Agreed. What’s more is this probably isn’t just a director specific thing. Any profession with a high buy-in will be like this. How many potentially amazing CEO’s are managing mcDonalds? How many Bruce Lee’s aren’t on camera? How many Michael Schumacher’s are driving Honda Civics to their 9-5s? How many gifted artists go unknown? If only talent was the measuring factor instead of luck and money.
Ummm Juliette Lewis definitely put out a butt with her bare feet in this movie for sure. And she hangs her bare feet out the car a few times. You also get a squat shot for the real freaks.
Hahaha I just paused it randomly at 4:34 to check out a couple of the comments, and the first one I see is this comment:D (Spoiler: we see feet at 4:34)
@@craighicksartworkit’s not that he doesn’t “get it,” more that he doesn’t like it. He is a different director and felt like his story was ripped up and changed.
I just couldn't get Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Downey Jr.'s roles, dialogue and performances out of my head after I finished seeing it for the first time 1.5 decades ago. So over-the-top that they were perfect!
For people who actually read his script - all this nonsense about it was sooo diferent is laughable. Its almost absolutely the same. Nobody knows what made Tarantino hates this film aside him and Stone.
I feel like Avery helped trim a lot of the fat from Tarantino’s earlier scripts and helped them become better movies. Those films all have his recognizable style, the snappy dialogue, etc. but they’re also tighter than most of the stuff that he’s made since.
You can watch Roger Avery's films and see for yourself how much he contributed to Tarantino's early work. Killing Zoe and The Rules of Attraction are both brilliant. It's criminal that he hasn't made a movie in 20+ years.
@@johncorr7154Nobody is glorifying drunk driving, and he served his time and changed his life. He didn't murder someone. He made a mistake, a horrible mistake, and he has to live with it every day. You don't. Learn forgiveness, especially in regards to something that has zero bearing on you. You'll be much happier.
The tube is completely oversaturated. Too much content to give any thumbnail time to something that doesnt feature pop culture icons/drama. It's really crappy and lame.
QT’s hate of the “I Love Mallory” sequence seems pretty simple; he didn’t think the co-protagonist needed an origin story. Much like how IMO Rob Zombie’s Halloween messed up by trying to explain why Michael Myers was like he was. Sometimes it’s more compelling when you don’t have an explanation.
You just articulated the crux of the problem with modern movies--filmmakers catering to plot/backstory nerds as if a truckload information can substitute for creating a genuine emotional connection or dramatic necessity. It's for people who wish to casually "think" through a movie rather than become immersed in it. NBK is their granddaddy.
Problem with that is that Mallory's behaviour, if you want to sympathise with her, *does* require explanation. In the 1990s, the fact that nearly every woman on Earth has been subjected to unacceptable behaviour from the male animal was not widely known. So making it clear after the fact that Mallory was smashing the shit out of a country hick fukktard because he did things that remind her of her male gene pool shitter was important for audiences of that time. And it was just as important for the Scagnetti takedown. The more nuanced view we have today (one that Stone was clearly partly clued in on) was not developed enough. Did you know that over ninety percent of the men in jail were abused as boys? I am willing to bet it is a hundred percent with the women.
@@lanolinlightSee the shitty Alien prequels where explanation kills all plausibility and the horror of a mysterious species that might have ravaged entire planets and is the most populous in the universe for all we know. Knowing you’re dying with no idea why and no hint of motive is much scarier. Then again maybe Jaws should have a backstory where Quint killed it’s wife.
usually warranted but I've seen some misses Its important to do it so you aren't interrupting the main point to go on some tangent to explain why it matters, like someone explaining warhammer lore
@@AnneHathawayRulesStarting from the middle is a legitimate and engaging storytelling technique though. In fact it's one of the oldest (Google 'in medias res').
Yup. The sitcom sequence put it on us with every laugh track. Good scene. Tarantino just didn’t like this vision, I guess. But for him to say it’s a bad movie? A bit much.
This is one of my all time favorite movies. It may not have been Tarantino's complete vision, but his incredible writing put in the hands of an incredible director spawned an incredible film.
It was QT’s baby, so I understand why the deviation annoyed him so much. But from the outside, the things Stone brought to it were valuable and interesting. Just in a different tone from what QT laid out. He kept most of what was in the original script, and arguably by expanding and humanizing M&M, added a good dash of complexity to the flavor. Added stakes to tense scenes in the riot and escape that would be much much dimmer. Who cares if they make it out if all you know is the little shown in the interview and a few flashbacks? I’m glad fate lined up a collaboration that otherwise wouldn’t happen.
I love that movie. Some of my favourite ever performances. It’s a funny, wacky, psychedelic, horrific road movie. It’s no Wild at Heart though. I don’t think Tarantino understands or at least cares about Satire and that movie is 100% satire.
Interesting, your Wild at Heart comparison because I felt when I first saw NBK that much of the similarity between both film's imagery and tone had to've been done deliberately by Stone: on-the-run renegades road trip and their style of automobile; their scenes pulled over at the side of the two-lane highway; close-up of creepy insect on the hot asphalt and intermittent running yellow lines; the change in mood of the protagonists after a dramatic death along the way.
Funny, because this is my favorite film. Love Tarantino and Stone. I find it interesting you came to a different conclusion because in reading the original screenplay, I was actually surprised how similar Quentin's was in its tone. Much of the media satire is still there, only Quentin focuses on overly long dialogue scenes with Wayne that aren't necessary and focuses less on Mickey and Malory which makes them a lot more stale than Stone's version--as goofy and romanticized as they are in his version.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I also thought the sitcom style intro for Mallory was one of the best aspects of the movie because of its satirical depiction of reality with a veil of sitcom production style
NBK came out in 1994 - just one year after the documentary version of Manufacturing Consent - and both combined had such a profound impact on the way I see media and how it is used to influence people's values and opinions.
I hear that brother. I actually emailed Noam Chomsky at his M.I.T. office after watching the MC doc. I asked "How do you avoid feeling impotent, when it comes to changing things, with all this knowledge you have acquired?" (along with some explanation of my own journey to political knowledge). To my surprise he replied a month later and basically said (to paraphrase) "it's important to do whatever it takes to look yourself in the mirror every day and say I've done something". That gave me a new hope that even my microchanges could affect change.
@@tehf00n Unfortunately, these days, the magnificent legitimate criticism of our democratic societies Chomsky wrote 2-3 decades ago is used by dictatorships to legitimize believing in their propaganda and disinformation.
NBK is also a virtual blueprint for Kill Bill: needless shifts to black and white, tilting camera angles, anime sequence. Stone should have been given a Pulitzer for adding in a laugh track to the Dangerfield scene
I am personally happy that Stone picked this up. It’s one of my favorite movies. If Tarantino had it his way it would be a comic lacking meaning and purpose. Stone added a depth that Tarantino could never do. NBK is a masterpiece under Stone’s correction and direction.
Nice retrospective! I have always wondered why he hated the movie so much. It was iconic to us teenagers in the 90s. This really explains the differences of focus between his original script and the final product.
I agree. Strange to say, but I have 3 films in my favourites collection I rewatch often, written by Tarantino - True Romance, Natural Born Killers and From Dusk Till dawn. But only Pulp Fiction from his directing catalogue.
@@magnuskallas I think Pulp Fiction is massively overrated. Does he ever pay off Bonnie coming home? Is the French girlfriend necessary or just a boring reference to Breathless? Do they need Harvey Keitel to tell them to wash the car and take it to a junkyard? Even I would know to do that. His best films are the ones without pretension---True Romance, From Dusk Til Dawn, Kill Bill. Reservoir Dogs works because he's constrained by time, he can't make it into a three hour wankfest of movie references. The worst part of Natural Born Killers is the pretensions, not of Taratino, but Stone. The Shaman wanders in from The Doors and distracts from the movie's dark black comedy.
