Watch Winona Ryder's Sex Scene from 'Sex and Death 101'
Filed under: Comedy, Romance, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, NSFW, Images, Trailers and Clips
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.
Related Headlines
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-06-2007 @ 8:34PM
MCW said...
I tell ya, sometimes you guys at Cinematical bug me with your immaturity. You run a Natalie Portman nude scene in the ground (When all you see is the behind of a woman). You run an Angelina Jolie nude scene in a CGI movie in the ground (When all you see is a cartoon behind of a woman). And I'm sure this is the first of 20 blog posts about Winona Ryder's nude scene that you would have to have a NASA microscope to actually see and understand what is happening.
Honestly, hand the blogging software and passwords to me, because I guarantee I could write more meaningful "Articles" than this one.
Please class Cinematical back up, before you completely destroy what was good about it. Geez.
Reply
11-06-2007 @ 9:11PM
kastonie said...
I dont know about the guy above, but I thought the article was very well written and contained a wealth of knowledge. It gets even better because the scene the article is talking about is right there on the webpage helping me not waste time by trying to see the scene otherwise!
Reply
11-07-2007 @ 5:26AM
Rick said...
I couldn't agree more MCW and I've posted about this before.
These posts read as truly desperate ploys to get views.
Maybe the Weblog company line pushes this kind of pseudo-salacious content? I'd suggest leaving it to Mr. Skin, who does it much better.
Either way, the Cinematical writers who keep pumping out these OMG I SAW SUM SKIN "articles," are making themselves out to be attention whores.
Reply
11-07-2007 @ 9:28AM
Christopher Campbell said...
But MrSkin costs a fee, and it doesn't have the clip.
And while I didn't mean to write this up to get the site attention -- as someone who crushed hard on Ryder as a teen, it was actually of interest to me -- but I did get your attention, no? I'd rather write about something that sparks discussion about why it shouldn't be written about than write about something that you simply skim over and forget about.
Reply
11-07-2007 @ 10:28AM
Cincinnati Mike said...
I am also outraged--that it's Simon Baker and not me!
Reply
11-07-2007 @ 7:43PM
Rick said...
I think you're missing the point, Chris. You and a couple other bloggers will try to formulate an article around the fact that Angelina Jolie shows part of her back on a billboard or that Natalie Portman appears kinda sorta not really nude in a short film - as if that's interesting cinema related news.
It's not. Like I said, leave the "partial obscured nudity at 37 minutes in" to Mr. Skin.
You got my "attention" because I'm tired of these posts. Many more and I'll just be forced to tune out completely.
Reply