Ain't It Cool News (

Images from the unscrewed with EYES WIDE SHUT.... Adult in Nature

Hey folks, Harry here with a link to a location where you can get an idea of what you missed due to the kneejerk of Jack Valenti and his moral majority at the MPAA. Now, this is of course adult in nature, so listen... If you are not yet 18, don't follow this link or else something really really bad will happen to you. Your parents may rip out your computer and throw it in a dumpster. The site is in Norway (I think) though it seems to be written in German. They have REGION 1 vs REGION 2 images, so you can clearly see... what it was that was done. Now... when will Warner Brothers grow a pair and release this edit in the United States, unblemished by the MPAA.... and I don't want to hear any of this crap about, "KUBRICK WANTED IT THIS WAY!" Fact is, if he WANTED it that way, he would have ORIGINALLY SHOT IT THAT WAY and there would be no OTHER VERSION. Of course... that's probably logic talking. I'll have a few beers and wine and other refreshments... I'm sure I'll see it your way... uh huh... right.

Hey Harry,

I was happy to read that you would be interested in accepting possible contributions of mine... So I did a little research and I found a German site which shows us some of the stuff we missed here in North America during the infamous orgy scene in the under appreciated Eyes Wide Shut. I'm not sure whether you have seen this or not this nor ot, or even if you would want to put it up on your site (it is a little graphic), but I still thought it was interesting none-the-less.

Here's the link:


Until next time,

Lynch on Lynch

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 29, 2000, 7:18 p.m. CST

    it wasn't that bad was it?

    by nelson

    Jeez, the MPAA has to go...

  • March 29, 2000, 7:24 p.m. CST

    The only thing that seems really irritating is that I, being an

    by charlieheston

    do I have to fly to France to see this damn film correctly?

  • March 29, 2000, 7:27 p.m. CST

    Bunch of prudes in this country

    by Asmodeus

    There is no way that these scenes would have gotten an R - even if there was no, uh, movement. How sad is that? The irony here, though, is that it's only a matter of time before a bunch of teenage virgins start posting links in this Talkback to free porn - not that that's a bad thing.

  • March 29, 2000, 7:34 p.m. CST

    "What Kubrick wanted"

    by Lazarus Long

    Can we go back and restate the facts here? Kubrick had final cut at Warner Bros. with one stipulation: he had to deliver a film that would pass with an 'R' rating. Although Warners can go suck a giant one anyway, they are not to blame here. They also shouldn't be criticized for stating "how Kurbick intended", because Kubrick agreed to have the digital figures, as opposed to cutting the shots/scenes. The MPAA and that hellspawn motherfucker Jack Valenti are the guilty culprits. But Kubrick did put his stamp on what was released in the U.S. He may not have liked the fact that America would be robbed of the true vision, but he wasn't exactly a big fan of this country anyway. Let's not forget his departure due to increased heat on left-leaning filmmakers, and the fact he never shot a film here again after Spartacus (or earlier, I forget). I wouldn't complain so much, seeing as how England got a much rawer deal by not seeing A Clockwork Orange until the year 2000...

  • March 29, 2000, 7:38 p.m. CST


    by LeonardTheLizard

    Okay, so I'm putting myself in Harry's shoes. He probably doesn't have access to sex like this on a regular basis, so I can understand why he'd be kind of bitter. snoogans

  • March 29, 2000, 7:42 p.m. CST

    Just Kidding Harry.....

    by LeonardTheLizard

    Seriously though, I mean...what's the big deal? There's an uproar because we don't get to see anal penetration in a film. You know, to tell you the truth, I didn't even notice the edit, and were any of us none the wiser, it wouldn't even be an issue.

  • March 29, 2000, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Eyes Wide Closed

    by HorrorBiz777

    You know, I did like ONE CGI scene in the R-rated region 1 version. It the one with all the dark figures sitting around a table watching the people have sex. It just looks spookier than the non-cgi version BUT... I find it hard to believe that a control freak like Kubrick who was involved with every step of a film would have "wanted" the studio to tamper with his baby after he died. He probably would have preferred that they release it untouched. He had a contract with WB that most directors would have KILLED for. He could do anything he wanted... except release an R-rated flick. But last time I checked Jason Goes to Hell was released unrated on video so it's not a big thing to release two FRIGGIN versions. This is more than prudeness, this is something else completely, some inter-studio policy bullshit. Just follow the money to be made by this tactic and you'll find ou who's responsible. Simple as that. Happy huntin. HB777

  • March 29, 2000, 8:22 p.m. CST

    Looks like Rated 'R' material to me.

    by Darth Siskel

    MPAA you suck. WB, you have no balls.