@@magnuskallas Pulp Fiction is massively overrated. Did Bonnie ever come home? Why did they need The Wolf to tell them to clean the car and put it in a junkyard crusher? Even I would know to do that. What was the point of the annoying boring French girlfriend except to make a pretentious reference to Breathless? The only good movies by Tarantino are the ones without pretension--True Romance, From Dusk Til Dawn and Kill Bill. Jackie Brown is overlong but is only good because of the source material by Elmore Leonard---and Out of Sight is infinitely better. Reservoir Dogs benefits from it being his first movie, which forces him to do more with less, rather than make a three and a half hour wankfest of movie references and pointless scenes. I would put Stone's U-Turn, Salvador or Talk Radio up against any Tarantino movie, and Stone would win, hands down. The only bad part of Natural Born Killers is the pretensions of Stone, not Tarantino---his Shaman wanders in from The Doors and temporarily sabotages the black comedic tone.
I'd like to see him actually go in a vastly different direction for one last hurrah. Like Once a Upon a Time wasn't about gangsters or over all use of violence, until the very end. But who knows. Maybe he'll never even get to it. He's made nine movies that are more than perfectly fine if you ask me.
Thank you for talking about this movie. I first saw it a few years back and keep coming back and then away with new interpretations, and for whatever reason not a ton of people are talking about this film
That movie is magnificent. I saw it as a kid in the theater. Watched it as an adult and was still blown away though I understood it through a different lens.
Natural Born Killers is my favorite movie of all time. Partly because of the nostalgia I have for what happened in my life, how m I enjoy watching it and the soundtrack. I think Quentin Tarantino would have made the movie much better but it is what it is. It is still the movie I enjoyed the most probably of any movie in my life. I still watch it from time to time. I really enjoyed this video. Very well done sir and thank you.
Natural Born Killers is a FANTASTIC movie!! I honestly don't care what Tarantino thinks about the final product. I'm not a fanboy who is going to start hating an awesome movie just because HE does! Great video, though, Lancelloti! :)
I like NBK and definitely think it’s interesting how it turned out in Stones version compared to QT’s script.. originally NBK was a story Clarence was writing in an early version of True Romance but it was QT’s mate Avery who told him. To split it into two separate scripts cause the story was so good that it shouldn’t be just a smaller part of TR’s sub plots, Good video.. new to the channel and subscribed.
Thanks for doing this video. NBK is my favorite movie of all time, and I always heard that Tarantino hated it but I never knew why or heard him actually talk about it.
this is a best video essay about natural born killers & it's story different from stone (Director & frontman of the finished film that we all love & know today) & Tarantino (original writer of the film, but hate the result because it got messed up & re-tooled), which I would understand, but knowing, that it's great film, and after seeing this video, I'm really interested in seeing Tarantino version getting it's shot to the big screen & I feel like it would a a similar vibes to JAWS, not showing the sharks, but knowing their kills, like it will be a zodiac type scenario, but not seeing the killers until the very end, but in a non-chronological storyline, that would be fun, heck, I might do it, overall, in hindsight, Quentin's version = Zodiac + Jaws + Truman Show + all of his films, I will love it, no matter what
Both Stone and Tarantino have made many films I love. Natural Born Killers, True Romance, Reservoir Dogs all special films. But Natural Born Killers always reminded me of Fear And Loathing because it feels like a fever dream.
This is 1 of my favorite films, the anxiety it induces isnt captured anywhere else. The fact tarantino hates that shit makes me like it even more. Fucking tired of his feet shots every 2 seconds
i love this movie. first watched it during my rdj obsession. told my 7th grade teacher i saw it and she said "huh!?" rewatched it again at 22 and still love it
You should look up the video of Tarantino explaining why he hates Bill Murray films but loves Chevy Chase films. QT loves Chevy Chase films because the guy he plays is always an asshole from beginning to end but he hates Bill Murray films because the guy he plays always starts out as an asshole but "grows" over the course of the movie in a Disney fairytale like way to become some great moral character by the end of it. Tarantino argues that Bill Murray movies thus do not reflect the realities of human character: if someone is an asshole at the beginning of a particular set of events, they will still be an asshole at the end of those events. I suppose the difference here between Stone and Tarantino is their view on both morality and reality. Stone is very focused on moralizing, but Tarantino has a more existentialist view on life and morality: "the moral of the story here is that you were at the wrong place at the wrong time and as a result you are dead".
I get why seeing your vision turn out completely differently than what you had in mind would turn you off and cause resentment. Also, I love Natural Born Killers.
The problem is that stone revamped Tarantino’s vision for the film without fully understanding what he was trying to say. You can tell by the way he talks down about it, something that had been rejected, by trying to breathe relatability into the killers, he ends up neutralizing their uniqueness and turns them into common archetypes.
NBK was one of those movies that a lot of film nerds praised. I hated it. Still hate it. I'm surprised Tarantino hated it, but he had a specific vision in mind, I'm sure. The film thinks it's a lot smarter than it is. It feels like a student film. I've probably seen it 3-5 times, trying to convince myself that it was good. It's a slog and it seems like people like it because it's quirky and if you say you didn't like it, that just means you didn't get it.
@@davedanger4414Emperor’s New Clothes situation. Everybody telling me this is a great movie and it’s just not. So he added a backstory to the killers, so what? All he did was add an hour of bad improv and dutch angles in service of humanizing the murderers. Ironically, it seems this is exactly what the original script was criticizing.
Incredible movie. Tarantino is a great director, but I feel like the script in someone else's hands really elevated this to a level he probably couldn't achieve. I fully understand his position though, it was his baby and to see someone else run with it is probably a hard thing for the ego.
True Romance is a perfect time capsule of 90s action movie from Tony Scott with Tarantino dialog. It’s perfect. NBK is just grotesque. It was trying way too hard.
The difference between Stone´s take and Tarantino´s personal style can be boiled to a couple of key distinctions: Tarantino has the mind of an adolescent, a video-store clerk for whom the spectacle of violence is jus thrilling cinema. Stone is the more mature film-maker, in that he declines to use on-screen violence as a means to excite the audience, but is more interested in the people who commit these acts and the consequences of them. Tarantino could never make a film like Platoon (1986), which sought to seriously interrogate American gung-ho militarism through the raw, painful and for Stone deeply personal experience of Vietnam. That more socially conscious outlook is anathema to Tarantino, who, despite his own great skill and panache as a film-maker, remains basically rooted in childish impulses and B-movie tastelessness, and can only view his subjects through a lens of virtuoso technical craft.
I like Tarantino's mindset he only hates it because he wants better no matter how good it might look to the audience , in the mind of the creator there will always be flaws.
Natural Born Killers has a lot of good stuff in it but I don't think it totally works as a movie. Maybe Tarantino's version would have, considering how good he was at the time. The best thing about Natural Born Killers was the soundtrack.
QT is probably my Favorite Director of all time, but NBK is also one of my Favorite Movies of all time... I cannot imagine NBK as interpreted by QT, I can't imagine it with different actors or different cinematography, I just cant. The movie is perfect as it sits and the Sitcom Mallory segment is hugely important to establishing who she is and why she would fall in love with Mickey. In all the really good serial killer stories there is always a back story they explains why they became the way they are. And the Media Hyping of Mickey and Mallory satires the early 90s in a nutshell because it was and still is a huge joke. The Media is a major problem for our society to this day and NBK was calling out the problem 30 some odd years ago...
I think people are hating on Tarantino way too much and I will explain why. The version that you got with this movie is the one you’re so used to, so you can’t imagine another script because your mind is trained to only accept the only version that you got. If Tarantino had his original version and it did not go in another direction. Yes there is a chance the audience could love his version more. So if he believes that the audience would like what he had to offer, there’s a chance that they actually would. If both versions got the screen light, then the fans would debate making videos on which one did better, which one was written better, and which one has the better storyline? You’re only trained to know that only one version of natural born killers was made, and you will only accept this one version because the other version of this movie does not exist. But if it did, you probably would be taking back your opinions because when you actually have the real thing in front of your eyes, a lot of things could change immediately with opinions.
