Kinky Cameron Diaz Video Hits Web

[trailergod]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...celeb_eo/14467

Move over, Paris, there's a new leading lady steaming up the Internet: Cameron Diaz (news).

Before she was an A-list star of Shrek, There's Something About Mary and Charlie's Angels, Diaz displayed some decidedly un-angelic behavior in a salacious S&M video shot back in 1992. That video, at the center of a contentious, ongoing legal battle between Diaz and the man who filmed it, hit the Web Wednesday and is rapidly becoming the download du jour.


Titled She's No Angel: Cameron Diaz, the 30-minute film shows the then-19 model baring her breasts and getting kinky in a softcore photo session for cameraman John Rutter.


Now 31 and a Tinseltown powerbroker, Diaz had wanted to keep a lid on the footage. She and Rutter have been battling for nearly a year. For his part, Rutter claims Diaz signed off on a valid release at the time it was shot. Hollywood's highest-paid actress, however, says the signature was forged and accuses the shutterbug of trying to blackmail her for $3.3 million in exchange for not releasing the titillating pics.


Too late. The film is available for purchase via download for $39.95 at Scandal-Inc.com and bootlegs are already circulating on file-sharing sites like KaZaA and Grokster.


According to the New York Post, the video features Diaz topless and in fishnets. She and a leather-clad model named Natasha are vamping it up in a bondage scene with a chained man wearing nothing but a loose-fitting loincloth. At one point, the twosome toy with their male "slave," making him wear a black leather bondage mask and pretending to subjugate him.

who got it? ...hehehehe

[Shrubz]

Screenshot! Screenshot!

[neo_anderson]

yeah, cameron looked ultra-hot in "the mask", now she is toned down, and a screenshot is well awaited.

[ZUBi]

cameron-large-final.wmv (66.49 MB)

sorry, no bubbies for yaa (censored by myself)...

[neo_anderson]

she is looking too thin, i think hilton looked hotter, then again, i haven't seen the full video.

[Jake]

How is this a "non-movie related" topic, isn't this a movie? :-)

[Shrubz]

How is this a "non-movie related" topic, isn't this a movie? :-)

LOL! He does have a point.

[cremaster]

just downloaded the vid but nothing exciting :p

[editman]

How is this a "non-movie related" topic, isn't this a movie? :-)

It's NOT a movie, depsite what it was claimed to be. It's some 15-year-old bad-quality video of a photo shoot.

'nothing exciting'? Well, not exactly... it's interesting to hear how the photographer (John Rutter?) got the girls in their poses during the shoot. All he could say were 'Go girls. Go girls! Go Cameron.' to the adsurd level it's hilarious. No wonder Cameron wanna suppress the release cos Rutter's freakin' embarassing. Man I can be a photographer THAT way...

[Jake]

It is very much a movie or as we in the industry say "film" (lol) It is a sub-genra of the pornography genra, it is "bad pornography". If you're at the point where you've seen all porn movies that can be seen you should really watch them again and analyze them. It is really funny. I saw this one movie with this pornstar azalea, in it she's saying "**** me, you're not ****ing me" and the guy says "what am I doing" and she says "you're TRYING to **** me". These videos are so bad it's really funny. They can't even act faking orgasms.

[hicks]

Hmm.. I can't seem to find it.

[editman]

It is very much a movie or as we in the industry say "film" (lol) It is a sub-genra of the pornography genra, it is "bad pornography".

Don't get me started, FC boy...

It's not a "film" because it's not shot on celluoid film, or projected as the end project in the medium of celluoid film.

It is a "movie" by very wide definition/by nature for it is indeed a motion picture. However since it's shot on the medium of video (be the source VHS, Beta or U-Matic), it is by nature a video.

And it is not even considered as "porngraphy", for in which no male or female appearing on the video performs any real sexual intercourse/activity. The S/M posing are silmulated for the purpose of the photoshoot. The resulting photographic material may be considered as pornographic. But not what the video is, for it's merely a doucmentation of the making process of the alleged pornographic material (photos.)

(At least it appears so half-way through - haven't seen the 2nd half yet. If Cameron was banging some guy at the end I take it all back.)

Cameron Diaz was unease about the exposure of this tape (and the photographs) because she bared her boobs in it, and it's an asset to her as a movie star because (ASAIK) she hasn't done a frontal nudity scene in any of the movies she has appeared. She can negotiate a better pay/role if one day she is requested to show her boobs in a scene. But if any internet geek can see it for free, her asset may reduce in value, and I reckon that's what she's feared of at the moment.

My previous remark on the photographer making repetitive 'suggestions' to the models during the photoshoot was merely a reflection of my opinion on how unimaginative and bad the photographer (John Rutter?) was in his ways of 'encouraging' the models to give him the looks he wanted. He makes Austin Powers look like a better photographer.

In other words, to put it bluntly, I don't think he's jerking off on the other side of the camera.

[Jake]

You are all knowing...I worship thee

[editman]

You are all knowing...I worship thee

Thank you, now back to slavery.

[Jake]

what do you want me to do? Join a convent and dedicate my life to studying film? I'm sure there's some super high quality film made in the mountains of Mongolia (actually I think Mongolia is flat) that is weaved by monks.