>But it's the trap that every great director gets into. He builds and >builds upon things that aren't strictly >necessary to the plot, and you >end up with a movie that is forty minutes longer than need be. you know, though - i got the feeling that it was slaughtered to edit it down to a r rating from the nc-17 it would've gotten otherwise. it seemed to me that the lack of continuity was due to the editing, not to the director's lack of vision of follow-through. did anyone else get that sense? elizabeth