Conference bookie::movies

    It's going to be released Friday (Aug. 19th, I think).  Taratino wrote
    it while he was in high school -- be forewarned that Oliver Stone
    rewrote it, to the point where hard-core Taratino fans (at least in
    rec.arts.movies) don't really consider it a Taratino movie and
    apparantly, also to the point where Tarantino wanted to get his name
    off the credits.  
    
    
    I do think the title sounds interesting, I like Resevior Dogs and True
    Romance (even though a lot of people poo-poo'd the fact that it was
    directed by Tony Scott), but I'm not terribly keen on a close cropped
    Woody Harrelson and/or Juliette Lewis.  Then again, I do like Robert
    Downey Jr. and I have liked every Oliver Stone movie I've seen, no
    matter how preachy or overblown. So...could be meat, could be cake.
    
    
    kim

    Woody is supposed to be good in this part. He said he liked exploring
    the violent theme because he reckons he has a lot of suppressed
    violence in him and Stone says he picked him for the part for the same
    reason. There's also a rumour that Woody's father was one of the three
    "hobo's" seen getting out of the railroad car the day of JFK's
    assasination and that he was the one who fired from behind the grassy
    knoll. Stone says he heard this when he was researching JFK. Has anyone
    heard this or is it old news ?
    
    Conor.

    
    
    	That's right, also his father is in jail for murder,
    	so he feel close to the role. I think the whole cast sounds 
    	good. Oliver Stone should do a good job. We'll have to wait and
    see.
    Guesome and dark subject matter...In Cold Blood genre?
    Bob

    I was wrong.  It'll be released on the 26th of August.
    
    
    kim

    I saw the trailer for this last night.  It credited "Story by Quentin
    Tarantino", "Screenplay by Oliver Stone & <mumble>".  Given Stone's
    heavy hand, this doesn't necessarily bode well.
    
    I've never been fond of Oliver Stone, but I've not been fond of Tony
    Scott and really enjoyed "True Romance" anyways.  I'll probably give
    this one a chance, though I somehow feel I'm being set up. :^)
    
    Quentin Tarantino commented in a "Film Comment" interview that the
    major divergence "True Romance" took from his script was telling the
    story in a linear fashion.  He liked the way it turned out though.
    
    - Dave

    The reviews (Time, Newsweek, N.Y Times) are hailing this as a cinematic
    breakthrough, comparing it to such films as Network and Bonnie and
    Clyde, for its style and use of current technology (not necessarilly
    special effects.) Stone has placed himself in the forefront for an
    Academy Award, if the hype is to be believed.
                                                 Jim

> ... (not necessarilly special effects.)

	I also read today (in entertainment section of today's nashua
	paper in an article about the nc-17 rating) that they had to
	cut a scene where the camera angle is through a bullet hole
	in the hand of Robert Downy Jr. (or something like that) to
	avoid getting an NC-17 rating.

    
    
    RE: NBK's
    Doesn't anyone get totally sick of all this gruesome violence
    I just don't enjoy these movies anymore, they are getting TOO
    Over the Top  nightmareish   Just pick up a newspaper 
    we  don't ALSO need to see Movies about the same daily events
    were getting already!  at least not to THIS extent
    
    Juliette Lewis played the same kind of character in "Kalifornia"
    with Brad Pitt...the other nite  ET interviewed her and previewed
    Natural Born Killers  with some clips of the movie
    She was talking like a total squash-brain  Where did they dig her up 
    anyway.  
    

    I think this movie is going to be one of those were you either like it,
    or you hate it.
    
    I liked it.  It was the first movie since Schindler's List that I
    thought about after I left the theater.  I'll address this more later. 
    
    Let's be frank up front -- if you are the least bit turned off by film
    violence, blood, or anything graphic, do not go see this.  It is
    bloody.  Bloody, bloody, bloody.  The body count rivals that of "True
    Lies", but not so comic-booky.  If you're not at all familiar with the
    "Quentin Taratino" style of scripts, I highly recommend you see
    Resevior Dogs and/or True Romance before you see this.  If you don't
    midn the violence is those films, and don't mind the fact that the
    protagonists can best be described as criminals, then you might not
    mind Natural Born Killers.
    
    If you find you don't like either of these things, skip "NBK".  Even if
    you generally like Oliver Stone movies.
    
