you brought up Eyes Wide Shut again, Kubrick. And I quote your post "Kubrick's desire to have a hit (the casting of Tom and Nic)" Are you kidding? Or do you actually have no clue about the man whose name you use to sign your messages? If Stanley was that preoccupied with box office he would make a lot more films. What does he have to gain? He already has complete creative control. Just because takes an active role in the marketing of the film does not mean his choices during casting or production are influenced by anything but his artistic instinct. That is an insult to the man. I'm sure he used Tom and Nicole because (A) They are married in real life (B) They represent an "All American Couple" (although a wealthy one) and (C) They both are good actors (how good is open to debate, but let's say as good as Matthew Modine or Shelley Duvall). Your next quote: "Kubrick as a filmmaker lacks the sensuality and passionate lust needed to make such a story as EWS work" Well I won't argue with you that Kubrick doesn't have "sensuality" (I don't think Orson Welles did either), but you, like many other foolish critics and filmgoers, are wrong about what this film was studying/reflecting on. What film of Kubrick's from 2001 onward operated on any kind of direct, emotional level anyway? They have all aimed deeper into the psyche, sensuality not a prerequisite here. It wasn't about passion, anyone paying attention can figure that out, and it wasn't about sex either. That's maybe why the "orgy" scene didn't live up to the fantasies of the average American. The film was dealing with the concept of marriage, of trust and mental connections between spouses, and other themes far subtler than what most were looking for. Again I will forward anyone interested in a superior commentary on Eyes Wide Shut to Jonathan Rosenberg's review on the Chicago Reader website (, in the film section, in the review archive). Rosenberg also chose EWS as one of the Top 10 of 1999, and The 90's. His comments on the 1999 article are insightful as well, including his thoughts on other critics bashing of the film. Kubrick (the poster), I do agree with your statements on Lolita. I do think Nabokov is partially to blame for the screenplay, but I also take issue with the black comedy take on the material, which was much more successful in Dr. Strangelove. I thought Adrian Lyne's remake of Lolita was the heartbreaking tender treatment that the story deserved. As for Clockwork Orange being the most overrated film ever, I originally thought that when viewing it, but over time (like many Kubrick critics) I have "Learned to Stop Worrying and Loved" the film for what it accomplished. A middle finger in the face of convention and decency? Perhaps, but I think much more so. That's for a whole other talkback. For its small flaws (Kubrick often continued editing his films AFTER they were released) Eyes Wide Shut still contains more moments of cinematic brilliance than 99% of the films released this year, and probably the decade. (New comments) I wouldn't bother name dropping Pauline Kael here, she had vendettas against many filmmakers who could do no right by her (she has ripped all of scorsese's films in the 80's and 90's), and there's probably tons of films you like that she doesn't. As for the late-career decline of other filmmakers, Hitchcock's Frenzy was considered a return to form, as was David Lean's A Passage to India. And your defense of alterna-critics who are being slighted for giving bad reviews, let me say this: I'm sick and tired of all these small press critics who rail against anything conventional. They think they look cool by spitting on things from their ivory towers, and only bestow greatness on films that no one has ever heard of that they saw at the Budapest Film Festival. If you look at many reviews of one critic, you can see where they're coming from and whether their critique is worth paying attention to. While Manhola Darghis shouldn't have been removed from Entertainment Weekly, I happen to read the OC & LA Weekly where her reviews are from, and I can't see why she was ever included in the first place. Many of these indie-critics can't appreciate a well made, old-fashioned Hollywood film when it's done right (even though the occasion is rare), and therefore shouldn't share their restrictive tastes with an open-minded public.

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 1:12 a.m. CST

    Thanks, everyone

    by Jaymin Pepper

    You've all proved my point. I couldn't have demonstrated it any better. Thanks again.

