Just watched Sex Drive
, recommended by Philocalist. It was a good, funny movie in the traditions of American Pie
and Road Trip
. You know, coming-of-age stories really, but with trillion sex jokes and a guy who wants to loose his virginity, and with lots of showing of legs and a little of boobs and balls.
A bonus came in the they-don't-get-any-prettier-than-that category with Alice Greczyn in a minor role. I hope to the lord she never submits to boobie implants.
Talking about boobies (still!), I guess in the R-rated version there was maybe four seconds of boobies, all of them on extras, not the main actresses. It's typical, and I wonder if the ratings authorities measure this out exactly. If they had had ten
seconds of boobies, maybe they'd have gotten an X-rating, do you think?
(And if they get that, most theatres won't show the film, so they're at the mercy of the ratings authorities, is my understanding. It's weird.) Even so, why don't they cut loose in the DVD version?* It's a big draw, I mean, men will sit in smoky bars and drink ten-dollar drinks just to look at boobs. I mean, not me, I tried it once, an afternoon show in Copenhagen, but it was just... boring and embarrassing. But I will gladly watch them movies, if the movie is not too bad.
Actually that's interesting: it does take more than that. This is the reason I don't have video on Domai: I never found any nude-girl videos which I didn't think were boring. Girls lounging about, or walking leisurely in the surf, rubbing their flanks sensuously, it's... just boring after a minute or two. And fake. It's fake because nobody ever moves like that when there's not a video camera pointing at them. It's a bit odd.
* Update: maybe they do. I thought the R-rated version was the more adult version, but it seems that "creamy", describing the other version, does not stand for softer, but for, whatever, and that one is unrated, a bit more boobs.
(I was a bit cynical after paying many years ago for an all-git-out uncensored version of American Pie, supposedly, and I couldn't tell the difference.)
They actually over-done it a little (to stay in the Southern vernacular), for the "irony" I suppose. They have inserted a long close-up shot of what we're supposed to think are Katrina Bowden's tits but which are never seen in the same room as Clark Kent, I mean, her face, and are too large anyway. And perhaps most silly, in several shots, a naked young woman just walks in front of the camera, over the dialogue and everything, pauses, and walks on! The actors never notice her. It seems to have been done later by green-screen. I hope the irony thing works out for them, because otherwise it's looking like lack of respect for the audience.
... Aha, turns out they did
put in a big, silly disclaimer in the beginning of the Unrated Version, stating that it has a lot more gratuitous stuff, and sucks. And a more serious disclaimer that the real film is better than this silly for-fans-only version. Which is true, when it's done like this.
Oh, by the way, another gripe: when films *do* put in a nude girl or two, it's usually those horrible porn industry girls with their pneumatic breasts. I don't get how anybody looks at that and think "breast". An exception in this film is two amish girls who flash their tits at a rock concert, those are very cute and natural girls, and way more interesting than the inserted porn stars wandering about. (A friend of mine tells me that the girls start to look like that, all of them, after a year or two in the strip/porn business. All the falsity gets stacked on top of them, one layer at a time. What a frigging shame.)
But anyway, it at least proves that you can
have nudity with an unrated DVD, which means you could make good ones too. Not as easy as one might think, though, I suspect.