    That all said, Natural Born Killers accomplishes what it set out to do. 
    It's a dark, very dark, comment on the glorifying of violence and
    crime, ala our nation's (and presumably, others) fascination with "true
    life" crime and criminals.  Think Menedez Bros., Bobbit, OJ, blah, blah
    blah.  
    
    From what I know, Stone took a Quentin Tarantino script, rewrote it and
    made it his own baby.  Stone got a lot of flack on the net from
    hard-core Tarantino enthusiasts, but whatever he changed, I don't see
    that he "ruined" the movie.  NBK is sorta Quentin Tarantino meets MTV.
    
    Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis are the, um, protagonists in the
    film.  To keep things precise, they're a couple of sociopaths.  Serial
    killers.  Apparantly destined for each other and quite in love.  Told
    somewhat in flashback, somewhat in linear form, NBK follows our trigger
    happy lovebirds from the day they met to the day they finally get
    captured, 52 dead people later, by a less than savory cop, Jack
    Scagnelli (played by one of my favorite character actors, Tom Sizemore. 
    You'll recognize him when you see him.)  
    
    During their killing spree, Mickey and Mallory have gained quite the
    following among the public.  People hang on their every doing.  They
    make the cover of Newsweek, Time, People, USAToday. The news media
    follows their exploits with bloodthirsty eagerness.  Chief among these
    media hounds is a Hard Copy-esque "reporter" (I use the term loosely),
    played by Robert Downey Jr. (still using his Chaplin accent. Why is he
    English/Austrailian here?  I dunno.)  In the quest for ratings,
    ratings, rating, Downey arranges for the ultimate interview.  
    
    I really can't say more without giving up a lot of the movie.  The film
    is somwehwere over two hours long and during that two hours, the
    audience is *bombarded* with quick cuts, weird lighting, strange camera
    angles, projected backgrounds (the sky becomes a surrealistic movie
    screen) and lots and lots of violence.  Tons of imagery and metaphor
    and very little of the film is shot or told "straight".  Everything is 
    mood and somewhat dream-like and if this kinda thing gives you a headache,
    avoid the movie.  Lots of 70-esque sequences (even though it was supposed
    to be the 1990's).  Weird hair, weird clothes, weird colors.  
    
    Everyone was played competantly (well, I think Juliette Lewis's
    character, Mallory, could have been played by almost anyone, but...). 
    For Tommy Lee Jone's fans, he's in there as an unlikable prison warden. 
    I thought he looked a whole lot like the late Robert Shaw, if Mr. Shaw
    were playing a 70's used car salesman.  :)  Woody Harrelson looks
    interesting bald, but does a very good job with his role.  A dumb
    bartender, this ain't. :)  Lots of other familiar faces abound.
    
    I went to a late show.  The theater was mostly full and mostly male
    (and mostly younger than me -- I'm almost 30).  Typical yakking went on
    before the movie started, lasted through the preview of the upcoming
    Stallone/Stone movie (looked good :), through the credits, and right up
    until the first person got killed (didn't take long.  Trust me).  After
    that, save for laughing at the intentionally funny parts (there were a
    couple), the audience was quiet and seemed pretty involved in the film.  
    There was much positive commenting on the trudge out the parking lot.
    I'd have to say it got a general thumbs up.
    
    For my part, I felt like I'd been hit over the head a few times.  OD'd
    on imagery and bloodshed.  Usually, one doesn't like a movie's message
    to hit you over the head: we tend to complain that if this happens, the
    film was over done and preachy.  However, that was the intent of NBK --
    to hit you over the head, just like the media hits us over head.  Only
    NBK took all the Hard Copies and Current Affairs and Court TV and went
    to an extreme.  It was an exaggeration of society today, but sadly
    enough, it's not that far off.  A little scary for the pessimist in all
    of us. 
    
    That's why I think NBK worked and worked well.  It's not something I'd
    want to go see again simply because it's not a feel good kinda
    experience.  (I think Schindler's List is one of the best movies I've
    ever seen, period, but I only went and saw that one once, too... :)
    
    My gripes: not enough of Mickey's past was given (in comparison to
    Mallory's) to understand the forces that drove him.  Tom Sizemore's cop
    should have been given more screen time since he was a significant data
    point.  I was a little unhappy with the ending, but I think that was me
    rather than the film, and the expectations one sets for these sort of
    things. Which was probably the reason the film ended like it did, to
    bother folks like me. :)  And I kinda missed the Tarantino patter. 
    Once thing that guy can do is write great dialog.  
    