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 2:14 a.m. CST

    Kubrick will return to burn us!

    by EvilKnievel

    I am so disgusted with the ignorance displayed by some of the posts in this talk back. Not only are people saying "I don't care, why should you?" and "It's just one minute of film, chill out" which are responses I would totally expect from the kind of shallow, unthinking, unfeeling jackasses that make American consumers look bad. People are actually comparing the motives for wanting an unmutilated copy of Kubrik's last film to buying the unrated version of American Pie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I feel as if I'm about to vomit all over all of my belongings. Can these people possibly imagine that not all of us are motivated by hormones and our genitals? Does this person really believe that I want an original of EWS because I want to see a NAKED WOMAN??? Anyway, this argument is about the principle of the thing, not about how many seconds have been altered. Yeah, its just a minute of footage. But you have to fight for that as you would if WB wanted to edit every frame of the movie. Sure, letting the government make a law against saying one word might seem harmless and insignificant, but it opens the door for all kinds of abuses of the first amendment, so that word must be fought for! If WB did something like this and everyone just "chilled out" and didn't say anything, they could push their power further and further. The cards are stacked against the creative people in Hollywood anyway. I suppose it's silly to imagine that people who don't understand this fundamental principle could have it explained to them. It's unfortunate that so much apathy could be applied to the work of a brilliant, kind man who cared SO MUCH about his movies. Kubrick poured his heart and his life into his films and so his final offering to the world is met with "Who cares?"

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 2:46 a.m. CST

    Cut vs.uncut

    by Dr. Bone

    Anyone wanting to know what the "Big deal" is about the cut vs. uncut EWS only need look at the cut vs. uncut versions of "A Streetcar Named Desire". The (relatively) newly released uncut version only contains about 50 seconds of film- but it is a HUGE difference, and really speaks to the whole nature of the Stanley-Stella relationship. In the same way, I imagine, that the digitally unbiased scenes of EWS would let us all see the Hell that Cruise was running through (IIRC he was at that time looking to get the hell out of Dodge). If WB doesn't release it in a digitally unmarred format- it will be a major travesty.

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 2:48 a.m. CST

    All these postings are fine...but what it all comes down to is t

    by lickerish

    OK...this one fact blows the whole 'how he wanted it for all of posterity, etc.' justifying....There were TWO (2) versions of this film released...IN THEATRES...there is no possible excuse for not releasing TWO (2) versions on DVD...ok...Ive seen the film here nine times...I think it was visually Kubricks very, very best film...only 2001 can compare, but not entirely... for those deep rich lavender's and blues and greens and blacks...satisfying steadicam...and !cruise! oh!.. Alan? Cummings..and the timeless story...ACO structure...the blue room...more than one pun

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 9:33 a.m. CST

    Patience, whiners ... a "director's cut" is a certainty

    by artsnob

    Of COURSE the initial video release of "Eyes Bored Shut" will be the R-rated theatrical release ... if it wasn't, Big Brother Video wouldn't carry it. (All you P.O.'d whiners kindly note that you vote to SUPPORT this policy with every dollar you spend at BB Video.) Once the R-rated release has come and gone from the "new releases" shelf, Warner will release the "director's cut" to mom-and-pop video stores ... just like they did for "Natural Born Killers."

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 9:34 a.m. CST

    An Apology

    by Kubrick

    To those who said I am an insult to my namesake, I say while I didn't like EWS, I pretty much was a fan of most of Kubrick's work including his later films. It isn't easy being a fan of a filmmaker many find over-rated and are forever in indecision over which film is his "mastpiece". If it isn't Paths of Glory, it's Strangelove or The Shining or Clockwork. But make it clear to you all, I bow down to no one in my love of Kubrick's work and in doing so do not insult my namesake. While I do consider myself a Star Wars fan and do love King Kong, Citizen Kane, and The Godfather..I say here and now that 2001 to me is my choice for the greatest movie ever and the best science fiction movie ever made. I'll take Kubrick's trilogy of war movies, Dr.Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket, and Paths of Glory any day over Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan film or Coppola's Apocalypse Now. The Shining while a faliure at adapting King's novel remains a unique well-acted thrilling somewhat comedic horror film. Barry Lyndon is one of the most under-rated of all 70's films and hardly a bore. It's drama and pretty to be sure but working underneath it is a powerful character study in the story of Redmond Barry. Lolita for it's flaws is a wonderful showcase for marvelous acting by Shelley Winters, Peter Sellers and James Mason. Both comedic and tragic, it's a flawed wonder, but a wonder nevertheless. The Killing and Spartacus ranks as the greatest films in their genres. A great crime robbery picture which still stands proud and tall today admist films like Reservoir Dogs and Spartacus is still a great action film which will stand the test of time and continue to enthrall it's audiences with it's bravo acting, drama and spectacle.