I remember watching this in the theatre. It was challenging to watch. It was supposed to be. And it was. I had already watched all of Tarantino's other work, of course, same with Oliver Stone, but this was next level. I can't imagine that any changes to script would have had any difference to the end product. This was Stone's movie in the end, a showcase of his directing more than anything else, him trying to make his version of a snuff movie, and it was unlike anything else. I feel like Tarantino is just bitter that Stone out-Tarantino'ed him.
It was challenging to watch because it was shit. Films should be challenging to watch, they are supposed to inspire and entertain. This film was dull as fuck, you cannot deliver a good story with such empty, boring characters.
@@keithwellerlounge74 Sure you can. Characters aren't everything. You can have a good movie simply by virtue of the cinematography. Or boring characters that have clever lines. Of even just great special effects. I'm not the biggest fan of the movie, but there's lots there to like. Name me a movie of that time with that much exposure that was as graphic, and I don't just mean the violence. Even Pulp Fiction was a pretty clean movie. NBK was startling in its rawness.
True Romance is an absolute masterpiece though, I hope he doesn't feel the same about that one. It felt like a Tarantino movie through and through, the same way From Dusk 'Til Dawn did (albeit a different genre)
I find it hard to believe that a guy who watches all sorts of obscure low budget crap hasn't actually watched what is an incredible film because he couldn't get through 5mins of a bit he didn't like
He spent months with the story during the writing process. He liked the story the way he wrote it. To see a supposed “satire” bit that demystified a main character took him out of it.
I saw it in the theater and felt like I enjoyed it. Watched it again about 10 years ago, and it's god awful. I was 20 when it was released .. shows how we change. It has some interesting sequences, but as a whole it's a pile of crap. I was taken in by the flashiness and the soundtrack more than anything I think.
@@Fiveash-Art It's certainly not for everyone but I have always loved that mixed media collage style Oliver stone does so well .He can say more with a half second insert shot of an eye or something than most ppl could with 20 lines of dialogue , NBk is like channel surfing while tripping where this mess of imagery actually makes sense . This 'U-Turn' and JFK are all done with the same impressionist vibe and I like it , But I can see why mainstream ppl wouldn't
@@HULLGRAFFITI I'm not what you'd call 'mainstream' .. I just think Stone has made some bad movies. As a whole, I generally enjoy a lot of what he's done. Platoon, Born on the 4th of July,.. Although he tends to white wash a lot of these political/historical events , there's nothing really all that unorthodox about what he does and it's as mainline as it gets. Just another ex military guy who saw some war without that much insight. His work is best when it comes from that personal viewpoint. Natural Born Killers is just cringeworthy gobbledygook disguised with a veneer of fake edginess. Embarrassingly artsy fartsy.
I love pretty much every Tarantino movie, and I loved this movie too. But I'd be fascinated to see the Tarantino versions he envisioned of this and True Romance.
I'm so over people dissing JFK. It's an incredible film bursting with brilliant actors in every single scene. And it does an excellent job treating the biggest unsolved crime in our nation's history with the gravitas it deserves. It's also beautifully directed. I especially loved Jack Lemmon, John Candy. Walter Matthau, Joe Pesci, Kevin Bacon and the unparalleled Donald Sutherland giving a masterclass performance.
@@slayerduval1 me too. The Vietnam War didn't just happen by accident. Of course _JFK_ is a propaganda movie but the whole premise of it was to get people to try to question the circumstances that lead to events that control their lives and determine history. There are still unsealed documents in regard to JFK's assassination and we just recently had a wholly and completely unnecessary attempt on one Presidential candidate's life, while the other Presidential candidate and current President was forced to drop out (see Seymour Hersch's recent piece detailing how Obama, Pelosi, Schumer and Jeffreys threated Biden with a suggestion that Harris was about to invoke the 25th Amendment) due to a mental condition (senility) that everyone has known about for the last 5 years.
It's not a Tarantino movie, that's clear while watching it. NBK is much more like Robocop, which is why I loved it. You have a director who earned two Purple Hearts in Vietnam and tried to show people the difference between what you see on-screen and what's actually happening. He released a documentary about the Ukraine War and the public will only understand what a masterpiece it is once the war is over.
Intersting vid! I've not watched it for years but I always liked NBK, although in an alternate universe somewhere there's Tarantino's version which I would love to see. Also True Romance rules!
QT was so smart to take his name off the screenplay to not tarnish his reputation but still want credit for inventing the characters!!!! Sucks we didn't get his original film directed by him even though i like how trippy NBK was made !!!! Its the only reason I like it & the acting of course!!! I consider NBK & Fear & Loathing a perfect double feature because of how visually trippy they both are & the reason i said that is because i actually saw them as a double feature on a Divx DVD & it made them both feel like brother sister movies of each other in the way that they are both made visually ❤
The sitcom scene is one of the most memorable and original scenes in any movie ever. I was almost sure it had to be part of Tarantino’s vision. This came as a surprise.
2:48 Ironic that Stone's alterations to Tarantino's script made a film 100 times more "morally repugnant" than anything Tarantino could just by changing the perspective from the journalist to the killers. That one change made a film that is painful to watch, edgy and psuedo-provocative drivel.
@@LazarusWilhelm I'll never forget reading about Stone complaining about the Breaking Bad finale (he never watched any of the show up to that point, he just caught the finale by the way) and how it was just something like "violent trash." Like how can you talk that mess when you've only seen like 1/63rd of the story, grandpa? The dude turned Rodney Dangerfield into a incestuous scumbag and he's out here saying some exaggerated blood in Tarantino films is morally repugnant. And how does he get on a high horse about exaggerated violence when that prison riot sequence uses borderline cartoon slapstick imagery and sound effects? Is Stone the only one allowed to have fun with his film's use of violence? Dude thinks he can gatekeep that stuff just because he's Nam vet and knows what real violence looks like first hand.
The sitcom part is so memorable and so poignant even today, there was a movie called Paint ang Gain, wich was a comedy based on true crimes committed by a gym manager, and its so painful to watch knowing that real people were murdered. But hey that's the entertainment business.
I did ultimately find the movie uncomfortable to watch and didn’t exactly enjoy it, but I do appreciate Stone's take. I really think the sitcom stuff was wildly disturbing and worked really well itself
Respect to the source material or the lack of it is evident in both his first scripts turned into movies. Tony Scott not only makes a great movie, but also lets Tarantino direct its best scene - the 10 minute dialogue between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken, while Oliver Stone takes the script and does whatever the fuck this shit was, patting himself on the back that he is a real filmmaker... As a Tarantino fan, I don't think it's a coincidence that I absolutely love True Romance and I really really can't stand NBK. And that was before I even read a book with Tarantino interviews where he actually explains why both these movies are so different from one another despite both being his scripts. Tony Scott read a Tarantino script and saw a movie. Oliver Stone read a Tarantino script and saw an opportunity.
i think i was 14 or so when this came out and i saw it on VHS, and I LOVED it. Had never seen anything like it before, loved the trippy stylized way it was filmed and was shocked to hear QT actually didnt like it. In fact i was shocked years later to find out that this movie was panned when it came out as well. I guess people just dont have good taste lmao
It's the most memorable and horrifying part of the movie. Tarantino is wrong, and he maybe hates it because his filmography does not take violence seriously.
I think Tarantino hates the film because Stone pretty much stripped his script and served it back to him as a psychological profile of Tarantino's shadow. And as much as I love Quentin's work, I get the feeling he isn't the kind of person who has Jung's Red Book in his home. And while I think Stone has become another one of those counter counter-culture personalities (what some people mislabel as contrarians), I for one believe Oliver's works always come from a place of wanting to advance the human condition to a good place...... ..... I just think him, like a lot of us, have lost sight of what that place is meant to be, due to somehow getting caught up in a dark forest none of us really saw coming....
Natural Born Killers is better then all of Tarantino's work and continues to age like fine wine. I feel Blue Velvet, Natural Born Killers and Mandy make-up a avant-garde film trilogy. My three favorite films that I have seen.