    Other than these few niggly points, I thought Natural Born Killers was
    great.  A little spooky, a lot violent, and definitely relentless.  Do
    not go if you have a headache.
    
    ***.75 out of ****
    
    kim  

    
    
    You got me sold, I agree, this film is suppose to be dark & violent
    	sort of Sam Peckinphawish (sp?) from the '70's..ie STRAW DOGS...
    people should see this. I know I will.Thanks
    				BR

    
    I don't know how other folks feel but this film disturbs me and I
    haven't even seen it.  I don't believe in censorship but I just have
    images of this film triggering a couple of copycats.
    
    -D
    

    
    And if not this film...
    
    ...something they read...
    ...something they ate...
    ...something someone says on a bus...
    
    Madness is in the fabric of humanity.
    
    DFW

    
    I took this film as Oliver Stone masturbating.
    
    Which is not that bad a thing to watch.
    
    -James

    
    I thought the Music Credits at the end were interesting... there must
    have been 127 songs credited in that rolling list!   Probably played 
    about 15 seconds of each.  Which leads me to a question - who did the
    last song (while the credits rolled) with lyrics "when they said
    repent, repent, I wonder what they meant."  Was that new Leonard Cohen?
    
    Anyway, this was no "Clockwork Orange" cinematically, but perhaps it
    was more on the money.  I don't enjoy Stone's sledgehammer approach
    to making a point (Martin Sheen's soliliquy in "Wall Street", etc.),
    but he made some darn good ones.  In fact, I think I believe Stone's
    dark cynicism about society more than Stone even does.
    
    I think I'll like this more and more because of that.
    
    Robert Downey, Jr., Tom Sizemore, and Tommy Lee Jones were great.  
    Actually, so was Woody.  
    
    - Sean

    The song is by Leonard Cohen. It's on "The Future" -- his latest
    studio album. The album is excellent and that track is very 
    representative of the rest of the songs.

    
    Excellent!  Thanks, Stephen.  I intend to pick up that CD now...

    Saw NBK last night and *really* enjoyed it.  Senor Stone has a fabulous
    sense of humor and if you can stomach this kind of knock-knock joke on
    society (society, who?) covered in blood, I highly recommend it to all.
    
    But take it with a grain of salt (re: .2) that's really the point of
    the whole thing.
    
    MJ

	Saw this last night.  Struck me as an Americanized copy of
	'Man Bites Dog' without the deadpan humor and done in an
	MTV music video style with some Lynchian images thrown in.
	Not bad for Stone, but....  Tommy Lee Jones did do a credible
	job as the fixated, on-the-edge warden.

	Tarantino should have done it...

    *** for NBK.  I reserve the last star because of the potential it has to
    twist younger minds in the audience.  
    
    One set of scenes that really hit me were those of Mallory's
    childhood.  They were portrayed as scenes from a 60's comedy 
    (dear-old-dad was portrayed by Rodney Dangerfield) with dubbed in 
    laughter and the works.  These were scenes which indicated and depicted
    sexual abuse of Mallory as a child.  The scary part was that the whole
    thing was *fed* to the audience in the format of a comedy and to a
    degree it worked!  I heard laughter and in the audience when the dubbed
    in laughter was playing... while tears were falling down young Mallory's
    face after an *encounter* with ~dad~.  It was like a reflex programmed
    into US by the media over the years.  The subject matter was certainly
    nothing to laugh at but there it was, laughter.  SCARY!!!!
    
    The theme of media exploitation and sensationalism extended far beyond
    that.  The media was portratyed as being totally rating focused with
    complete disregard for the content of what was being broadcasted.  
    
    Parallels to the established "Hero Fiction" flow of events were there
    for our two murderers... Humble beginnings..> great conquests..> near
    defeat..> recover and vanquish the bad guys..> live happily ever after.  
    Again, SCARY!
    
    I also found the interview with Mickey interesting and very disturbing.
    Virtually everything he said had some basis in truth but the natural 
    counterpoints to his statements were intentionally left out.  His
    arguments would not withstand even moderate debate but they went
    unchallenged (save the intentionalyy ridiculous reactions of the
    interviewer).  The implied counter to his evil was the establishment
    (the prison guards and that investigator) all of which were portrayed
    to be AS evil as Mickey!  A more gullable audience (read "youth") might 
    swallow some of this crap.  I saw parallels in this with the one-sided,
    brainwashing techniques Hitler used... devious, twisted, manipulative
    and evil but also very effective!    
    
    I a sentance, I think the message was....
    
