Anyone rent Mullholland Drive from Blockbuster? Same movie? (1 Viewer)

[Greg Robinson]

I rented David Lynch's latest oddity last night from Blockbuster having never seen it before. I liked it - very cool. However, one of things I had heard about the film was its controversial amount of sex/nudity and I found it to be RATHER tame. This is not a complaint mind you but more of an observation. The first "encounter" in the bed goes immediately from kissing to a fade out into "afterwards" ; and the second encounter on the couch ends before anything happens - it's primarily conversation. Both scenes have some quick breast glimpses, but nothing over the top.

No I'm not looking for any porn I can find - I'm simply trying to understand where all the "buzz" came from. Is Blockbuster renting out an edited version of the film? Has anyone seen the theatrical release AND the Blockbuster rental? Just curious. I'm wondering if it IS an edited version, if there are other more plot-related scenes I have might be missing. Ah well - Great movie though!

 

[Matt Pelham]

It's the exact same movie (except for the blurring issue, please do a search and find that thread for details.) Blockbuster never has and never will edit or force anyone to edit a movie that carried an R-rating theatrically.

 

[Greg Robinson]

i read about that blurring issue - no big deal in my opinon. Interesting though that the content in this film generated the buzz it did. I thought the Wachowski Bros' film Bound was a lot more "buzz-worthy" than Mullholland. Ah well - thanks for the info!

 

[Bob McElfresh]

Blockbuster never has and never will edit or force anyone to edit a movie that carried an R-rating theatrically.

I'm afraid this is not true. In the early 90's BB would only carry "sanitized" versions of some movies. These would have controversial scenes edited out (violence & sexuality). One BB employee taught me to look for the text "Original Rating:" on the back - this indicated a edited title.

BB has tried to be a 'trend-setter' for video rentals over the years.

 

[Eric T]

What about the "Requiem for a Dream: Edited Version" that they carry at Blockbuster? What's edited out of it?

 

[Markus Lidstrom]

They had both for sale at my BB. Just for curiousities sake I checked the times and the Dir Cut had about 25 minutes more footage.

 

[Eric Walsh]

I am 99% sure that this means it is the theatrical version of the film as opposed to the "unrated/director's cut version" that is also available. So really nothing is edited out of the version that was rated R but it is edited compared to the director's cut of the film. But I can not vouch for what was added to the director's cut because that is the only version of the film I saw.

-Eric

 

[Justin_S]

The director's cut of Requiem for a Dream is the version of the film that was played theatrically. It was originally released unrated. The R version was made for video and DVD for "positive viewing" freaks like Blockbuster, etc.

 

[Matt Pelham]

Right, Blockbuster only carries R-rated movies whenever possible. If a movie was released NC-17 or as the unrated equivalent the studio/director or whoever will re-edit the film and resubmit it until it earns an "R". As far as blockbuster carrying "sanitized versions" of movies in the early 90's that is simply NOT true, yet it remains a popular urban legend. I would challenge anyone to give a specific example of this.

 

[Sam_K]

read about that blurring issue - no big deal in my opinon. Interesting though that the content in this film generated the buzz it did.

The "big deal" is not about the content. The problem is the fact that someone altered the original movie in effect telling what we, DVD owners, can and can not see. I understand that it's the director who made the alteration. Nevertheless, if a scene is not to be seen, then it should be "blurred" in the original theater presentation. To only alter it in the DVD version is an insult to the DVD consumers -- as if the DVD consumers are one-class below the theater-goers although many of them are both DVD owners and theater-goers.

So, I refuse to buy the DVD...

 

[Greg Robinson]

Eric - am I to understand you're refusing to buy this DVD because Laura Harring's lower region has been blurred by the director? No offense, but that just seems silly. Spielberg changing guns into radios is one thing, but this is simply an actor requesting her nethers can't be screen-captured by every geek with a DVD-ROM and posted on CheckOutThatCelebrityAss.com - can you really blame her? Don't you still get the full effect of the scene - it's dark and quick anyway. This doesn't seem to me to be all that important. If BlockBuster did it and THEY were deciding what was best for others, I'd have a problem with it. Does that make any sense? hmm... a difficult question...

 

[Eric Walsh]

Justin,
Thanks for correcting me, I guess that the 99% sure meant pretty much nothing.
Greg,
I guess you are referring your comments to Sam instead of me like you addressed them to because I bought Mulholland Drive and it is one of my favorite movies and DVDs ever.
-Eric

 

[Greg Robinson]

oops - sorry Eric. Right you are.

 

[Sam_K]

an actor requesting her nethers can't be screen-captured by every geek with a DVD-ROM and posted on CheckOutThatCelebrityAss.com - can you really blame her?

Blame her? No. I blame David Lynch.

Actually, another reason not to buy the DVD is because I agreed with the comments of Rex Reed in his New York Observer review:

"The worst movie I’ve seen this year is Mulholland Drive, a load of moronic and incoherent garbage from David Lynch that started out as a rejected TV pilot and predictably ended up at the New York Film Festival, where pretentious poseurs sit with their eyes glued to any screen as long as the projector is still running."

"Nothing in this interminable (two and a half hours of agony) swill makes one lick of sense, which seems to be Mr. Lynch’s arrogant intention from the start. When all else fails, he cuts to the Hollywood sign."

 

[Greg_Y]

Actually, another reason not to buy the DVD is because I agreed with the comments of Rex Reed

If you didn't like the film and agree that it's garbage, why would you even consider buying it? If I really don't like a film, I don't even enter the threads discussing it, nevermind mind consider a purchase of it. You make it sound like, if there was no blurring AND Rex Reed said it was "Great!", you would have bought it even though you didn't like it. Seems silly to me...

Back on topic...I think some Blockbuster's, or at least those that are franchise operations and not owned by Blockbuster directly, can have their own rules about which titles to stock. I've seen the Unrated version of American Psycho in more than one BB location. So, while it may be a corporate policy to stock only rated titles, not all locations adhere to this policy.

However, I'm sure that BB has the clout to cause a studio to ponder the release of rated and unrated versions of a film. They do have some effect on releases, even if indirect.