  • March 29, 2000, 8:41 p.m. CST

    ...makes me angry!

    by split_finger21

    why did they change it, i doubt kubrick approved of this anyways it WAS a slow movie, and in a way, i WAS a little disappointed. but i loved the masked ball!! everything they did there was breathtakeing EXCEPT for the CGI people.

  • March 29, 2000, 9:23 p.m. CST

    Eyes Saw Sh*t OR I have this on a MPEG video clip...

    by darthpsychotic

    Along with 4 gigabytes of celeb/jennajameson&co/playboy video clips. Please don't email me about sending you this clip. I will post this on my work-in-progress-website along the the realplayer version of the starwars holiday special, thora birch's hoo haa's scene clip, and all the angelina jolie clips I have. Why should you wait? 'Cos it's for free. Why am I doing this for you psychotic-a-holic? 'Cos I you perverts. :p

  • March 29, 2000, 9:42 p.m. CST

    in the words of the imcomparable Eric Cartman

    by Everett Robert

    what's the big fucking deal bitch? On either side of the coast, hey I didn't notice the changes and it was only when pointed out to me that I noticed HOWEVER

  • March 29, 2000, 9:47 p.m. CST


    by Everett Robert

    son of a bitch! damn enter key, sorry about that guys and dolls, as I was saying, I dind't notice the changes until they were pointed out HOWEVER in a movie about and full of sexuality and our reactions to it and how we deal with it, that was a very KNEEJERK reaction by MPAA and the WB, like Ebert and others have said, if it really was Kubrick's "choice" he would have release it that way everywhere. I understand though that he had an obligation to deliver an R rated film it's sad though that this kind of shit happens in the states.

  • Man, this is what all that fuss was about??? That's pure insanity, why didn't anyone slap Thomas Crowne with an NC-17 then, you sure saw enough in that flick. Man, Warner really screwed the pooch on this one.

  • March 29, 2000, 10:54 p.m. CST

    So how do I go about seeing it again?

    by UnclePuppethead

    Does the DVD have the different region stuff on it already? Is it as simple as changing the region on my DVD player? Does that screw up every other DVD?

  • March 29, 2000, 11:04 p.m. CST

    Stuipd MPAA...

    by slavewon

    i'm gald that the MPAA can tell me what i can and can not watch as an adult. Does anyone else think that it's annoying as hell that the MPAA is so damn inconsistent? i mean, those very artful sex shots are NC-17, yet a full frontal naked woman is R? A man's penis is NC-17, a woman's vagina R? Two woman making out is NC-17, but a guy having sex with a freakin apple pie is R? By the way, all of you non-North American folks out there, can you order the un-censored, non-Natzi butchered version of Eyes Wide Shut on DVD in your country? i'd love to own it on DVD.

  • March 29, 2000, 11:15 p.m. CST

    Yes America Can enjoy a copy from region2

    by TRON

    there is a model of dvd player, its one of the cheapest players on the market that can play any worldwide disc on a US TV. theres 3 steps involved 1) buy an Apex dvd AD 600 a player availible at Circuit city 2) go to this web site for info on how to acsess the hidden menu to make it multiregional- multi conversion. 3) look for the region 2 copies to appear for sale on EBAY and buy one. thank you very much

  • March 29, 2000, 11:23 p.m. CST

    Ps: Jack Valenti and his wife are nice people

    by TRON

    If anyone gives a rats ass....the small TV store where I worked for 11-1/2 years in Washington DC recently shut down. Jack Valenti was a customer of the store and he and his wife were always pleasant customers to deal with, not as stuffy as other celebrities. If he wasn't working on limiting content in films, there would be someone else anxious out there to fill in his shoes.

  • March 30, 2000, 12:28 a.m. CST

    Land of the free?

    by slavewon

    sigh... It's almost amusing how inconsistant the MPAA is with their ratings. Those scenes were so damn artistic, yet deemed inappropriate, yet a teenager fucking an apple pie is "comedy." By the way, do any of you non-North American folks know of a web site where us American folks can get the non-butchered Eyes Wide Shut DVD?

  • March 30, 2000, 1:58 a.m. CST

    It is in Norway and I pitty the US!!!

    by daklaw

    I pitty US and the MPAA. In Sweden we used to have a kinda wierd censorship, but it's all gone. The last movie that was censored in Sweden (accept abusive porn)was Casino so I guess we have to consider us lucky here!!

