Rated "R" vs. Unrated

[Conekiller]

More frequently nowadays I'm seeing "Unrated" versions of movies with "FOOTAGE THEY WOULDN'T LET YOU SEE IN THEATRES!!!!!" edited back into the movie.

My problem is this: I'm usually curious to see these new scenes that were too hot for cineplexes, but I always debate whether or not a few extra scenes are worth purchasing the movie (since most rental stores in my are don't rent the unrated version).

Ok, So after a massive run-on sentence I have this to ask: Is there a web-site or something that compares the diffrences of both vesions of movies so that peons like me don't shell out extra $$$ to only to hear Andy Dick getting VD from his dog? (Old School, I haaaaaate Andy Dick)

[Tobias]

The MPAA, now more than ever, are picky about movie content. Someone spitting blood, or one F word, or hell, smoking a cigarette can make the difference between G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17 nowadays.

I personally think they release 'Unrated' versions as opposed to calling them 'R' rated so underage youths can purchase them without too much hassle.

9 times out 10, the 'Unrated' versions aren't worth buying. Most times the studio will throw in a three second breast shot, or an extra f-bomb or two and call it 'stuff you couldn't see in theaters', which, a lot of times, is bull, because the 'unrated' stuff is just extended scenes and added dialogue.

[Classic Speedy]

One I can think of right off the bat: The R-rated Pearl Harbor Director's Cut is only about 1-2 minutes longer and one of the new scenes is a soldier getting decapitated. If it weren't for the massive amount of DVD extras spread out over 4 discs, it definitely wouldn't be worth buying.

[the Amanda]

At a local Blockbuster, all of the stuff that isn't officially rated by the MPAA gets an "18 and up only" sticker put on it, to the point of ridiculousness (as I recall, I had to get my mom to rent the Wallace & Gromit tapes for me for this reason).