PatD

It's hard to believe this movie (among the line-up of 1994) is 20 years old. Once described at "A Clockwork Orange" of it's time, it's still a lightening rod film after all these years.

To me, it's a technical marvel and one of Stone's best films just on that level. The soundtrack is bloody brilliant. The imagery is potent and the editing is oppressively frantic (which I guess is the point). The performances from Harrelson and Lewis are solid. (You'll notice that I mention these two performances only as they're the only ones that aren't played as exaggerated cartoons.)

That said, it's message is ambiguous to the nth degree--mass murderers are moral authorities, at least compared to the EVUUUL media? In fact the muddled message and the fact that the movie cops out by playing the violence and so many of the characters as cartoon-like hurts this film immensely. Think about it: if the violence and the characters were played straight (like Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer-straight) against the editing and the phantasmagoric imagery this would be a film for the ages. This would REALLY shake up the pieces of the people who saw it. Instead, it's a curiosity of it's time--a good one, but it could have have been so much more.

One things for sure: this movie would not be made as a mainstream film today. No f'ing way.

Solid Snake

It is a film that could have only have existed in the 1990s. To a degree I think someone could make a film like that today but it wouldn't have the raw power the Stone had for it. I have it on BD. I can never really decide if I like it or I don't. It has some things that don't attract me personally but as part of the film itself it rocks it.

Mondo Kane

Fact: Gene Siskel didn't start liking the movie untill the sitcom sequence started. On the other hand, that same sequence caused Tarantino to walk out of the film.

auto

That's a great anecdote. I love this movie but the sitcom scene really threw me for a loop the first few times I saw it.

inri222

I like NBK, but I prefer its underrated cousin (and IMO one of Stone's best films) U-Turn better.

Mike86

I've never cared for this film. I like Harrelson a lot and I thought with a script adapted from something Tarantino wrote (although I've heard his screenplay was butchered and he hates the film too) I'd enjoy it more but it just doesn't work for me. Oliver Stone films in general I tend not to love.

PatD

I wonder if in the future QT will do a remake of sorts of NBK that follows his original script to his specifications. I'd imagine that "Quentin Tarantino's Natural Born Killers" would pale in comparison to what Oliver Stone put forth. Or at least lack the subtext. It would probably just be in the vein of Death Proof, Inglorious Basterds, and Django Unchained--just a meat and potatoes violence-fest.

Has anyone read the original script? How different is it from the '94 film?

Dan

This is probably my favorite Stone flick.
I do not think Tarantino would have made a better film if he did it himself either then or now. I generally like his films more than Stone's, but in this case, Stone made it damn near perfect in a way that Tarantino could never accomplish.

I did not like it the first couple times I saw it (I was in my early teens and it was too much, I think), but when I saw the Directors Cut, it clicked for me.

OldBoy

have to see this again. saw it once when i was younger, maybe in the theaters? but i remember not being fond of it or understanding it, but could have been my ignorance...

dugan

The screenplay was a straightforward crime->prison->escape action movie. The media angle was emphasized much less in the screenplay than in the finished film.

That and the fact that 90% of what happens in the movie doesn't actually happen in the script.

Dr. DVD

I really think that this is a movie that has become more relevant with time. Lots of foreshadowing in terms of the direction of American society. I agree that it could not get made nowadays, at least not with studio $$.

Mondo Kane

Oh, now I know why PatD started this thread




I used to have the novel, but I lost it before I got to finish it. I remember liking the Vegas killing spree.

Why So Blu?

This is one of the best film of the 90's. I saw the theatrical version first on VHS then they released the director's cut through VIDMARK (TRIMARK) home video and fell in love. The deleted scenes are great too. It was such a commentary on media envy and worship during those times. Fuck, 20 years ago, yo!.

GoldenJCJ

I'm going to have to see this again. I've seen it twice (the last time was probably 15+ years ago) and I never really cared for it. To me, all of the insane camera angles, edits, and inserted images sprinkled throughout just made it too weird for me. Oddly enough the violence never affected me. I don't think I've ever see the "Director's Cut". I wonder if I'd appreciate it more now that I'm older and more mature.