  • March 30, 2000, 2:16 a.m. CST

    everything and random

    by L'Auteur

    If Eyes Wide Shut is NC-17 material, what is The Matrix? R? Good God, did you see the same movie as me? Were not innocent cops blown away in that film? OK, perhaps "innocent cop" is an oxymoron now, thanks to Mayor Rudy, but they were still humans that didnt deserve to be gunned down. True, they were just slaves in the matrix, but that's not even close to the point. The point is that it looked like a HELL of a lot of fun shooting down those pigs! (whoa, sorry) Anyway, while I'm not a violent person, I'd bet my life that someone someday will watch The Matrix and say, "godammit, I just gotta try that," buy an Uzi, and hit the local (fill in public-gathering-place-of-unsuspecting-people here). If not The Matrix, what about True Lies? Goodfellas? Saving Private Ryan? Jesus Christ, did anyone else notice hoe fucking violent the PG-13 film, The Lost World, was? Why is violence tolerated if sex is not? Did anyone else hear about the Million Mom March? That's some cool shit. The women of this country are finally getting together and doing something about men's infatuation with guns. I'm a man. I'm infatuated with guns, too. It's a penis thing. Anyway, even though I'm a man, I still see the bad side effects of living in a man's friggin gun insanity. Guns Guns Guns. Men love guns. Hollywood is run by men, just like Washington. Republicans like guns because the NRA tells them to. Democrats like guns because their friends in Hollywood like to make action movies, because that's what the little boys (even the 38-year-old ones) pay their hard earned American cash for. Well, dim chix have had it. The Million Mom March is just the beginning. I don't blame women for being pissed. First, there's porn. Then, a true artist tries to elegantly display sex, and it's labeled as porn, because the establishment now sees sex as dirty and evil. Finally, although this adult-aimed film gets censored, but The Matrix, which your 12-year-old son probably saw 7 times, was full pump-em-full-of-lead glory. The MPAA's value system is so fucked. No kid ever blew away his cafeteria after seeing Eyes Wide Shut. My new email address (which Harry won't change despite my request) is

  • March 30, 2000, 3:28 a.m. CST

    Darn. Why do I have to be british?

    by John Shaft

    You people in america have been moaning about the version of the film that you lot got to see, when you don't realise how lucky you lot were. There were way more sweet asses on display in your release. I would much rather see some sweet ass than some bloke bumping away. Oh well. Maybe on the english DVD.

  • March 30, 2000, 4:24 a.m. CST

    If you are looking for the uncut Region 2 DVD.....

    by philamental

    Goto here.... and pre-order at 20% off. Blackstar are the best website I've dealt with (incredibly friendly)and have free P&P worldwide. The region 2 EWS isn't released until April 3 but that isn't too far away at this stage. As you know the original Kubrick cut is what was released in europe and is the version on the R2 DVD. I heard about the "austin powers" version released in the states but, Jesus, you guys got fucked by the cut you got, from seeing those images. And to those people saying that nobody even noticed unless it's pointed out. True, but that's not the point. It's still censorship, and the US should have the right to look at the original cut if they want, even if it's only on DVD.

  • March 30, 2000, 6:11 a.m. CST

    thank you, thank you, thank you

    by Hotspur

    I just got my laugh of the day. It looks completely stupid. I really hope that you guys across the big pond someday gets out of the grip of the MPAA and Valenti. I think it will go see my Eyes Wide Shut DVD again. I'll think about all of you!

  • March 30, 2000, 6:16 a.m. CST

    So what?!

    by Kachte

    The Region 2 Material is nothing new over here in Germany! And, by the way, this is NOT written in German!

  • March 30, 2000, 7:46 a.m. CST

    Continuity and CGI material

    by phild

    The funny thing is that Scene 2 on that page, on the Region 1 (American) DVD now has a big continuity error (I can't believe Kubrick let this slip by). It may even have been commented on here elsewhere. The shot you see on that webpage is from the beginning of the scene, from Cruise's POV as he enters the room. Those two CGI figures in the foreground block the action on the table. The scene then cuts to the reverse, Cruise is now in the shot with the table to his right (screen left), and those two figure are gone. Nobody put them in the reverse shot. Smooth move, editors.

  • March 30, 2000, 8:56 a.m. CST

    To L'Auteur: sex and violence-which is better for America?