I’ve always found it funny how much Tarantino claims to hate Natural Born Killers and claims to never have seen the whole thing, when he stole the visual aesthetic for Kill Bill and even used the same cinematographer Robert Richardson ever since
This is one of those films you might have loved as a teenager because it was so edgy and off its tits, but when you mature, and watch it again, you realize it was terrible. I saw Taxi Driver at 16, but my appreciation for that film has only grown. Let's be honest, neither director has the talent of 70's directors.
Trying to show a more nuanced view of murderers who were abused as children during the 1990s was never going to age well, especially with the knowledge of the subject we have now.
Honestly, True Romance is his best. I'd have _liked_ to have seen his original script for Natural Born Killers, but I can't imagine a way it could be better. And I have a very good imagination.
Once Upon A Time in Hollywood is number 2, BUT just because I read "Helter Skelter" when I was a teenager, and would have dearly loved that outcome having happened. So, IMHO YMMV.
The biggest failure of Natural Born Killers is you're supposed to root for the criminals and their relationship, but they are so annoying that you don't.
If you read the script, you don't quite get that vibe at all. You don't like Mickey and Mallory because they kill innocent people and they straight bully them, but you just get so much more and more disgusted by Gale that you're rooting for them to kill him by the end. Also, their love for each other is endearing and creates an emotional dilemma in the viewer, am I supposed to sympathize with them just because one side of them is so sweet? It kind of seem to nicely encapsulate a lot of feelings people had about the OJ trial at the time. It would be a beautiful sharp jewel in Tarantino's filmography if it were shot right because it would serve as a nice counterpoint to his public image as a guy who endeared the world to on-screen violence. Because in the script the violence is far less fun than a typical Tarantino affair. There's a scene where Mickey murders the sole survivor of a family they killed, a beautiful young girl, in the courtroom with a pencil.
The only thing good about any Oliver Stone movie is the source material. But when you judge the movie as a whole, especially if you've actually read the source material, you start to understand that Oliver Stone gets his hands on great stories and reads them, but ultimately fails to understand them. So unlike an honest person who at that point would just give up, as a hack he decides to fuck the original intent and throw in a bunch of his own weird anti-establishment/brainwash/"I ain't a part of your system , maaaaan" childish bullshit Natural Born Killers isn't satire of today's society as much as it is a parody of something that could've been a good movie. So in that sense, it's not that you're supposed to root for the criminals... it's that Oliver Stone indulged that surface-level interpretation without digging deeper into the story. And he does this with almost all his movies (at least the ones I've seen). The only movie I remember actually benefitting from Stone's view is Born on the Fourth of July, because the themes in that real life story obviously fit Stone's personal views on how the government works.
With the difficulty Tarantino had getting started it makes you wonder how many other amazing directors are out there who never get the chance
Many who weren't willing to live with their nose all up in the right rectums.
Agreed. What’s more is this probably isn’t just a director specific thing. Any profession with a high buy-in will be like this. How many potentially amazing CEO’s are managing mcDonalds? How many Bruce Lee’s aren’t on camera? How many Michael Schumacher’s are driving Honda Civics to their 9-5s? How many gifted artists go unknown? If only talent was the measuring factor instead of luck and money.
There's all kinds of wasted talent. I created a technology worth billions of dollars, and I'll likely die homeless.
@@crow578 so what was it? What was the software or what does it do that its worth billions?
Most of them
Tarantino: "First off, Oliver cut over 28 minutes of Juliette's feet. I wanted nothing to do with it after that."
Feet jokes aren't funny
@@maxstraight8240This comment actually made me laugh 😂
@@maxstraight8240 Yes feet jokes are the bottom of apparel!
werd
*No feet shots*
Tarantino: it's ruined
There's a feet shot from the movie in this video.
4:34 we see…FEET 😊
Ummm Juliette Lewis definitely put out a butt with her bare feet in this movie for sure. And she hangs her bare feet out the car a few times. You also get a squat shot for the real freaks.
That must be it😂
Hahaha I just paused it randomly at 4:34 to check out a couple of the comments, and the first one I see is this comment:D (Spoiler: we see feet at 4:34)
The sitcom opening is what grabbed me right away. I can't even picture the movie without that scene
true. its iconic. better than any tarantino opening maybe he was just jealous.
It's very deep and very dark. Not sure why Tarantino doesn't get it.
I can't think of a better way of saying that behind the perfect image of a family home resides a house of horrors.
First thing that grabbed me was the song choice.
@@craighicksartworkit’s not that he doesn’t “get it,” more that he doesn’t like it. He is a different director and felt like his story was ripped up and changed.
I just couldn't get Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Downey Jr.'s roles, dialogue and performances out of my head after I finished seeing it for the first time 1.5 decades ago. So over-the-top that they were perfect!
Why not just say 15 years ago ?
@@stacidelesandri-monahan5510 Why tell someone else how to say what they want to say ?
@@stacidelesandri-monahan5510Why not say .015 millenia?
@@michaelslowmin or 0.15 centuries
My favorite Tommy Lee Jones role!
He hated that it was rewritten, he didn't hate the result of the script he wrote
For people who actually read his script - all this nonsense about it was sooo diferent is laughable. Its almost absolutely the same. Nobody knows what made Tarantino hates this film aside him and Stone.
@@dzenacs2011 In an interview I watched, he mentioned particularly disliking the Rodney Dangerfield fake sitcom bit
I loved Natural Born Killers. It's a great film.
Agreed. A proper fun movie with some really great stylistic choices.
Yea was a cool weird movie.
Top ten easily......Robert, Woody and Lewis were amazing, not to mention Mr. Dangerfield being a perfect casting for his part.
Amazing movie
Why does Roger Avery never get credit from the public for being involved in writing Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs and True Romance.
I feel like Avery helped trim a lot of the fat from Tarantino’s earlier scripts and helped them become better movies. Those films all have his recognizable style, the snappy dialogue, etc. but they’re also tighter than most of the stuff that he’s made since.
You can watch Roger Avery's films and see for yourself how much he contributed to Tarantino's early work. Killing Zoe and The Rules of Attraction are both brilliant. It's criminal that he hasn't made a movie in 20+ years.
@@freakbuck"...criminal..." might be an unfortunate term to apply to his career.
He killed a woman due to his reckless decision to drive while intoxicated, so In my opinion he's better off being ignored and not glorified.
@@johncorr7154Nobody is glorifying drunk driving, and he served his time and changed his life. He didn't murder someone. He made a mistake, a horrible mistake, and he has to live with it every day. You don't. Learn forgiveness, especially in regards to something that has zero bearing on you. You'll be much happier.
Downey Jr; the one American actor in showbiz who's put in the effort to craft a damn decent and pretty convincing Strayan accent haha.
Serious?
@@Molkentinit’s pretty good
@@mikomaxwell6313 Are you australian? OP is which is weird.
@@MolkentinAre you? Is it bad?
@@EndrChe I'm Australian. His accent is OK. Not great. Some words he nails, others don't sound right.
does anyone else miss when film video essays had actual titles and thumbnails
i miss the days when i was gullible enough to think video essayists were actual authorities on the subjects they covered.
Yeah now it's all like "this filmmaker did something shocking and i can't get enough of it" (emphasis on lack of capitalization)
The tube is completely oversaturated. Too much content to give any thumbnail time to something that doesnt feature pop culture icons/drama. It's really crappy and lame.
I like the thumbnail and title to this video. I knew what the video was about the second I saw it.
I've never cared, but the AI shit gets on my nerves, just be thankful you're hearing a person
Oliver Stone: "It wasn't like we stole his script, he was paid very well."
3:28 "$10,000"...
lmao seriously 🤣 thats BS even in the 90s!
i mean thats alot of money
There must have been something on the back end. He said he gave up money to take his name off the script, so there was more than that upfront payment.
The 10,000 was to option the script not the full price.
@roems6396 possibly a guaranteed funding for what would become Reservoir Dogs
QT’s hate of the “I Love Mallory” sequence seems pretty simple; he didn’t think the co-protagonist needed an origin story. Much like how IMO Rob Zombie’s Halloween messed up by trying to explain why Michael Myers was like he was. Sometimes it’s more compelling when you don’t have an explanation.
