but watching two people jerk off= not gay (south park)

I'm gay. :(

Not that there's anything wrong with it!

And very sad about it!

Well, chin up. There's a pill you can take for that.

YES i cant wait for more!!!

Maybe we'll actually get to see some of Neve Cambell this time around ;)

Dude, have you been reading this thread? All the people who got excited when they heard 'Wild Things unrated' were guys. (Women, it would seem, are smart enough to know that the movie, other than Bill Murray, is crap.) Most you can say is women (and, yes, gay men) are gonna wait and hear about what makes it unrated before they get excited.

No, it was two men watching each other jerk off that doesn't mean you're gay, according to 'South Park'.

The funny thing about this is that I read an interview with her around the time where she said, "Oh, I *would* do nudity if it were appropriate to the part, I just didn't think it was appropriate for this film." And I remember thinking, "Jeez, you're playing a bisexual nymphomaniac who screws her way to a fortune [or attempts to, I can't remember the ending anymore] ... what film will you ever make in which nudity would be more appropriate to the character?"

Dude, where do you come to this generalization/conclusion?

This movie is NOT crap. It received very good reviews in its theatrical release (I know - I saw it in the theater). This is a clever, decent movie - FAR from "crap" in comparison to most movies made these days. -rolleyes-

I think women (who have not seen it) would think its a sex movie

This is quite a bizarre statement to make ... first, you assume that only somebody who didn't see the movie could "conclude" that it was crap (which flat out isn't true, I had concluded that it was probably a good movie until I actually saw it, at which point, after it was over, I "concluded" that it was crap), then you claim that it received very good reviews (which it didn't, it got a handful of reviews which were anything more than decent and a whole lot of reviews which were that it was crap and, by the end of the year, was turning up on a lot of worst lists) and, to back up this claim, you cite the fact that you yourself saw it theatrically, which wouldn't prove anything about the reviews that it got.

I might be willing to go as far as "decent", but I honestly didn't see anything clever about it. I saw an awful lot of parts where it was *trying* to be clever, but in the same way that it was *trying* to be Tarantino by including pointless violence and jumping through time, thus missing what makes Tarantino actually clever and actually great.

But it was a while ago when I saw it.

Well, sure, if you lower your standards enough, anything can be great. Just because it's not as much crap as other crap doesn't make it not crap. "That pile of crap is taller than that other pile of crap, thus the shorter pile of crap isn't actually crap because the other one is more crap, comparatively." Pretty silly.

But, listen, I apologize for what probably came off as threadcrapping, I won't be commenting on the merits of the film either way anymore, I just wanted to respond to duncan's implication that I was talking out of my ass and hadn't seen the film.

[PS: This might be a good time to ask, what's the standard as far as language goes on this part of the site?]

I didn't imply that you didn't see the film. I was saying that you ASSUMED anyone who posted in this thread or was interested in this re-release was male.

[PS: This might be a good time to ask, what's the standard as far as language goes on this part of the site?]

you can say shit, just as long as its not gratuitus, and, well, basically, you can say what ever you want. (all the "seven dirty words" with the exception of piss is censored by the forum)

...mmmmmmmporno...mmmmmmm.....

Falsetto?

Oral stimulation of the penis.

He means "fellatio."

Anyway, more naked Neve Campbell = yummy.

Yes, I notice that you edited it to make that clearer.

Why do I assume, you ask? How bout:

(plus all the follow-ups to that getting into detail about body doubles)

But this is just kinda silly. If you really think there's a huge niche of women out there who love 'Wild Things', ain't no skin off me.

And I apologize to the girl named Julie Walker, I honestly hadn't noticed *any* women posting in this thread, but didn't mean to insult her, if I did.

And Rypro, (a) thanks, (b) I agree with you, any woman who didn't see that movie would think it was a sex picture. I actually believe that most women who *did* see the movie still think it's a sex picture, but that might not be true.

Man, if you'd just said "aural stimulation" in response to "falsetto", I'd be so much happier...

Let's get this thread back on track...

Jeep + fine girls + suds + water = :thumbsup:

FYI...also Liv Tyler in "One Night At McCool's"... -eek-

Now that's gonna make Julie's head just swell up with pride . . . or, er, something like that

(j/k Julie ;) all in good fun)

:lol: Congratulations, Julie! :up: :D

:lol:

DVDfile says this:

"Far racier is the cult fave Wild Things, which will be reissued in a new 94-minute unrated cut, although according to the Columbia press materials the disc will not include the audio commentary and deleted scenes that graced the previous special edition."

I'm confused, because the IMDb says the R-rated cut is 108 minutes. It may be "unrated", but, technically, cutting 14 minutes out and not re-submitting it to the ratings board would leave it "unrated".

Maybe DVDFile meant to say 114? Isn't the Unrated cut supposed to add in 6-7 minutes of additional footage?

DVDFile has been wrong before with announcing DVDs.

EDIT: http://www.sonypictures.com/homevide...396016286.html

I stand corrected. :) The running time is 115 minutes.

Kevin Bacon has a nice bum

That makes me WANT to purchase it even more. I always thought it would be a cool twist of Dillion and Bacon were lovers.