    by Lil Vibin'Rabbit

    L'Auteur-I'll take your comments with a grain of salt and pepper. Yeah, we are obsessed with guns because it can pop! Bang! Bang! Bang! It's cool to blow someone else away! Don't fuck with me because I have a gun! THAT IS SO PRIMITIVE! THAT IS SO PRIMITIVE! Gun violence in this country are so bad because we lacked the balls to admit that guns AND people do kill people. Stupid people with guns kill people. Fucked-up people people with guns kill people. NRAized people with guns kill people because they wanted to defend themselves from all the stupid and fucked-up people with guns! Jesus Christ, what this country is coming to?! Violence is not always the answer to everything and it's a pathetic excuse for your frail Having a gun can make up for the lack of size on one's manhood. It's sad to see porn or the art of sex and lovemaking being censored just because we are just too freaking prudes. Bad people make porn just for money. Good people make porn for love, happiness, and value. If American is obsessed with violence, we are obsessed with sex as well. We are crying babies because Europe and other parts of the world are more openly about sex than we are. Then we get hitted with confusing messages about sex (damn those fucking media and those fucking moral majority's fucking influences!) and we get even more confused about sex from tv, film, radio, and print! Jeeeeeze! Stop fucking our minds with violence and start fucking people! They wanted to be fucked, sucked, and fucked again because we wanted sex and love, not violence! Ahem! I apologize for my rather foul language on this post. I'm so sick and tired of the ambivalence on the American films when it come to sex and violence. Remember, people with guns kill people! Sex with people don't kill people (if properly practiced safely and use condoms!). So there. Vibin'!

  • March 30, 2000, 9:48 a.m. CST

    Should we blame the MPAA? Heck no! Blame Canada.

    by marsyas

    No, seriously, blame Warner Brothers. It is my suspicion that the ONLY reason they have not yet released the unrated version on DVD is so that they can sell more copies of the R-rated version now -- and a year or two down the road, they *will* release the uncensored "director's cut" so that everyone will go out and buy THAT. It's just a way for them to increase sales. Don't fall for it. Do not buy the censored version. This kind of thing happens all the time. You will rarely find ANY DVD release that isn't lacking *something*. They have to release inferior products to ensure the success of their future Director's Cuts and Special Editions. What they want is for you to buy two or three versions of the same movie.

  • March 30, 2000, 10:57 a.m. CST

    at least they're consistent

    by KingMenthol

    Looks like the big thing is the "doggystyle" footage, like the NC-17 footage described in American Psycho. Definitely don't agree with image censoring, but I can understand that certain people might equate that with sodomy, and that's not something the MPAA wants anyone to see. Trouble is, there's that one scene in Pulp Fiction where Zed's booty-jousting Marcellus, and it's plain and clear. Why was that scene not cut? I think I'm with Harry, Moriarty, and Roger, that the ratings system isn't functioning as it should. It's no good that a film has to be changed to garner a certain rating. Kids shouldn't have been able to see EWS, anyway. They'd have never comprehended its complexities. So why not take the NC-17? Well, NC-17 = PORN in the eyes of the blind USA. Let's get that "A" rating out there. Better yet, don't go for a rating at all.

  • March 30, 2000, 11:49 a.m. CST

    Those pics make me want to rape my mother.


    If only I hadn't seen them. Damn. Sorry, Mom. The MPAA tried but Harry had to go and fuck with things. I'm sorry. I can't help it. Don't be too mad at me. Here I come.

  • March 30, 2000, 12:19 p.m. CST

    To see or not to see?

    by All Thumbs

    Personally, I think I like not seeing the people fucking better than seeing them because your imagination of what Bill sees as he goes through the rooms is greater than any visual image even a master like Kubrick could create. (In fact, I'm surprised he didn't film it like that in the first place...maybe he wanted to go for shocking realism...or maybe he was into porn...whatever.) Even so, I admit that when I saw EWS this weekend for the first time, I could tell those figures were CGI and it IRRITATED ME. They looked so fake, it distracted from my enjoying the scene and brought me out of the movie for a second as I pondered why and how this happened. And why is it that it is ok to show all those full-frontally naked women and block out sex with a big ol' naked woman butt, but get all crazy over some people simulating sex where you don't see anyting but jiggling boobs and thrusting thighs? The MPAA is seriously fucked up and needs a little revamping. Ok, it needs a lot of revamping, but I was being nice.

  • March 30, 2000, 12:26 p.m. CST

    The moron archetype

    by DithPrawn

    Jack Valenti is in a long line of complete morons, who hey, want to impose thier imbicilic tastes on everyone. hell, they painted fig leaves over Michelangelo's paintings.. these are a smart bunch.. funny they never create anything someone wants to see, but destroy works of art they couldn't possibly appreciate or understand..

  • March 30, 2000, 12:44 p.m. CST


    by AnotherThief

    Remember the Matthias Group in OMEGA MAN? They burned everything. Now look at the Pictures. Think of the MPAA and what they do... jesus...

