I'm not sure if this is true, but I've heard some movie geeks out there grew up crushing on Winona Ryder. I know I wasn't the only one. Actually, I know there were thousands of us, if not millions. Now, as a sensitive teen, one of the things I liked about the actress was that she was firm on her decision to keep her clothes on. Of course, as a hormonal teen, this was also one of the things that frustrated me about her. Well, now that it's been about twelve years since I met Ryder while selling her Shine tickets and came to the realization that she was a real person and not someone to obsess over, she is baring some skin. It's still not a lot of skin, and it's only noticeable if a certain gossip blog freeze frames it for us, but Winona Ryder is a bit naked in Sex and Death 101. Now, you might want to chime in and point out that, as MrSkin.com does, Ryder showed a dab of flesh in Autumn and New York (there were rumors of a full nude scene that was cut out), and this isn't that much better. But this is a little different; I would at least consider it more of a nude scene. And if you want to watch it, you better do it quick. The video and the NSFW photo are sure to be taken down soon.For those who don't know, Sex and Death 101 is the film that reunites Winona Ryder with Heathers screenwriter Daniel Waters, who also directs this time around. It stars Ryder, of course, as a serial killer named Death Nell, who targets sex criminals. Ryder's co-star in the film is Simon Baker (The Devil Wears Prada), who can be seen in the video, as a guy who one day receives a mysterious email detailing all the women he has and will have sex with in his life. Our own Scott Weinberg saw the film at Fantastic Fest and called it Waters' "best work in a very long time," and Ryder's, "best stuff in years." That may not say much to you, knowing their lack of success in recent years, but Scott continued to give the film praise. He wrote, "the movie juggles romantic comedy, dark humor, sex farce and slight slapstick with seldom a misstep, resulting in a surprisingly unpredictable flick that works on a small variety of levels." Sounds interesting. Oh, and don't forget that sex scene; that might interest you, too.
In about an hour, I'll be writing another post regarding a new Moviefone gallery featuring the 25 Best Sex Scenes of All Time. One movie that will not be on that list (mainly because it hasn't come out yet) is 
Once again, the ever-vigilant House of
Representatives has passed a bill (the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act) containing a provision that
will bring any movie "that contains a simulated sex scene...under the same government-filing requirements that
adult films have to meet." Were the bill to pass the Senate, it would require movie studios to file an affidavit
with the government for each simulated sex scene, listing the names and ages of the actors who appear. When the films
appeared on DVD, each one would feature a sticker, certifying that the movie complied with the filing laws, and giving
information about where the affidavits could be found. While the reason for such a system regulating pornography is
abundantly clear, applying it to the simulated sex scenes found in mainstream film and television seems like an
outrageous overreach, not to mention a massive waste of time (someone, after all, is going have to fill out all those
forms). In addition, the measure has drawn protests from the MPAA (!) and SAG, among others, who feel that the proposed
regulation "is a bad idea for legitimate business and could actually undo the current adult-film industry reporting
requirements as it is likely to face a court challenge if it becomes law."
Sundance is abuzz this morning over a sex scene, featuring Katie Holmes, that mysteriously disappeared from Jason Reitman's Thank You For Smoking in between its Toronto premiere and Sundance screening. Most people on the ground here don't believe, as various tabloids are reporting, that Tom Cruise had anything to do with the scene's excision, but it is odd that the director himself isn't taking any responsibility for it. Claiming he was "in shock" when he saw the sex scene-less version projected on Saturday night, Reitman told the LA Times that a projectionist had accidentally snipped off the scene whilst changing reels. As implausible as that sounds – even the shortest scene would live on several feet of film stock, making any kind of accidental snip both unweildy and conspicuous – there doesn't seem to be another credible explanation at this point. I did not see the film in Toronto, but my sources tell me that the original scene wasn't graphic in any way – certainly not as graphic as anything Nicole Kidman did whilst co-starring opposite then-husband Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut – and considering that Holmes herself appeared topless several years ago in the Gift, any squeamishness on the part of Holmes' fiancee would just be really, really crazy. When I saw Smoking here at Sundance, I actually sort of admired the lack of hardcore action in the innuendo-laden film – I thought Reitman was trying to be Preston Sturges. Guess not. But what do you think is going on here? If nothing else, isn't it a little funny that this not-inherently controversial film finds a way to cause some kind of silly hoopla everywhere it goes? Here's one more scrap of "evidence": when the film screened again on Sunday, the scene in question had not been replaced.
Insert Caption: The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian_thumbnail.jpg)
SCOOP: Spider-Man 4 and 5 Might be Shot at the Same Time!
Cinematical Seven: Disney's Awesome Live-Action Kid Adventures