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 9:38 a.m. CST

    Perhaps it's not THAT important...

    by Sorcerer

    The orgy scene, even with digital figures scattered throughout, is still the best single motion picture scene of 1999- terrifying, atmospheric and unstoppable. Basically I have two reasons to complain about this. 1. Any opportunity to bash Warner Brothers is one I'm gonna take. They've dumped promising films, hacked out footage with little rhyme or reason, and mispromoted just about every film they've released since A LITTLE PRINCESS. 2. It just doesn't make sense. Why not have 2 versions of EWS? Let Blockbuster have the R version, and the local video stores have the NC-17. Everyone has a fair choice, everyone wins.

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 10:41 a.m. CST

    Regarding The Mummers

    by Anton_Sirius

    AllThumbs (was it you that brought this up? I can't be bothered to scroll up and check, sorry)- I've seen that from Cruise too, that the digital enhancement was what Kubkick 'wanted', and quite frankly I just don't believe it. Maybe that's arrogance on my part but it always smacked a little of spin doctoring to me. If Kubrick had wanted the action obscured by figures, why wouldn't he have just hired actors to walk in front of the camera? Altman can pull off that kind of choreography in his sleep, so I really don't think it would have been too difficult for Kubrick. For what it's worth, what I think Cruise is referring to is that the digitally added figures were what Kubrick came up with to make the best of a bad situation- namely, that the MPAA were threatening an NC-17 and Warner was pitching a fit. Saying they were Kubrick's idea is NOT AT ALL the same thing as saying they were part of his vision of the film.

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Regarding Tom

    by All Thumbs

    Anton, I wish they still had that article posted. I, too, have my doubts about Cruise's comments. From what I remember reading, Ebert did, also, and had no problem making that known to Cruise. It is more than possible that Cruise was told/ordered/contracted/just didn't realize what he was doing/etc. to say Kubrick wanted it that way. Cruise and Kidman's media credibility is kind of shot in my opinion anyways over the "list" of questions the reporters were given by their publicists. I think everyone is justified with wanting to see the uncut version (I didn't see it in theatres, so I will have to settle for renting the "R" cut, though I won't buy it.) I still say they're just putting the cut version out so people will buy it the first time, then release a an uncut version after some time with a high price so they can make more money off a dead man's name and work.***BTW, "Citizen Kane" and THE master, Orson Welles, had tons of sensuality. (Well, only certain moments of "Kane.") Ever see Welles in "Jane Eyre" with Joan Fontaine? The man oozes sensuality.

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Stanley Kubrick's "Special Editions"

    by Damien667

    Stanley never letterboxed a single one of his movies. Ever. He shot completey within the TV-ratio-perspective, as he assumed all of his films would end up being hacked to-death by the PAN-AND-SCAN morons. Therefore, he limited the scope of his pictures down to the (so sue me if I'm wrong on this number) 4:3 ratio, rather than theatrical. Since Kubrick spent a greater majority of his life directing his motion pictures this way, he never saw the need to create a letterbox version of anything. For Warner's to "re-master" his works, it would mean one of two things: 1. Digitally and artificially "streching" the pictures to fit into a standard letterbox format. (Which, naturally, would make everything look like crap.) 2. Going back into post-production and slapping 2" black bars on the top and bottom of all the shots. This would give the desired "black space" effect of letterbox films, but would obviously be the moronic, in that they're covering parts of each shot on the top and bottom of the screen, simply to appease some misguided desire to have letterbox bars on a movie. Stop whining and complaining about how Warner's has handled these translations. They did exactly as instructed by the Kubrick-Estate in the re-release of his films. Personally, I'd bitch about the price of the box-set, but I suppose none of you who bought the Criterion Edition of RUSHMORE (this edition BLOWS CHUNKS!) for $40.00 would complain . . .

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 1:11 p.m. CST

    Just add my name

    by PrimalScream

    Just in case those idiots at WB can even my name to the list of people that will not go NEAR this movie unless it is released in the way it was intended. UNCUT!!!

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 1:25 p.m. CST

    DR. STRANGELOVE in widescreen?

    by Sorcerer

    Funny, when I bought the Columbia/TriStar Letterboxed version of the film, it was virtually full-screen. I only noticed a black bar in a few scenes. 2001 was definitely shot in Cinerama (says so during the credits.) I believe THE SHINING must have been close to 4:3- when BLADE RUNNER used the opening outtakes for its "Happy Ending", they had to re-matte the image (thankfully obscuring the none-too-futuristic family car.)