  • March 30, 2000, 1:03 p.m. CST


    by KingMenthol

    Point taken, that is true, I believe. However, as All Thumbs points out those CGI robed figures stand out. Everyone could tell they were out of place. Kubrick said over and over he was committed to the "R" rating. Therein lies the problem, I think. It seems he was using the MPAA rating system as a guideline for images he felt were publicly permissable. Even if he did "stand behind" the CGI work, it still was to garner the APPROVAL of the MPAA. Granted, there are things that kids should not see. But I think the message the MPAA is sending is far worse: if a "governing" body (I use the term VERY loosely) does not approve of your expression, you will not have the ability to share it with the widest possible audience. I'll echo past statements when I say that the R rating he wanted was so that EWS would get the widest possible release. Theaters don't run NC-17 movies. To me that's sad, because it demonstrates that your messages have to be smoothed over, less grating, less graphic, and certain truths may be ignored in order to be shared with the masses. What's at the heart of the issue is that people are so afraid of offending that we're in a social mode of self-censorship that creates boring work environments, unchallenging films, blase and facsimile music, etc. Because of people like Steve Allen, the Christian Coalition, the MPAA (to a lesser extent), freedom of expression is dying in the arts. And we, the consumer, are allowing it! We're tolerating it! We should have been allowed to see what Bill really saw. That was important, I think. Dirty, nasty, taboo sexual acts by rich, powerful men with whores. Christ, there should've been close-ups! The scene felt as if I were a child jumping up and down, side to side, trying to look, but not being allowed to see. I felt robbed. You can place the BLAME solely on the protector of our virgin eyes, the righteous MPAA. That is truth.

  • March 30, 2000, 1:08 p.m. CST

    It ain't the MPAA...

    by MovieCoolGuy

    ...its the theatres and Blockbuster video stores and the like that won't carry NC-17 films. Movies like this and, say, American Psycho, are clearly adult films. If the assorted distributors would just agree show adult films to an adult audience this wouldn't be a problem. Instead you have this stupid system where movies and trimmed just enough so that kids can go in to see what is still clearly an adult film. It is, for lack of a eloquent term, just plain dumb. (And 'but parents should be able to decide' is not a valid argument because unless the theatre verifies the legal parent/guardian status of the adult accompanying the kid, that ain't the case.)

  • March 30, 2000, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Eeeeeee, maybe.

    by KingMenthol

    Granted, BBV and the theaters are a big part of it. But the MPAA has created this system, and now everyone bows to the system and clearly adult films don't get the audience they need. The MPAA has created an environment that causes filmmakers to THINK TWICE about what they're showing. When a real artist has to stop and ponder the whatifs and whozits of the expression, when he is somehow made to decide what's best for the audience, the audience garners the loss. We don't get to truly see what the artist was going after. We're seeing a dumbed-down version approved by a separate entity. So in effect, the MPAA is definitely not the only one, but is a major contributor.

  • March 30, 2000, 1:34 p.m. CST



    If anyone hat the DVD out there (which I'm sure you do. could you tell me if it's pan and scan). I see know listing on the back except that it's presented the way kubrik intended. well thats what they said about the shining on DVD and it wasn't widescreen. If he shot it like that, then whatever I'm confused.

  • March 30, 2000, 2:53 p.m. CST

    Why we should all go see AMERICAN PSYCHO

    by Vegas

    Not because it might be good or anything, but to make a point. The MPAA gives out NC-17 ratings because it doesn't think the public should see certain material. Then the studios cut that material because they're afraid that with an NC-17 rating no one will see it. Why are they afraid? Because NO ONE goes to NC-17 movies! We should all buy tickets to AMERICAN PSYCHO and make it a hit, just to prove them wrong. To prove that the system they've created does not work. If you don't like the movie, fine. Give your ticket away, throw it away, I don't care. By the way, I'm only using this movie as an example, not because I'm really Bret Easton Ellis or anything. Back to the point: if we all band together and make an NC-17 movie successful, the studios won't be afraid of the rating anymore and maybe then we'll get to see all the cool shit they've been cutting away from us.

  • March 30, 2000, 3:40 p.m. CST

    The Land of the Free

    by Wee Willie

    Ironic, isn't it, that in a country based on the ideals of freedom, a bunch of old white dudes decided you can't see the bums and tits in Eyes Wide Shut. Land of the free my ass. Rollerball was right, corporations rule the world.

  • March 30, 2000, 3:40 p.m. CST

    blame game

    by L'Auteur

    Every American contributes to the problem. Everyone who shops at Blockbuster and Wal-Mart...everyone who chooses Loews Theaters or AMC theaters over a small mom-and-pop type art house...everyone who tolerates the MPAA and doesnt raise their voice...we're all part of the problem. As long as Americans are too cynical and lazy to stop shopping at Blockbuster, nothing will change. Blockbuster/Loews/AMC/ long as we give them our money, they will decide what is obscene and what isn't. And we will have to take it, because it is our money that put them in this position of power. Remember folks, Democracy is a joke. We live in a capitalist society. Our voting power lies not in a ballot box, but in our wallets. Spend your money wisely. Choose who you support and who you don't. I'm afraid these words will be in vain. Shopping at Blockbuster is just too easy for y'all. Well, sleep well knowing that IT'S YOUR FUCKING FAULT, ASSHOLES!