You just articulated the crux of the problem with modern movies--filmmakers catering to plot/backstory nerds as if a truckload information can substitute for creating a genuine emotional connection or dramatic necessity. It's for people who wish to casually "think" through a movie rather than become immersed in it. NBK is their granddaddy.
Problem with that is that Mallory's behaviour, if you want to sympathise with her, *does* require explanation. In the 1990s, the fact that nearly every woman on Earth has been subjected to unacceptable behaviour from the male animal was not widely known. So making it clear after the fact that Mallory was smashing the shit out of a country hick fukktard because he did things that remind her of her male gene pool shitter was important for audiences of that time. And it was just as important for the Scagnetti takedown. The more nuanced view we have today (one that Stone was clearly partly clued in on) was not developed enough.
Did you know that over ninety percent of the men in jail were abused as boys? I am willing to bet it is a hundred percent with the women.
@@lanolinlightSee the shitty Alien prequels where explanation kills all plausibility and the horror of a mysterious species that might have ravaged entire planets and is the most populous in the universe for all we know. Knowing you’re dying with no idea why and no hint of motive is much scarier. Then again maybe Jaws should have a backstory where Quint killed it’s wife.
Go take a shower!
Hard disagree about Rob zombies Halloween dude, hard disagree
every youtube video these days: "before we get to the point of the video, lets start from the beginning....." every damn video
usually warranted but I've seen some misses
Its important to do it so you aren't interrupting the main point to go on some tangent to explain why it matters, like someone explaining warhammer lore
it’s called a lack of writing talent and a reliant on clips
As opposed to starting from the middle...
@@AnneHathawayRulesStarting from the middle is a legitimate and engaging storytelling technique though. In fact it's one of the oldest (Google 'in medias res').
@@Elcore UGH. Not starting from the beginning and then having that pause... "Let me tell you how I got here..." 🤮 Such an overused cliché
The sit com part is incredible. It's such dark twisted absurd satire. Really brilliant ridicule of a deeply disturbed nation.
Yep
Much like the scene Jeffery hides in the closet in Blue Velvet.
Best scene and far funnier than anything in any other Tarantino movie.
Yep. Dangerfield nailed his role
Yup. The sitcom sequence put it on us with every laugh track. Good scene. Tarantino just didn’t like this vision, I guess. But for him to say it’s a bad movie? A bit much.
Natural Born Killers is an underrated masterpiece!
This is one of my all time favorite movies. It may not have been Tarantino's complete vision, but his incredible writing put in the hands of an incredible director spawned an incredible film.
that movie affected me like no other ever & definitely more than any of Tarantino's.
It was QT’s baby, so I understand why the deviation annoyed him so much.
But from the outside, the things Stone brought to it were valuable and interesting. Just in a different tone from what QT laid out.
He kept most of what was in the original script, and arguably by expanding and humanizing M&M, added a good dash of complexity to the flavor. Added stakes to tense scenes in the riot and escape that would be much much dimmer. Who cares if they make it out if all you know is the little shown in the interview and a few flashbacks?
I’m glad fate lined up a collaboration that otherwise wouldn’t happen.
I love that movie. Some of my favourite ever performances. It’s a funny, wacky, psychedelic, horrific road movie. It’s no Wild at Heart though. I don’t think Tarantino understands or at least cares about Satire and that movie is 100% satire.
Nah 1000% a top 5 for me
It was a satire of Quentin's pop-addled-fevered-fetished mind. That's why he hates it.
@@THEDONTTELLSHOW Yeah, Tarantino always wants the violence to be "cool". Which is why he'd despise a satirical take on violence and celebrity.
Interesting, your Wild at Heart comparison because I felt when I first saw NBK that much of the similarity between both film's imagery and tone had to've been done deliberately by Stone: on-the-run renegades road trip and their style of automobile; their scenes pulled over at the side of the two-lane highway; close-up of creepy insect on the hot asphalt and intermittent running yellow lines; the change in mood of the protagonists after a dramatic death along the way.
@@dvdly Damn Fine Analysis.
Funny, because this is my favorite film. Love Tarantino and Stone. I find it interesting you came to a different conclusion because in reading the original screenplay, I was actually surprised how similar Quentin's was in its tone. Much of the media satire is still there, only Quentin focuses on overly long dialogue scenes with Wayne that aren't necessary and focuses less on Mickey and Malory which makes them a lot more stale than Stone's version--as goofy and romanticized as they are in his version.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I also thought the sitcom style intro for Mallory was one of the best aspects of the movie because of its satirical depiction of reality with a veil of sitcom production style
NBK came out in 1994 - just one year after the documentary version of Manufacturing Consent - and both combined had such a profound impact on the way I see media and how it is used to influence people's values and opinions.
I hear that brother. I actually emailed Noam Chomsky at his M.I.T. office after watching the MC doc. I asked "How do you avoid feeling impotent, when it comes to changing things, with all this knowledge you have acquired?" (along with some explanation of my own journey to political knowledge). To my surprise he replied a month later and basically said (to paraphrase) "it's important to do whatever it takes to look yourself in the mirror every day and say I've done something". That gave me a new hope that even my microchanges could affect change.
@@tehf00n Unfortunately, these days, the magnificent legitimate criticism of our democratic societies Chomsky wrote 2-3 decades ago is used by dictatorships to legitimize believing in their propaganda and disinformation.
NBK is also a virtual blueprint for Kill Bill: needless shifts to black and white, tilting camera angles, anime sequence. Stone should have been given a Pulitzer for adding in a laugh track to the Dangerfield scene
I am personally happy that Stone picked this up. It’s one of my favorite movies. If Tarantino had it his way it would be a comic lacking meaning and purpose. Stone added a depth that Tarantino could never do. NBK is a masterpiece under Stone’s correction and direction.
Nice retrospective! I have always wondered why he hated the movie so much. It was iconic to us teenagers in the 90s. This really explains the differences of focus between his original script and the final product.
Only the ones who hadn’t matured into their teens yet.
@@ConernicusRex
What? You’re saying that children watched this movie and enjoyed it, not teenagers? Ridiculous take.
A solid documentary, excellent editing. Very good stuff man!
Do you know who Quentin Tarantino supposedly wrote this based on? It was a real life couple, allegedly.
Natural born killers is an exceptional film by any measure...roger ebert called it a masterpiece....i kinda agree with him
The Mallory sitcom was actually a great idea
I agree. Strange to say, but I have 3 films in my favourites collection I rewatch often, written by Tarantino - True Romance, Natural Born Killers and From Dusk Till dawn. But only Pulp Fiction from his directing catalogue.
@@magnuskallas I think Pulp Fiction is massively overrated. Does he ever pay off Bonnie coming home? Is the French girlfriend necessary or just a boring reference to Breathless? Do they need Harvey Keitel to tell them to wash the car and take it to a junkyard? Even I would know to do that. His best films are the ones without pretension---True Romance, From Dusk Til Dawn, Kill Bill. Reservoir Dogs works because he's constrained by time, he can't make it into a three hour wankfest of movie references. The worst part of Natural Born Killers is the pretensions, not of Taratino, but Stone. The Shaman wanders in from The Doors and distracts from the movie's dark black comedy.
@@magnuskallas Pulp Fiction is massively overrated. Did Bonnie ever come home? Why did they need The Wolf to tell them to clean the car and put it in a junkyard crusher? Even I would know to do that. What was the point of the annoying boring French girlfriend except to make a pretentious reference to Breathless? The only good movies by Tarantino are the ones without pretension--True Romance, From Dusk Til Dawn and Kill Bill. Jackie Brown is overlong but is only good because of the source material by Elmore Leonard---and Out of Sight is infinitely better. Reservoir Dogs benefits from it being his first movie, which forces him to do more with less, rather than make a three and a half hour wankfest of movie references and pointless scenes. I would put Stone's U-Turn, Salvador or Talk Radio up against any Tarantino movie, and Stone would win, hands down. The only bad part of Natural Born Killers is the pretensions of Stone, not Tarantino---his Shaman wanders in from The Doors and temporarily sabotages the black comedic tone.