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 1:26 p.m. CST

    To artsnob

    by Kubrick

    Warner Brothers did not release the director's cut of Natural Born Killers. Stone had some sort of falling out with WB over NBK and instead the director's cut of NBK was released by Vidmark Video. I work at Hollywood Video (since 1997 as a clerk) and we carry both the R-rated cut of NBK and Stone's director's cut of NBK.

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Letterboxing Kubrick's films

    by Kubrick

    First, regarding Kael, while she didn't like most films I liked, I do think she's a great film critic for liking the early films of filmmakers I like such as Spielberg, DePalma, Altman and even Kubrick (she was a fan of Lolita) and even liked early Robert Zemeckis film. I also don't like Ebert sometimes (he hated Tim Burton's early films and doesn't like most David Lynch films and panned Terry Gilliam's Brazil and Fear in Loathing in Las Vegas), but I still consider him a good critic. I too read Jonathan Rosenbaum and don't agree with his opinions (he hates MST3K) but I've read his reviews and he's a great critic. His conversation with David Edelstein found on is one of the best discussions about movies I've read. As for Kubrick's movies, Kubrick's later films like Lyndon, Jacket, and The Shining were both shot in 1:66:1 widescreen format but Kubrick who thought the letterboxing of black bars on top and bottom of a screen distracted from his films, prefered to have them shown on home video in the pan-and-scan format. Both Orange and Lyndon are available in widescreen but Jacket and Shining and EWS aren't. I do agree the films need to be re-mastered. Supposedly, from a reliable source who works in England has said the estate of Kubrick delayed the Kubrick Collection release in England because of the collection using the laserdisc transfers of the film, instead of making brand-new transfers of the movies. When the collection is released in England, the laserdisc transfers will not be used but instead the new transfers of the movie will be made for DVD and then released in England. Presumably now that ACO is getting a re-release in England, it will be included in the collection (previously it was not to be included for the British release of the Kubrick collection). And that's all I have to say. I'm sorry if I've made you all angry. I've just had a hard day and trying to sort all these conflicting viewpoints in my mind over these movies.

  • Jan. 21, 2000, 4:37 p.m. CST

    two words

    by dropstar

    criterion collection. jon mulvaney - hear my whispered and feverish wish..

  • As of late, it seems that Angry Fans are a new business in Hollywood: Lucas has managed to upset everyone from his most diehard fans to the Pizza Hut Manager left with a box full of Boss Nass toys; DVD's that are either shamefully lame in terms of special features or quality; and now this altered version of Eyes Wide Shut seems to be simply the icing on the cake. We get a lame version now to be taken over the jumps for another 30 bucks for the true version of the film six months down the road. But I know I'm not the only one who is being consistently and woefully let down at every turn -- I am sick of buying 12 versions of a film, I am sick of seeing modern classics like Vacation, Caddyshack, and Karate Kid not presented in their theatrical aspect ratio, only to be most likely re-re-re-re-released in a super duper turbo director's dog and cat cut that only provides it with a trailer and the PROPER ratio. It's disgusting...On one hand, we only have ourselves to blame for simply not buying the DVD, but then agian, knowing we are fans you take advantage of us. So either we stop buying the films, or you start presenting them properly as works of art not toys. Take your ties off, turn off your cellphone and please sit the fuck down. None of you are creative and therefore offer nothing to society but a reason to complain about people like yourselves. And as for those directors who deem it necessary to fleece the most diehard fans on earth, shame on you for joining the dark side. And you were such a promising young man... Stuffed shirts and Aint-it-cool Audience: Be afraid or rejoice, respectively : "There is another." DVD "decision" makers - do us all a favor and stay out of the process, you've done enough by making entertainment the most undemocratic process in the free world. Also, a much diserved kudos to the production of "Stop Making Sense" on DVD or "Vertigo" - exactly what fans want in a film and a DVD. Take a lesson from Robert Harris (to paraphrase), DVD should provide not only the best representation of a film in terms of quality, but that it is the finest version of the possible. Harris knows what he's doing. Follow his lead. Dan Johnson

  • Jan. 22, 2000, 2:30 a.m. CST

    Anyone remember a little film called Blade Runner?

    by Hard_Boiled18

    For all of you out there saying that this cut scene is only a minute long, and that it's not that big a deal: In 1991 (?), Ridley Scott released the Director's Cut of Blade Runner. In it, among other small changes, he added a five second shot of a unicorn running through a field. This five second shot completely changed what we knew about the film and Decker's biology. Sure, this one minute of EWS doesn't change the entire outcome the film, but still it doesn't have to be 10 missing minutes or an added half an hour to be important, five seconds is all you need.