    "Well America, this is what you've got because this is what you've
    raised and this is what you've condoned through the media"
    
    (and while the credits were rolling, M&M rode away happily ever after 
    in a minivan with their kids... the next crop of killers)
    
    See it.  Leave the kids home!
    
    -dave
    
    

    
    
    	I saw the movie and thought it was terrible wanted to leave half
    	way through
    
    
    		no stars

    
    	Anyone know when it will be released on video?  Especially
    	to buy not rent.  
    
    	Thanks,
    	Tom
    

    
     Could anyone tell me when the release date in Scotland is for
    this film.
     It was advertised,but I can't remember when it's out.
    
                             Cheers.
    
    

    has anyone heard yet when this will be out on video?????
    
    jeane
    

    It's now been changed to the 3rd week in February.
    

    
    	Rented this over the weekend. After reading all the reviews
    	I couldn't wait. Quentin's movies hit all the right buttons
    	for me, as do Oliver Stone's films.
    
    	Well, I guess this will have to be the exception. Not sure
    	how to describe this except to say, "too much". Too much
    	wierdness, basically. Juliette was her typical mindless
    	self. Didn't care for Robert Downey Jr at all. Woody was
    	very good as was Tommy Lee. Have to agree with a few back that
    	the warden would have been a good vehicle for Quentin's cameo.
    
    	The surrealism got to be overwhelming and Rodney Dangerfield
    	REALLY bothered me. Some very disturbing scenes. If you're looking
    	for a "feel bad" kind of movie, this is it!
    

    
    	fyi, it's on sale at Strawberries for $15.99.
    
    	Tom
    

RE: .12

I don't remember the exact details, but a couple of kids from the South Shore,
MA area, maybe Quincy, were picked up for a pretty disgusting beating death
of, I think a homeless man.  One of the two kids, who is around 18, was 
quoted as saying, "Sure, haven't you seen Natural Born Killers?" to one of the
investigating detectives, who asked if he understood the cold-hearted and
sadistic nature of what he had done. This was a few months ago.

-Sb

Re: .12, .29

	When you are dealing with mentally disturbed sickos, IMHO
	sickos like that will find "something to do" regardless
	(even if there was no violence in film, they'd copycat
	other real-life sickos).

	Fix the real problem (the sicko), not the scapegoat ....

RE: .30 

I was just stating the facts. I agree that if those two kids were destined
to bludgeon some helpless victim to death, then it was bound to happen.

But I also agree with one reply where someone asked rhetorically, "Isn't
anyone else sick of...?"  I just don't see the artistic value of glorifying
hardcore violence.  The same amount of time, money, and talent can be used to
create movies that make any kind of social statment. But making cold-blooded
killing look and sound romantic is getting old.  So don't ask me if I've seen 
it, because I haven't.  I read the reviews and I read that news story some
months back.  I ain't interested.  I liked Platoon and JFK, and I plan to see
Nixon.  But NBK sounds like something I can live without.

> But I also agree with one reply where someone asked rhetorically, "Isn't
> anyone else sick of...?"  I just don't see the artistic value of glorifying
> hardcore violence.

	Well you did say you didn't see the film so whoever told you
	the movie glorified the violence misled you.  It could also
	be (and has been) said that this film does just the opposite.

> The same amount of time, money, and talent can be used to
> create movies that make any kind of social statment.

	We live in a free society (thank goodness) and it's simply a
	matter of supply and demand.  Reduce the demand and you'll
	reduce the supply (the opposite of how Repulicans these days
	think :-( ).

> But making cold-blooded
> killing look and sound romantic is getting old.

	I thought this film was great, but it certainly did not make
	killing look and sound romantic to me.  It was more a [social]
	statement (just like you want) on the media circus feeding the
	demand (ie. American's, not the press, not Hollywood, obsession
	with it).

> I liked Platoon and JFK, and I plan to see Nixon.

	So what kind of social statement did JFK make?  And it's already
	well known that the statement Nixon makes is how a director
	can twist and ignore the facts for the sake of dramatic effect
	while trying to give the appearance of making a serious film
	that's supposed to be historicaly accurate.  This now makes me
	wonder how much and what in JFK was fact vs. fiction for the
	purpose of dramatic effect .....

	..... it's this kind of twisting of facts into fiction that we
	then present to our children as fact that's much scarier (to me)
	than a film like NBK which if you do watch someday you'll see
	gives the obvious appearance of being fiction (no worse than
	comic books or cartoon violence, just more graphic).  Speaking
	of cartoons/animation, the for kids movie Pocohontis was another
	movie rewriting history ......