Would you like to see Tarantino’s version of 'Natural Born Killers'?
Absolutely
No. That movie disgusted me in every way possible.
Yes, but that movie had such insane editing, it would be interesting to see what other directors would do with the script as well.
Then it did its job @@MumRah
imahine itll be his last
dont think so tho
Tarantino making his version would be a pretty fitting choice for his last movie imo
Read his script. It’s less than mid.
I'd like to see him actually go in a vastly different direction for one last hurrah. Like Once a Upon a Time wasn't about gangsters or over all use of violence, until the very end. But who knows. Maybe he'll never even get to it. He's made nine movies that are more than perfectly fine if you ask me.
He sold the script, he doesn't own it
Naw we want the Vega brothers movie
Re-making his own story sounds like a terrible idea
This is hands down one of my favourite movies.
Thank you for talking about this movie. I first saw it a few years back and keep coming back and then away with new interpretations, and for whatever reason not a ton of people are talking about this film
A Great film and a Great soundtrack...
Amazing soundtrack
Baby was a black sheep….
That movie is magnificent. I saw it as a kid in the theater. Watched it as an adult and was still blown away though I understood it through a different lens.
The one script Tarantino wrote that I'm glad he didnt direct. NBK is a phenomenal movie.
Natural Born Killers is my favorite movie of all time. Partly because of the nostalgia I have for what happened in my life, how m I enjoy watching it and the soundtrack. I think Quentin Tarantino would have made the movie much better but it is what it is. It is still the movie I enjoyed the most probably of any movie in my life. I still watch it from time to time. I really enjoyed this video. Very well done sir and thank you.
Natural Born Killers is a FANTASTIC movie!! I honestly don't care what Tarantino thinks about the final product. I'm not a fanboy who is going to start hating an awesome movie just because HE does!
Great video, though, Lancelloti! :)
He's a raging egomaniac who can't stand anyone doing his movie
Nobody asked you to dislike it because of Tarantino's opinion.
I like NBK and definitely think it’s interesting how it turned out in Stones version compared to QT’s script.. originally NBK was a story Clarence was writing in an early version of True Romance but it was QT’s mate Avery who told him. To split it into two separate scripts cause the story was so good that it shouldn’t be just a smaller part of TR’s sub plots, Good video.. new to the channel and subscribed.
I mean it’s kind of legendary that your first two scripts are directed by two of the finest directors in modern history. ❤
Thanks for doing this video. NBK is my favorite movie of all time, and I always heard that Tarantino hated it but I never knew why or heard him actually talk about it.
I'm glad Stone made the movie he did. As with most successful artists, Tarantino is a control freak, and I get it. Ya can't win 'em all, bud!
100% agree!
this is a best video essay about natural born killers & it's story different from stone (Director & frontman of the finished film that we all love & know today) & Tarantino (original writer of the film, but hate the result because it got messed up & re-tooled), which I would understand, but knowing, that it's great film, and after seeing this video, I'm really interested in seeing Tarantino version getting it's shot to the big screen & I feel like it would a a similar vibes to JAWS, not showing the sharks, but knowing their kills, like it will be a zodiac type scenario, but not seeing the killers until the very end, but in a non-chronological storyline, that would be fun, heck, I might do it,
overall, in hindsight, Quentin's version = Zodiac + Jaws + Truman Show + all of his films, I will love it, no matter what
as horrifying as it is, and the copycat crimes, I fucking love this movie
I love Tarantino and I love Natural Born Killers and as a nice side note.... that TV sitcom scene is one of the best in the picture!!
If Tarantino directed: Tim Roth as Wayne Gale, Michael Madsen as Jack, with Val Kilmer as Mickey and Angelina Jolie as Malory
I don't think Angelina Jolie had even been discovered when NBK was being made. Hackers was her breakout role and that didn't come out until 1995.
Angelina Jolie? I can’t think of a film of his she’s in lmao, you mean Uma Thermin?
@@lennonmahoney7302 Uma Thurman would be good too, I just think Angie would’ve fit the role age-wise at the time.
@@brucewayne8158 I definitely would be more interested to see her take
@@lennonmahoney7302 Angelina or Uma?
Both Stone and Tarantino have made many films I love.
Natural Born Killers, True Romance, Reservoir Dogs all special films.
But Natural Born Killers always reminded me of Fear And Loathing because it feels like a fever dream.
This is 1 of my favorite films, the anxiety it induces isnt captured anywhere else. The fact tarantino hates that shit makes me like it even more. Fucking tired of his feet shots every 2 seconds
natural born killers actually sucks, true romance would probably be more iconic than pulp fiction if he made it but that’s my gay opinion
I had read that Natural Born Killers was part of True Romance, as a script that Clarence was writing. Wonder where that story came from
I believe they were the same movie and he split them into 2. Lots of similarities
Gotta watch this movie now
Excellent editing and walking through the history
How crazy. I’ve tried to watch this movie 3 times and can never get through it.
yeah, its crap
"Repetition works, David. Repition works, David"
i love this movie. first watched it during my rdj obsession. told my 7th grade teacher i saw it and she said "huh!?" rewatched it again at 22 and still love it
one of my favorite movies of all time. They really don't make em like this anymore.
You should look up the video of Tarantino explaining why he hates Bill Murray films but loves Chevy Chase films. QT loves Chevy Chase films because the guy he plays is always an asshole from beginning to end but he hates Bill Murray films because the guy he plays always starts out as an asshole but "grows" over the course of the movie in a Disney fairytale like way to become some great moral character by the end of it.
Tarantino argues that Bill Murray movies thus do not reflect the realities of human character: if someone is an asshole at the beginning of a particular set of events, they will still be an asshole at the end of those events.
I suppose the difference here between Stone and Tarantino is their view on both morality and reality. Stone is very focused on moralizing, but Tarantino has a more existentialist view on life and morality: "the moral of the story here is that you were at the wrong place at the wrong time and as a result you are dead".
I think Lucy Liu said some 💩 about Bill picking on her while making Charlie's Angels . I still disagree with Quentin that STRIPES is a lousy movie .
I get why seeing your vision turn out completely differently than what you had in mind would turn you off and cause resentment. Also, I love Natural Born Killers.
The problem is that stone revamped Tarantino’s vision for the film without fully understanding what he was trying to say. You can tell by the way he talks down about it, something that had been rejected, by trying to breathe relatability into the killers, he ends up neutralizing their uniqueness and turns them into common archetypes.
He knew exactly what he was doing. He added a lot of ethos, pathos and logos to the bones of Tarantino’s story.
@@steveleeartAgreed. I actually prefer what we got to what Tarantino would've wanted
NBK was one of those movies that a lot of film nerds praised. I hated it. Still hate it. I'm surprised Tarantino hated it, but he had a specific vision in mind, I'm sure. The film thinks it's a lot smarter than it is. It feels like a student film. I've probably seen it 3-5 times, trying to convince myself that it was good. It's a slog and it seems like people like it because it's quirky and if you say you didn't like it, that just means you didn't get it.
@@davedanger4414Emperor’s New Clothes situation. Everybody telling me this is a great movie and it’s just not. So he added a backstory to the killers, so what? All he did was add an hour of bad improv and dutch angles in service of humanizing the murderers. Ironically, it seems this is exactly what the original script was criticizing.
Incredible movie. Tarantino is a great director, but I feel like the script in someone else's hands really elevated this to a level he probably couldn't achieve.
I fully understand his position though, it was his baby and to see someone else run with it is probably a hard thing for the ego.
True Romance is a perfect time capsule of 90s action movie from Tony Scott with Tarantino dialog. It’s perfect.
NBK is just grotesque. It was trying way too hard.