  • Jan. 22, 2000, 11:05 a.m. CST

    To "Kubrick": That doesn't change anything

    by artsnob

    You're right about Vidmark releasing the director's cut of Natural Born Killers, but that doesn't change anything. It was clearly a case of a big company releasing a controversial work through a little surrogate in order to deflect criticism -- just like "Dogma" WASN'T released by a Disney company (yeah, right). The bottom line is that the director's cut WAS released and this couldn't have been done without Warner's blessings or without Warner realizing revenue from it. Mark my words, it's a certainty that a director's cut of EWS will be released eventually -- Roger Ebert's whole "A-rating! A-rating!" tirade at the time of the theatrical release was nothing more than an advance sales campaign for it.

  • Jan. 22, 2000, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Let's try not to forget cause and effect, people...

    by AllanOne

    Diatribe Mode On. To you people who are pissed at Warner Bros.: stop haranguing them. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with ANY of this. They are driven by economic factors only. You're operating on false information. The blame rests entirely on the MPAA (and really on one person - Jack Valenti). Go to and read up on it. It works like this: CAUSE: JV and the MPAA mandate "violence is fine, sex is bad" according to what they partly-justifiably perceive to be the American Public's "feelings." America is not nearly so enlightened as most would like to believe. MPAA reviewers, a panel of people with no more credentials than the fact they are parents, watch the movies and determine all the (mostly sexual) bits that they "feel" are inappropriate for the American Public. ALL the public, not just children as you'll see. EFFECT: Studios, concerned ONLY with the bottom line, obediently pull or change all scenes/frames/dialog the panel deem unsuitable for the desired rating. Ratings have a direct effect on number of screens a film is shown on and amount of potential money to be made. In other words, the only thing VOLUNTARY about the MPAA's "Voluntary Movie Rating System" is that the studios can VOLUNTEER TO TAKE A BATH on the films if they're not changed to the MPAA's whims. The studios can never willingly do this. At the risk of preaching to the converted, I'll show you my July '99 letter to the MPAA: ----snip---- To the Administration of the MPAA, Would Jack Valenti warn against unjustly attacking violence in the entertainment industry as a source of societal strife "without verifiable evidence and professional guidance," while heading an organization responsible for causing to be censored allegedly harmful sexual content ADMITTEDLY without verifiable evidence and professional guidance? History has shown us consistently that censorship is not something to be proud of but quite the opposite, and the irony of calling your ratings the "Voluntary Movie Rating System" is not lost on many of us. Will the forcing of Warner's hand to digitally mutilate "Eyes Wide Shut" be regarded in time as a noble action or yet another example of pointless, unfounded destruction of important work? Really, it's only the art and culture that shapes our civilization. It's not like it's anything valuable, important or lasting, right? It would be comforting to see some evidence that the rating system is not, in fact, an ad hoc scheme thrown together by individuals of (doubtless) good intent, but based on actual carefully conducted research. Considering the appalling state of parenting, perhaps the MPAA Board should consist of persons with more useful credentials. ----snip---- It's interesting to note that JV will publicly go to bat to defend children's rights to see massively violent content, though. No doubt he's come to this conclusion after years of intense scientific research and "professional guidance." In summary, let's place blame where it belongs: on the MPAA's lack of vision and their broken ratings system, not the studios. Make no mistake, the current system = censorship. The inclusion of an "A" Adult rating (NO-ONE under 18 admitted) would fix just about everything. Channel your anger into lobbying for that. It's the only way there'll be any real artistic freedom in the Hollywood system. Diatribe Mode Off.