  • March 30, 2000, 3:43 p.m. CST

    want the mpeg of these clips?

    by memnoch_x

    Go to this website to download the clip... I found it there the other is free but will not be up for long. This is a daily video place and this was one of the ones yesterday, so it is still available. Warning! It is sizable (7 MB) but an interesting view.

  • March 30, 2000, 4:24 p.m. CST


    by nelson

    I'm afraid your cry is in vain. To begin with, in this country, the majority doesn't view movies as art, they view it as entertainment. Mom and Pop from Iowa don't care if a film is rendered in pan & scan, they don't care abou all the little goodie things that DVDs have. They don't even care about the plot (even if it's making them pass as idiots). Only a small majority of people do. Everyone knows about ID4, but how many people know about "Like Water for Chocolate?" Not much, eh? And in Hollywood, the mega-movies pay the bills, not the "Run Lola Runs" or the "Magnolias. So blame the studios if you have to. Enough ranting...ahh, gotta go and pickup my DVD copy of Run Lola Run...on sale for $12!!!!

  • March 30, 2000, 4:28 p.m. CST

    What's the big deal? EWS was a flawed movie!

    by Dextarin

    I don't understand what's the big deal about EWS! It was by no means a masterpiece! The word Masterpiece implies perfection, and EWS was NOT perfect (at least in terms of story). For example, it was the revealed in the movie, that the "elite" discovered Cruise was not one of them simply because he showed up in taxi, he had the receipt for everything in his pocket, and lastly because he didn't know there was no second password. Sydney Pollack's character revealed this information, but if this is the case, how did the chick at the orgy know that he didn't belong? Right after she left the main room with Cruise, she immediately turned to him and said, "I don't what you think you're doing. You don't belong here." There was no way that anyone who suspected Cruise's identity could have notified the naked chick before that exchange. So my question: how did she know? Is she psychic? Did she have a radio transmitter in her ear? Or was it just a screw up in the plot? Guess what, fan boys! It's #3! Kubrick made a major flaw in his own screenplay, and it's not like plotholes in most movies that actually can go unnoticed. Nope. This one that Kubrick wrote stands out like a sore thumb! I'm sorry if I'm overcritical, but a movie with that glaring a flaw is by NO means a masterpiece!

  • March 30, 2000, 4:42 p.m. CST

    That's it?!

    by Essemtee

    Gee, we really did miss a lot of rumpy-pumpy with those naked CGI(?) girls in the way, huh?

  • March 30, 2000, 5:03 p.m. CST

    What the #@%$?

    by theTemplar

    They DARED to alter the work of THE master for that? Jesus Christ, someone needs to fire MPAA censors who rate movies and hire me.

  • March 30, 2000, 6:06 p.m. CST

    Internet jokester jabs the MPAA!

    by Plunky

    You want a good laugh? Go to and see what that domain name's owner thinks of all this.

  • March 31, 2000, 7:43 a.m. CST

    Dexatrim... I mean Dextarim

    by marsyas

    There are any number of ways that Mandy could have known that Dr. Harford didn't belong. I won't list them here... go to and do a search in alt.movies.kubrick. It's not a flaw; it's subtlety.

  • March 31, 2000, 10:27 a.m. CST

    Taboo NC-17

    by All Thumbs

    I just want to say that I do boycott Blockbuster and refuse to buy music or videos from Wal-mart because of their censorshipping (is that a word?) ways. But that's not my point here. My point is that NC-17 did come to be known as taboo thanks to the moral majority and it's multitude of parent and religious groups. I was shown just yesterday a flier that called for metaphorical arms against TV, movies and music because they are "decaying society" and harming "our children." One paragraph berates the movie industry for getting rid of the X and XXX ratings and replacing it with NC-17 in order to make pornography more socially acceptable. I was shown this in class and started laughing outloud, which brought some strange looks.'s why I laughed: from what I understand, the X rating is not an official MPAA, or it was and is not longer an official rating but is now voluntarily used by the porn industry to mark their movies, along with the XXX rating. Whatever...NC-17 means adult. Adult is NOT pornography. Get it through your thick skulls, people...(not you guys, the moral majority, Wal-Mart and Blockbuster).