Even though I've never really cared for the movie I've always thought Woody Harrelson's performance was nothing short of brilliant and cemented him in my mind as one of the greatest actors out there.

Dan

^ The scene where

Is still hard for me to watch. I know it's cartoonish, and I know it's just a movie and everything, but that scene just gets to me. I can't explain it. I tend to fast forward through it. I literally don't do that with any other film.

Other than that, the violence doesn't bother me. In the DC, there's only about 2 minutes of extra footage, and it's mostly to emphasize the cartoonish violence than anything else. I'm not saying the DC is a completely different film, just that, I saw it at the right age (I guess, I was still in my teens) and at the right time for it to just all fit together for me, and I realized what Stone was doing. Maybe it was Stone's intro on the VHS that did it. Or the alternate ending in the deleted scenes... not sure. But "younger me" just wasn't ready for it until I saw the DC.

Crocker Jarmen

I was 16 in 1994 and vividly remember going to see this opening night and being blown the fuck away. Nearly every effect was something I was seeing in a Hollywood movie for the first time; the quick cutting, the mixing of media (35MM, video, 8MM), the surreal touches like the laugh track scene and the cutaways to stock footage.

I remember having tons of passionate conversations about the movie's message and it's criticism of how the "media" makes stars of "murderers". Truth is, I loved the movie because it was one of the most fucking fun things to watch. If the movie really has anything to say about the culture of the 90's, I think it is a pretty shallow and juvenile commentary.

I still love the movie, but that comes from a place of nostalgia.

I read Tarantino's script a few years after the movie came out. What Stone did was far more interesting and ambitious than the Tarantino script. Large sections of the Tarantino version was a documentary about Mickey and Mallory, lots of talking heads being interviewed. It was written in mind to be a low budget movie he'd direct with a few thousand dollars so its vision is very narrow.

inri222

If anyone is interested :

"NATURAL BORN KILLERS"

WRITTEN BY QUENTIN TARANTINO

http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/n...ers_early.html

Dr. DVD

So..would you still defend the movie today to friends/critics who don't like it?


I think its commentary is still relevant today, as society is getting even more shallow and juvenile.

PatD

I miss the Oliver Stone that made this movie: the passionate, off-the-wall, off-the cuff Oliver Stone. NBK was part of his weird-multimedia trilogy of films: JFK, Natural Born Killers, and Nixon. They were the most electric and compelling of his filmography by miles.

His movies in the 21st century have been severely lacking. Alexander, World Trade Center, W., and Savages are barbiturates in comparison.

Dan

Thanks! I never got around to reading it all those years ago.

I was thinking about this a bit last night and today. I think, if there's ANY film that could be seen as the modern equivalent, it would be Nightcrawler. Completely different in so many ways (NBK is loud, bombastic, frenetic, etc. while Nightcrawler is nuanced, tense, grounded, etc.), but while NBK was a commentary on the 90's obsession with serial killers specifically, I feel like Nightcrawler is a commentary on the 2010's obsession with injury, death, and gore; not so much the "who" but the "what."

inri222

Of those I've only seen Alexander and that was atrocious. 3.5 hours down the toilet

EddieMoney

World Trade Center and Savages are decent. W. is pretty hilarious. Alexander is shit.

Never been a big fan of NBK. Big fan of U-Turn though, which I find darkly hysterical.

He sure made some great movies in the '80s. Born on the Fourth of July has to be his best, IMO.

DaveyJoe

I thought it was total crap the first time I watched it. I liked it the second time, who knows what a third viewing might bring?

inri222

I like NBK because of its message & assault on the senses. I enjoyed Robert Downey Jr. & Tommy Lee Jones' over the top performances. U-Turn IMO is one of his best, a trippy black comedy/noir without any overt political messages. I think that JFK is his best film. The acting (except for Costner), editing, cinematography and direction on JFK are top notch.

Ash Ketchum

Why John Grisham hates this movie:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...killers/8.html


Oliver Stone defends a film that's been blamed for eight murders:

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2.../artsfeatures1


An interview with Grisham that includes discussion of this issue:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,275343,00.html