  • Jan. 23, 2000, 1:11 a.m. CST

    Yeah, but...

    by EvilKnievel

    AllanOne: I think you're right that WB is not operating on some villainous manevolent scheme to destroy the art of one of the greatest filmmakers ever. Of course they are worried purely about money, and I think capitalism is great and execs have a duty to their stockholders, etc etc. BUT I think that there is room for people to make stands for what they believe in, and sometimes this means acting against pressure from the religious right and various forms of censorship. I was heartbroken when I heard that, when ONE person after how many decades accused the Pirates of the Carribean ride at Disney World of being sexist (!!!) Disney gave in and removed the 'offending' section of the ride without a fight. Why??? Perhaps it was the most intelligent short-term business decision. But long-term, the more companies cave in like this, the more power they give up to oversensitive people who for some reason feel compelled to make sure that EVERYONE has the same morals that they do. The longer we have the mindset that Warner Bros HAS to obey the MPAA, the less it becomes an agreement between businesses and the more it becomes law. And that doesn't sit very well with me. Wow I guess that was quite a tangent. Sorry.

  • Jan. 23, 2000, 5:53 a.m. CST

    christiane kubrick's email

    by gfpee

    hey everyone, this may or may not help, but you can also email christiane kubrick. i don't know how pissed she would be with emails regarding the "EWS" DVD flooding her email, but it's an option. i'm not sure how much power she would have in this situation, but hell it's worth a shot. what i did yesterday was go to, and there you'll find a link to "christiane kubrick's paintings." once there, you'll see a link to email her. plus, you can check out her cool paintings, they really are great. i would also just find warner bros' snail mail address and write there as well. they probably have it on their main webpage. joe

  • Jan. 23, 2000, 6:08 a.m. CST

    wb's snail mail

    by gfpee

    here's wb's snail mail address. although the whole censored-dvd thing is still a rumor, it probably can't hurt to write letters anyway. Warner Brothers, 4000 W. Alameda Avenue, Burbank, CA 91522-1705 joe

  • Jan. 23, 2000, 6:14 a.m. CST

    a few thoughts

    by sinople

    If you don't feel it is big deal if WB digitised EWS, you probably won't be interested in what I am writing so feel free to skip this message. But if such monkey shines bothers you and you feel so powerless to do anything.Just rememeber you are on the Net and you can order movies from stores ALL OVER THE WORLD. You can get software/hardware that will play movies from any place in the world. EWS will be released in Australia (R4 pal) unedited. Probably Japan (R2 ntsc) unedited as well. It is fairly easy to find a region hack for most dvd-roms and several softwares to play dvds on dvd-roms. But if you want a stand alone player that plays all regions and can handle PAL and NTSC may I suggest the Raite (aka Pixie) dvd player? Best investment I ever made. I can kick back with cool dvds like Les Visteurs, Leon, Mad Max with original Australian language track, Director's cut of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, uncut Austin Powers International man of Mystery (orange sherbert!), Cannibal Holocaust, Evil Trap Dead, Purple Noon, tons of anime, loads of music... And if you can't get an all region or a multi region player, there are still lots of cool Hong Kong versions (all region) of cool movies like Akira, Ben-Hur,Rashomon, etc... And if you don't have a dvd player, chances are if you can read this message you can play VCDs and there are tons and tons of films from around the world on VCD...

  • Jan. 23, 2000, 9:55 a.m. CST

    Digital Masking

    by Mr Superbad

    Did anyone else notice how crappy the figures edited into the movie looked? There's a shot where the camera zooms past one and you can see the goddamned blue outline around them when it gets close enough. I honestly don't believe Kubrick would have approved that, but what the hell do I know? If the movie doesn't get released without the tacky digital alteration i won't be buying it. I'm also not going to spend 100 bucks to make my player region free either. To bad Kubrick couldn't be alive today to see all the fuss this movie has caused.

  • Jan. 23, 2000, 12:06 p.m. CST

    What's there to censor

    by Reinbo

    I'm from Hollands o I only got to see the full blown pornograhpic version of EWS. And I'm still trying to figure out what it was they have censored. So now I can buy the dvd and I will know.

  • Jan. 23, 2000, 4:46 p.m. CST

    What WB stands for

    by King Fausto

    I think with the way that Warner Bros has practically destroyed films like Iron Giant and EWS with their terrible advertising and their faulty logic, the acronym WB should stand for "WE BLOW."