  • March 31, 2000, 10:58 a.m. CST


    by KingMenthol

    Good stuff. A huge part of the problem is that no matter what anyone says or does, the right wing will always decry graphic art and the like because of it's supposed "immorality". I really hate any usage of the word "moral". It's so subjective, and should never be used to help the helpless (that's us) decide what our children can or cannot see. What is needed is a focus group. Make it a "town hall" meeting right after "World News" w/ Jennings (highest rated news). Bring in community leaders like Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, Al Gore, Dubya, Jack Valenti, Spielberg, Coppola, Ebert, John Stossel, Howard Stern, etc. Let's get everyone involved. Perhaps if the right wing were given a chance to hear the illegitimacy of the current ratings systems in all media, the way these protections of our children are disarming the nation of its right to express itself, they might, just might see things differently. The whole problem lies in the fact that America is irresponsible. We seem to be resigned to the inability to control and/or care for our children. So let's let the government do it and ruin the movies for us! But now, everyone is in that boat because of the right wing. We all have to watch what we do and say now because we're afraid that Dick & Jane's son Bobby might kill himself if he saw the movie I just rented. The MPAA is both a result and a cause of this kind of thing. This all, of course, is IMHO.

  • March 31, 2000, 11:35 a.m. CST

    The MPAA and the moral minority

    by marsyas

    While it's true that the so-called moral majority is at fault for making NC-17 films unmarketable, it is the existence of a rating system that enables them to do so. That may seem self-evident, but it is the simple fact that a label like NC-17 exists which gives them an easy target. So the MPAA is not totally innocent in this. On the other hand, if it weren't for the MPAA, the moral majority surely would have lobbied for government-imposed censorship by now, so a ratingless system isn't a viable option either. I suggested (to the MPAA) that the solution is to adjust the rating system, not by adding an "A" rating, but by getting rid of "R". Anything not appropriate for 13-year olds would be rated NC-17, resulting in so many NC-17 films that the theaters could not possibly afford to boycott them. It might also help to change PG and PG-13 to PG-12 and PG-15, to spread the age restrictions out a bit more evenly. In my opinion, an "A" rating wouldn't work. It would be just as easy to boycott A as it is to boycott NC-17.

  • March 31, 2000, 12:07 p.m. CST

    That is a great idea, Marsyas!

    by Vegas

    I would definitely back that to the fullest. For example, look at such movies as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, which was rated R. Does anyone really think that movie was made for people under 17? How about THE MATRIX ( a movie I loved, but also one I found to be too violent for an impressionable Colorado student or two)? If they were all NC-17, they would still reach their appropriate and intended audience and could be caught later on on DVD by those too young to enjoy them on their original release. Another thing: a lot of parents I know let their kids watch R-rated movies in the theatres because it's their only chance to do so. If the studios would re-release more films more often with more publicity to support them, then those too young to see these movies the way they were intended the first time could see them that way once they were of appropriate age. God how I would love to see Apocolypse Now or Blade Runner on the big screen. Just a thought, fellas.

  • March 31, 2000, 1:05 p.m. CST

    The no-R-rating theory.

    by All Thumbs

    Not having an R-rating works in theory, but when you think about it, it doesn't. It doesn't work for the studios because they lose money from those under 17 who are allowed into the movie with an adult. They lose the adults because the adults sometimes, as mentioned, take their kids because that's the only choice they have. Having no R means a lot of legitimately mature people under 17 lose out on a great movie experience. I went to R movies as a kid, not because my parents couldn't get a babysitter, but because they felt I was mature enough and knew my love of movies. If not for the fact I could get in with a parent or guardian, I would have missed out on some important experiences: "Schindler's List," "Leathal Weapon," "Silence of the Lambs" and, of course, "Freddy's Dead: Nightmare on Elm Street Part Six" in 3-D (thanks for going, Dad) name a few. I do agree there needs to be some restriction, but it should be up to the parents to decide and an R rating lets them. (I do like the idea of more ratings based on age, though.) My parents made the decision based on what they thought I could handle and, even now, at 22 I still go to the movies with them from time to time. I would also like to say if you're going not going to let teens get into adult movies, don't make them pay adult prices. According to those prices, you're an adult at age 11, 12 or 13 and that has always bugged the shit out of me, even now.

  • March 31, 2000, 1:09 p.m. CST


    by All Thumbs

    I want to say that home entertainment systems (VHS, BETA, Laserdisc, DVD) do not substitute for a quality (or even poor quality) movie-going experience. You lose the fact that you're getting out of the house, the big screen, and that certain something that goes along with greasy popcorn, film projection, sticky floors and pimply ushers...atmosphere. To say "they can watch it on DVD later" is like saying someone can have the cone after you ate all the ice cream out of it.