    
    
    This movie was so ultra violent that I walked after 10 or so mins.
    I really don't see the need for this kind of violence in film.
    Don't you think there may be some sicko's out there that wouldn't
    ordinarily do anything but having seen some of this in a movie
    may have been given that little push that moves them to action?
    
    Chris
    :)

          
    re: .33.  
    
    The movie definitely was not for everybody.  Then again, neither was
    "Home Alone". :)
    
    In regards to the statement of the movie provoking some unstable person
    to action, allow me a moment atop Old Soapy:
    
    Yeah, sure it could happen.  
    
    Just the way there are unhappy people who only need an insensitive
    comment by a bank teller or the push out of line at the grocery store
    to provoke them to buy a gun and take out their frustrations on
    unsuspecting people at, say, Wendy's.there certainly could be a person
    out there who'd see "Natural Born Killers" and feel it's a call to
    action.
    
    But one can't blame the rude teller or the guy at the grocery store for
    the nutcase going, well, nuts. One *could* say "If only the lady at the
    bank had been more polite....If only the guy at the grocery store
    hadn't pushed Mr. Smith out of line.  If only..."   
    
    Unfortunately, if they hadn't been the catalyst, something else would
    have.  That catalyst could be a scene in a movie, a song they heard, or
    the dial tone on a telephone.  One just doesn't know. 
    
    The world cannot be policed against people on the edge because people
    on the edge don't need much to push them over.  Sometimes, what
    provokes them makes some sort of "sense".  Sometimes, it doesn't. 
    
    Trying to rid the world of all possible stimulus that *might* provoke a
    negative response is impossible.  It's unfair to blame movies.  After
    all, far more people do bad things in response (justified or not) to
    the actions of other people than they do bad things because they saw a
    movie.  The "provocation" of the movie (or TV show, or song, or
    whatever) is more newsworthy.  
    
    Again, "Natural Born Killers" isn't for everybody.  It's ultra-violent,
    intensely so, but it was part of the point it was trying to make.  Most
    of us did not come out of the theater longing to go on a crime spree. 
    Those that did need would have found some excuse anyway.
    
    Some people are just nuts.  It happens.  People will kill other people
    for unjustifiable reasons and no amount of finger-pointing and "if
    only"-ing will change that.
    
    That's my two cents,
    
    kim 

    

    
         I think it is the constant and pervasive nature of such violence
    in movies that affects impressionable people.  No one movie does it,
    but "Natural Born Killers" is certainly among those with the greatest
    negative impact.  The arguments will go on forever because no one can
    track a direct cause-and-effect, but common sense tells you that if you
    roll around in manure long enough, you will tend to take on a similar
    scent.
    
                                       Greg

>  Reduce the demand and you'll
>	reduce the supply (the opposite of how Repulicans these days
>	think :-( ).

So the desire/need for graphic violence is nothing more than a demand?
Kind of like heroin and crack?  The public needs it,
crank it out, right?  Those sneaky directors and producers, slipping in here
from the Golden Triangle and Columbia with their smuggled goods!

> 	So what kind of social statement did JFK make?  And it's already
>	well known that the statement Nixon makes is how a director
>	can twist and ignore the facts for the sake of dramatic effect
>	while trying to give the appearance of making a serious film
>	that's supposed to be historicaly accurate.  This now makes me
>	wonder how much and what in JFK was fact vs. fiction for the
>	purpose of dramatic effect .....

I never bought the whole story of JFK according to Stone, and though I
disliked Nixon, I'll probably not buy that whole story.  I know it's a theory
put to drama, with some solid facts.  In "Platoon," Stone addressed the
simple question "Why don't firefights that you see in a movie ever convey
the most prevelant feeling one has in a REAL firefight, which is CONFUSION?"
He conveyed that and a few other things in Platoon.  Some of Platoon was
kind of overkill, too.  Not necessarily fake, but why go into the gory
details of watching a Viet peasant's head get mashed?

> 	..... it's this kind of twisting of facts into fiction that we
>	then present to our children

What I don't want my kids to see - to be de-sensitized to is graphic violence.
It's what is physically seen on the screen, the sickening violence, that
I've had enough of.  I'd rather my kids see any lovemaking scene in an R
movie than graphic violence.  And I have to go along with .33 - some people
don't need the power of suggestion.