That’s pretty crazy cause that’s literally 1 of my fav movies EVER. It’s a classic fr
The difference between Stone´s take and Tarantino´s personal style can be boiled to a couple of key distinctions: Tarantino has the mind of an adolescent, a video-store clerk for whom the spectacle of violence is jus thrilling cinema. Stone is the more mature film-maker, in that he declines to use on-screen violence as a means to excite the audience, but is more interested in the people who commit these acts and the consequences of them. Tarantino could never make a film like Platoon (1986), which sought to seriously interrogate American gung-ho militarism through the raw, painful and for Stone deeply personal experience of Vietnam. That more socially conscious outlook is anathema to Tarantino, who, despite his own great skill and panache as a film-maker, remains basically rooted in childish impulses and B-movie tastelessness, and can only view his subjects through a lens of virtuoso technical craft.
I like Tarantino's mindset he only hates it because he wants better no matter how good it might look to the audience , in the mind of the creator there will always be flaws.
Natural Born Killers has a lot of good stuff in it but I don't think it totally works as a movie. Maybe Tarantino's version would have, considering how good he was at the time. The best thing about Natural Born Killers was the soundtrack.
The last 40 minutes of the movie is fantastic.
QT is probably my Favorite Director of all time, but NBK is also one of my Favorite Movies of all time... I cannot imagine NBK as interpreted by QT, I can't imagine it with different actors or different cinematography, I just cant. The movie is perfect as it sits and the Sitcom Mallory segment is hugely important to establishing who she is and why she would fall in love with Mickey. In all the really good serial killer stories there is always a back story they explains why they became the way they are. And the Media Hyping of Mickey and Mallory satires the early 90s in a nutshell because it was and still is a huge joke. The Media is a major problem for our society to this day and NBK was calling out the problem 30 some odd years ago...
I think people are hating on Tarantino way too much and I will explain why.
The version that you got with this movie is the one you’re so used to, so you can’t imagine another script because your mind is trained to only accept the only version that you got.
If Tarantino had his original version and it did not go in another direction. Yes there is a chance the audience could love his version more. So if he believes that the audience would like what he had to offer, there’s a chance that they actually would.
If both versions got the screen light, then the fans would debate making videos on which one did better, which one was written better, and which one has the better storyline?
You’re only trained to know that only one version of natural born killers was made, and you will only accept this one version because the other version of this movie does not exist. But if it did, you probably would be taking back your opinions because when you actually have the real thing in front of your eyes, a lot of things could change immediately with opinions.
Tarantino has made two amazing films. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Everything else he has done has been a Tarantino schtick recreation.
There are few things more exhausting in this world than a feature length running of Tarantino dialogue.
I remember watching this in the theatre. It was challenging to watch. It was supposed to be. And it was. I had already watched all of Tarantino's other work, of course, same with Oliver Stone, but this was next level. I can't imagine that any changes to script would have had any difference to the end product. This was Stone's movie in the end, a showcase of his directing more than anything else, him trying to make his version of a snuff movie, and it was unlike anything else. I feel like Tarantino is just bitter that Stone out-Tarantino'ed him.
It was challenging to watch because it was shit. Films should be challenging to watch, they are supposed to inspire and entertain. This film was dull as fuck, you cannot deliver a good story with such empty, boring characters.
@@keithwellerlounge74 Sure you can. Characters aren't everything. You can have a good movie simply by virtue of the cinematography. Or boring characters that have clever lines. Of even just great special effects. I'm not the biggest fan of the movie, but there's lots there to like. Name me a movie of that time with that much exposure that was as graphic, and I don't just mean the violence. Even Pulp Fiction was a pretty clean movie. NBK was startling in its rawness.
True Romance is an absolute masterpiece though, I hope he doesn't feel the same about that one. It felt like a Tarantino movie through and through, the same way From Dusk 'Til Dawn did (albeit a different genre)
NBK is masterpiece film.
Agree I watch it every time it’s on
And that's w-hyyyyy.... helicopters.... were not deployed.
I remember the first time watching this movie. I had to rewatch it immediately.
I love that movie. The song as the credits roll is great
Waiting For The Miracle by Leonard Cohen
Closing credits is The Future, by Cohen. Waiting for the Miracle plays at the beginning. Anthem by Cohen plays during the prison riot.
@@OP-yt9ik thank you dude
That sitcom scene is one of my favorite parts!!!
I find it hard to believe that a guy who watches all sorts of obscure low budget crap hasn't actually watched what is an incredible film because he couldn't get through 5mins of a bit he didn't like
He spent months with the story during the writing process. He liked the story the way he wrote it. To see a supposed “satire” bit that demystified a main character took him out of it.
I saw it in the theater and felt like I enjoyed it. Watched it again about 10 years ago, and it's god awful. I was 20 when it was released .. shows how we change. It has some interesting sequences, but as a whole it's a pile of crap. I was taken in by the flashiness and the soundtrack more than anything I think.
@@Fiveash-Art It's certainly not for everyone but I have always loved that mixed media collage style Oliver stone does so well .He can say more with a half second insert shot of an eye or something than most ppl could with 20 lines of dialogue , NBk is like channel surfing while tripping where this mess of imagery actually makes sense . This 'U-Turn' and JFK are all done with the same impressionist vibe and I like it , But I can see why mainstream ppl wouldn't
@@bobcobb3654 He also knew enough about the world of film making to know any screenplay is gonna be made in the directors vision
@@HULLGRAFFITI I'm not what you'd call 'mainstream' .. I just think Stone has made some bad movies. As a whole, I generally enjoy a lot of what he's done. Platoon, Born on the 4th of July,.. Although he tends to white wash a lot of these political/historical events , there's nothing really all that unorthodox about what he does and it's as mainline as it gets. Just another ex military guy who saw some war without that much insight. His work is best when it comes from that personal viewpoint. Natural Born Killers is just cringeworthy gobbledygook disguised with a veneer of fake edginess. Embarrassingly artsy fartsy.
I love pretty much every Tarantino movie, and I loved this movie too. But I'd be fascinated to see the Tarantino versions he envisioned of this and True Romance.
Oliver Stone has made some good movies but f me, can he eff them up too! Also, sticking to historical accuracies seems to be his kryptonite.
I'm so over people dissing JFK. It's an incredible film bursting with brilliant actors in every single scene. And it does an excellent job treating the biggest unsolved crime in our nation's history with the gravitas it deserves.
It's also beautifully directed.
I especially loved Jack Lemmon, John Candy. Walter Matthau, Joe Pesci, Kevin Bacon and the unparalleled Donald Sutherland giving a masterclass performance.
@@slayerduval1 Huh? Kennedy's assasination is not an unsolved crime. We know who did it, and why he did it. Stone is a conspiracy kook.
He definitely went off the rails in the late 90's. His 86-91 is unparalleled.
@@slayerduval1 me too. The Vietnam War didn't just happen by accident. Of course _JFK_ is a propaganda movie but the whole premise of it was to get people to try to question the circumstances that lead to events that control their lives and determine history.
There are still unsealed documents in regard to JFK's assassination and we just recently had a wholly and completely unnecessary attempt on one Presidential candidate's life, while the other Presidential candidate and current President was forced to drop out (see Seymour Hersch's recent piece detailing how Obama, Pelosi, Schumer and Jeffreys threated Biden with a suggestion that Harris was about to invoke the 25th Amendment) due to a mental condition (senility) that everyone has known about for the last 5 years.
Natural Born Killers and True Romance are amazing! Some of my favorites
Watching this film felt like Oliver Stone held a gun to my head while rambling about deep state
Well, you pretty much summed up Oliver Stone as a person.
The sitcom scene was the best and darkest part of the movie…
It's not a Tarantino movie, that's clear while watching it. NBK is much more like Robocop, which is why I loved it. You have a director who earned two Purple Hearts in Vietnam and tried to show people the difference between what you see on-screen and what's actually happening. He released a documentary about the Ukraine War and the public will only understand what a masterpiece it is once the war is over.
Blah Blah Blah. Tarrentino movies are an adventure. Stones are good but more of the same.
@@robhamilton4736Natural Born Killers is better than all of Tarantino's films.
Sits right next to David Lynches Blue Velvet.
@@robhamilton4736That’s the stupidest thing I have read today…It’s early, but I read a lot.
Putin's shill Oliver Stone?