  • March 31, 2000, 2:43 p.m. CST

    Re: AllThumbs

    by marsyas

    That's why I suggested changing PG-13 to PG-15. This would compensate somewhat for the teens who attend R movies. In effect, having G, PG-12, PG-15, and NC-17 would make the rating system very similar to the tried-and-true British system. Films that are rated NC-17 in the U.S. generally have no problem getting wide release in the U.K.

  • March 31, 2000, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Anticipating someone's response...

    by marsyas

    Admittedly, part of that is cultural. But part of it is also due to the fact that few theaters in the U.K. would be able to afford a ban on all films with an "18" certificate. There are simply too many of them to ignore.

  • March 31, 2000, 9:13 p.m. CST

    The MPAA could take the canadian approach

    by darius25

    atleast here in Ontario, films have 4 ratings only. An F(family) rating same as the G. PG same as PG in the US. AA(Adult Accompaniement under the age of 14) which is almost the same as the US R rating. The majority of the R-rated movies are AA, including the 13th Warrior which was pretty bloody. Finally there is the R rating which restricts audience under the age of 18. The R rating is not a taboo here and many movies are rated R here and they are widely distributed and advertised. The last real R movie here was The Beach (I saw nothing that was beyond an AA). Final Destination was R but then one week later the rating changed to an AA. I don't know why that happened. (or how in the world did Scream 3 got an AA rating while Fargo and Ransom were R ?).OK rant is over.

  • April 1, 2000, 9:32 a.m. CST


    by Doug Exeter

    I saw the movie. The edited one. It really doesn't matter that much. It's not a scene that dictates the plot of the movie. It's just a scene. That scene had more to do with Tom's character and the mystery girl. So then, if that's what the scene is about, what does it matter. I understand that you are mostly "Purists." LIKE I'VE NEVER SEEN PEOPLE HAVE SEX BEFORE!! Like I need to see people have sex again and again and again. We all know that they're having sex, why do we need to see it? Isn't it enough to communicate something without having to smack them over the head with it?

  • April 2, 2000, 1:42 p.m. CST

    What a travesty.

    by riskebiz

    Know that I've seen it, whoever it was the decided to cover it up should be tar'ed and feathered. What a travesty to do that to Kubrick's final film. They can rationalize their change all they want, but in the end it's censorship.

  • April 3, 2000, 10:24 a.m. CST


    by NakedLunch

    Don't blame the MPAA. Ok, they might be a bit on the conservative side, but this film is an adult film. It deserves an NC-17 rating. The problem lies in the fuckheads who run the cinema chains and the newspapers and tv stations and video stores for not supporting nc-17 films. If they did, it would be a viable rating and if any right wing morons complain about it they can have the rating clearly and intellegently explained to them and if they still kick up a fuss then we can collectively tell them to stick it up their ass. If you have to blame anyone, don't go yelling at the MPAA, start blaming Blockbuster...

  • April 3, 2000, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Point well taken, All thumbs...

    by Vegas

    ...but I also mentioned that all would benefit if more movies were periodically re-released in the theaters so that future generations could enjoy them. I don't know how anyone could argue with that, and if parents knew that the movie would be re-released in the theater someday, maybe then I could watch The Green Mile without having to listen to screaming kids the whole way through (actually happened: a woman wouldn't take her fucking brat kid out of the theater when he was talking loudly the whole time--someone yelled out across the theater "Shut the brat up or take him outside"--at least thirty seconds of applause from the entire theater).

  • April 9, 2000, 1:27 p.m. CST

    EWS - perhaps the worst move ever made..

    by rikpepe

    I condider myself pretty open-minded and like to listen to valid arguments (not rants) from all side of an issue. THEN make a judgement. That being said... I am amazed that people actually like this film. I like SK as much as any of you but.. The file is SLOWWWWWWWWWWWWW (talk about preganant pauses - every dialogue was 9 months), stupid music (dong.................ding.............dong.........)silly, misogynous in nature, and poorly acted (esp Nicole Kidman) but should not distract What's with the all women are sluts thing? Why does Kubrick treat women so poorly in this film? How do female audience members feel about this? When I saw it in the theater & half the crowd were laughing (I was more angry that I wasted money), in fact it became interactive ala Mystery Science Theater with cracks being made. Especially when the naked sex object with ridiculous feather mask... pronounced from the balcony "let him go!!!!" Who could not bust a gut laughing at the silly and ridiculous scene? The "altered scenes" should have been left in yes. But how in the hell could it have made this a better movie? Would it have changed the stupid chanting stuff that was supposed to make the scene more serious? People get real, the great SK made a bad film, it's OK. We all make mistakes. Forget the post SK death editing, the movie still sucked. The two positve in the movie are: 1. The cinematography 2. The gay hotel desk clerk. Keep the flames to yourself... But I will read any rational argument.