  • Jan. 27, 2000, 4:51 p.m. CST

    You're totally wrong.

    by EyesWideShut

    EWS is one of the great movies of our time, if for no better reason than that TIM ALLEN isn't f&#king in it! It would be even better with William Shatner, but Tom Cruise is okay. Imagine The Shat with Kidman. Priceless, no?

  • Jan. 27, 2000, 10:42 p.m. CST

    L'Auteur's RIGHT!

    by T

    Thank the maker L'Auteur can tell us all what's right and wrong. You know, I've never heard that sex vs. violence thing that he repeats over and over before. Nor, if I had, would it have ever been so effective and profound as it is when he rants on and on like so. When he says that Hollywood knows that kids sneak into their R-rated movies, he's got a good point. Then he has another good point when he says that Hollywood should stick all sorts of inappropriate materials into their R-rated movies, presumably so the kids can see them! Brilliance! I especially like when L'Auteur talks about how the MPAA is censorship because the government uses it to ban material it deems bad for society. Well, he never said that second part, and it's not true, but after all, it's the only way the MPAA is censorship, and L'Auteur is always right! So in conclusion, L'Auteur is always right, and he's always right. Hooray for L'Auteur, who is always right!

  • Jan. 27, 2000, 11:28 p.m. CST

    Date of DVD Release & WB E-mail address

    by djronnieb

    Hi, I looked for the WB E-mail address after reading all the complaints about not releasing the Un-rated version. I too am very very pissed. And will be writing a letter to WB. So I also found when the release will be which, is: March 21, 2000 and the E-mail address I found is or the Time Warner company, which owns the WB I have their phone, fax and "snail mail" address: Time Warner, Inc. 75 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 484-8000 Fax: (212) 956-2847 and the e-mail address for Time Warner is this, but it's a tech. address to report problems on their web page, but maybe they will know a different one, anyway here that e-mail:

  • Jan. 28, 2000, 5:29 a.m. CST

    by Victor Ward

    To all those saying such mundane things as "I wanna see the T&A, et cetera", please stop making light something that's obviously serious to many others. Dextarin, while it is true that ordinarily when commissioning a cat you'd expect a cat not a dog, and vice versa, but if Picasso agreed to paint you a cat, and you wound up with some experiment in cubism you take what you get and run, because you should be thanking your lucky stars that Kubrick (cross-metaphor, get over it) is even doing a film for you in the first place. And to whomever's asking, Canada will fall victim to the continually weilded influence of the US, and receive the edited version.

  • Jan. 29, 2000, 8:12 p.m. CST


    by The Pardoner

    Twits. Twits everywhere. Twits at Warners Bros., releasing a NON-WIDESCREEN (check tech details on the disc - I'm not joking) censored version of the best film Kubrick ever made. Yes, his BEST. You can like this movie or not, but to call it "poor" in any objective sense says more about you than the movie. I'll put it this way... if you don't get it, which is more likely: that Kubrick fucked up, or that you're too stupid and feeble-minded to see the film for what it is? If you have any integrity at all, take a psychology course before calling this film shit. And yes, I do understand this movie - it took me three viewings, a lot of related reading and a hell of a lot of thinking. This is a film that gives back exponentially according to what you put into it - people who hate it just don't have anything to contribute. DEATH TO THE MPAA FASCITS AND WB WHORES. Twits. --- Radix malorum est cupiditas --- The Pardoner

  • Feb. 3, 2000, 6:46 p.m. CST

    This is the version Kubrick wanted!!!

    by Silent_BOB_16

    First of all, this new DVD is the version that Kubrick wanted. From what I understand the unedited version doesnt leave anything for the imagination. I think that Kubrick would have wanted us to use our imagination on who is it under the masks and what it is under the digital recreations. Second, the DVD is full-screen or pan&scan, whatever you want to call it. The reason it is pan&scan is that Kubrick, the genius that he was, used a soft matte, which means that in the theaters he cut off part of the top, on video or DVD, the top is put back in, and you dont miss anything on the sides. KUBRICK WAS A GENIUS!!!

  • Feb. 20, 2000, 4:30 a.m. CST

    even more now

    by influentia

    The fact alone that they will not release The unfucked with version of this Kubrick Masterpiece sucks but add on the fact that the version is to top it off is FUCKING PAN & SCAN REALLY REALLY PISSES ME OFF!