Intersting vid! I've not watched it for years but I always liked NBK, although in an alternate universe somewhere there's Tarantino's version which I would love to see. Also True Romance rules!
I finished the script more than once. Never could finish the movie.
QT was so smart to take his name off the screenplay to not tarnish his reputation but still want credit for inventing the characters!!!! Sucks we didn't get his original film directed by him even though i like how trippy NBK was made !!!! Its the only reason I like it & the acting of course!!!
I consider NBK & Fear & Loathing a perfect double feature because of how visually trippy they both are & the reason i said that is because i actually saw them as a double feature on a Divx DVD & it made them both feel like brother sister movies of each other in the way that they are both made visually ❤
The sitcom scene is one of the most memorable and original scenes in any movie ever. I was almost sure it had to be part of Tarantino’s vision. This came as a surprise.
2:48 Ironic that Stone's alterations to Tarantino's script made a film 100 times more "morally repugnant" than anything Tarantino could just by changing the perspective from the journalist to the killers. That one change made a film that is painful to watch, edgy and psuedo-provocative drivel.
@@LazarusWilhelm I'll never forget reading about Stone complaining about the Breaking Bad finale (he never watched any of the show up to that point, he just caught the finale by the way) and how it was just something like "violent trash." Like how can you talk that mess when you've only seen like 1/63rd of the story, grandpa?
The dude turned Rodney Dangerfield into a incestuous scumbag and he's out here saying some exaggerated blood in Tarantino films is morally repugnant. And how does he get on a high horse about exaggerated violence when that prison riot sequence uses borderline cartoon slapstick imagery and sound effects? Is Stone the only one allowed to have fun with his film's use of violence? Dude thinks he can gatekeep that stuff just because he's Nam vet and knows what real violence looks like first hand.
@@habadasheryjones A ripe conspiracy nut as well.
The soundtrack for this movie is incredible too
The sitcom part is so memorable and so poignant even today, there was a movie called Paint ang Gain, wich was a comedy based on true crimes committed by a gym manager, and its so painful to watch knowing that real people were murdered. But hey that's the entertainment business.
I did ultimately find the movie uncomfortable to watch and didn’t exactly enjoy it, but I do appreciate Stone's take. I really think the sitcom stuff was wildly disturbing and worked really well itself
Where we read Tarantino's original script? Any pdf link?
Learn to use google before commenting.
The sitcom scene was hysterical.
Respect to the source material or the lack of it is evident in both his first scripts turned into movies. Tony Scott not only makes a great movie, but also lets Tarantino direct its best scene - the 10 minute dialogue between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken, while Oliver Stone takes the script and does whatever the fuck this shit was, patting himself on the back that he is a real filmmaker...
As a Tarantino fan, I don't think it's a coincidence that I absolutely love True Romance and I really really can't stand NBK. And that was before I even read a book with Tarantino interviews where he actually explains why both these movies are so different from one another despite both being his scripts. Tony Scott read a Tarantino script and saw a movie. Oliver Stone read a Tarantino script and saw an opportunity.
"I don't make cheap movies. I make film." Bad ones.
i think i was 14 or so when this came out and i saw it on VHS, and I LOVED it. Had never seen anything like it before, loved the trippy stylized way it was filmed and was shocked to hear QT actually didnt like it. In fact i was shocked years later to find out that this movie was panned when it came out as well. I guess people just dont have good taste lmao
It's the most memorable and horrifying part of the movie. Tarantino is wrong, and he maybe hates it because his filmography does not take violence seriously.
I think Tarantino hates the film because Stone pretty much stripped his script and served it back to him as a psychological profile of Tarantino's shadow.
And as much as I love Quentin's work, I get the feeling he isn't the kind of person who has Jung's Red Book in his home.
And while I think Stone has become another one of those counter counter-culture personalities (what some people mislabel as contrarians), I for one believe Oliver's works always come from a place of wanting to advance the human condition to a good place......
..... I just think him, like a lot of us, have lost sight of what that place is meant to be, due to somehow getting caught up in a dark forest none of us really saw coming....
@@RogueBoyScoutexactly that. He turned Tarantino inside out for all to see.
@@RogueBoyScout Yeah, Tarantino just wants violence in movies as a "cool" teenage thing, and not taken seriously.
@@mikespearwood3914 there's a great comparison video of QT and PTA talking about violence in their films.
Nah, it was a bad film. Poorly directed, and poorly scripted. The over the top acting was annoying as well.
Natural Born Killers is better then all of Tarantino's work and continues to age like fine wine.
I feel Blue Velvet, Natural Born Killers and Mandy make-up a avant-garde film trilogy.
My three favorite films that I have seen.
There's no accounting for taste.
I prefer Born Killers over most of Tarantinos movies.
It doesn’t feel like a constant rip off of old genre pictures I’ve already seen.
Like it or not, this movie was ahead of it's time. Great video.
I’ve always found it funny how much Tarantino claims to hate Natural Born Killers and claims to never have seen the whole thing, when he stole the visual aesthetic for Kill Bill and even used the same cinematographer Robert Richardson ever since
Haha
Well, Kill Bill sucked. They're not all going to be homeruns.
I didn't know Tarantino wrote this. Makes sense how one of the scenes in this film resembles one of the scenes in Kill Bill vol. 1.
This is one of those films you might have loved as a teenager because it was so edgy and off its tits, but when you mature, and watch it again, you realize it was terrible. I saw Taxi Driver at 16, but my appreciation for that film has only grown. Let's be honest, neither director has the talent of 70's directors.
Trying to show a more nuanced view of murderers who were abused as children during the 1990s was never going to age well, especially with the knowledge of the subject we have now.
I love it for its stylistic decisions. Its art.
My take exactly. I still think Stone's best work blows away Tarantino's.
Thanks, I'd no idea Tarantino would be so crushed at having written such a good movie.
Tarintino's 2 best movies are the 2 that somebody else made.
Thats a hot take
Honestly, True Romance is his best. I'd have _liked_ to have seen his original script for Natural Born Killers, but I can't imagine a way it could be better. And I have a very good imagination.
Once Upon A Time in Hollywood is number 2, BUT just because I read "Helter Skelter" when I was a teenager, and would have dearly loved that outcome having happened. So, IMHO YMMV.
The biggest failure of Natural Born Killers is you're supposed to root for the criminals and their relationship, but they are so annoying that you don't.
If you read the script, you don't quite get that vibe at all. You don't like Mickey and Mallory because they kill innocent people and they straight bully them, but you just get so much more and more disgusted by Gale that you're rooting for them to kill him by the end. Also, their love for each other is endearing and creates an emotional dilemma in the viewer, am I supposed to sympathize with them just because one side of them is so sweet? It kind of seem to nicely encapsulate a lot of feelings people had about the OJ trial at the time. It would be a beautiful sharp jewel in Tarantino's filmography if it were shot right because it would serve as a nice counterpoint to his public image as a guy who endeared the world to on-screen violence. Because in the script the violence is far less fun than a typical Tarantino affair. There's a scene where Mickey murders the sole survivor of a family they killed, a beautiful young girl, in the courtroom with a pencil.
The only thing good about any Oliver Stone movie is the source material. But when you judge the movie as a whole, especially if you've actually read the source material, you start to understand that Oliver Stone gets his hands on great stories and reads them, but ultimately fails to understand them. So unlike an honest person who at that point would just give up, as a hack he decides to fuck the original intent and throw in a bunch of his own weird anti-establishment/brainwash/"I ain't a part of your system , maaaaan" childish bullshit
Natural Born Killers isn't satire of today's society as much as it is a parody of something that could've been a good movie. So in that sense, it's not that you're supposed to root for the criminals... it's that Oliver Stone indulged that surface-level interpretation without digging deeper into the story. And he does this with almost all his movies (at least the ones I've seen). The only movie I remember actually benefitting from Stone's view is Born on the Fourth of July, because the themes in that real life story obviously fit Stone's personal views on how the government works.
At the time, we did. People cried during the marriage scene
You missed the whole point of the movie.
You didn't...