Well, if that's the case, I take back what I said.

I'd like to add that this doesn't mean the matted version is wrong. James Cameron, for instance, acknowledges that while Terminator 2 and Titanic (both shot on Super 35) were both framed for and intended to be viewed in widescreen, he prefers the fullscreen versions (which have a bit of cropping on the sides, but have a lot more information on top and bottom).

So it's possible that Reggio shot and always meant for the film to be shown matted, but he liked the way it looked unmatted, too.

Either way, if the director approved the unmatted transfer, I guess I can't say shit!

--edit--

I do think it's important for people to be educated about apsect ratio, as a big part of convincing the layman that widescreen is better is telling them that it has more picture information, when this isn't always the case.

Equally difficult is getting people to understand that sometimes "fullscreen" is better for a film than widescreen - The Evil Dead comes to mind (shot and intended for fullscreen, cropped to widescreen by Sam Raimi for a re-issue DVD and Blu-Ray release).

What I said earlier still stands (though it doesn't really apply to this film now) - it's not about "more" or "less" image, it's about the right image.

Not directed at you, I just think it's important for viewers to be educated about framing and aspect ratios.