873. Natural Born Killers (1994)

Running Time: 120 minutes
Directed By: Oliver Stone
Written By: David Veloz, Richard Rutowski, Oliver Stone, from story by Quentin Tarantino
Main Cast: Woody Harrelson, Juliette Lewis, Robert Downey Jr., Tom Sizemore, Tommy Lee Jones
Click here to view the trailer

STONE WEEK: 4 of 4

Today I conclude "Stone Week" and "Natural Born Killers" gets the deciding vote on whether I'll ultimately commend Oliver Stone as a good filmmaker or condemn him as a bad one. Here Olive Stone tells the tale of Mickey and Mallory, a script originally written by Quentin Tarantino, before he became famous.

The movie is made or broken in the plot, but rather in the experience of watching it and taking it all in. However, because I'm a creature of habit, I simply must relay the plot for you. The film centers around Mickey (Harrelson) and Mallory Knox (Lewis), a married couple (although their wedding consisted of them cutting their palms, holding hands and being their own priest) who are going cross country, making media headlines as serial killers.  The "M & M Murders" get worldwide publicity and everyone from Paris, France to Hoston, Texas are talking about Micky and Mallory, buying magazines with their faces on it and becoming consumed with the media blitzkrieg. Mickey and Mallory's calling card, if you will, consists of them leaving one person alive at each of their murder sites, so that person can tell the world that Mickey and Mallory struck again. Meanwhile, Wayne Gale (Downey Jr.) is becoming famous off the names of M & M, centering his television show, "American Maniacs" around the demonic couple. There's also Detective Jack Scagnetti (Sizemore), a famous cop who's on the trail of M & M. Eventually things go south for Mickey and Mallory, as they kill an Indian who takes them in and shelters them and are subsequently bitten by a rattlesnake, leading to their arrest and imprisonment.

I'm struggling with this one, because on one hand I REALLY hated it and on the other hand, the few things I did like about it, I really liked. Why don't we start with the good and segue into the bad. In a 2007 interview, Quentin Tarantino had the following to say about "Natural Born Killers", when asked if he ever got around to watching it:

(paraphrasing)
"I was enjoying it until the terrible Mallory Knox sitcom thing"

BINGO! That's where all my interest went down the tubes as well. But, hey, we're talking about the good first, so I will say that the opening is ONE OF the best openings I've seen in a long time. The music is perfect, the dialogue is perfect and it certainly did it's job and hooked me in for the ride. Unfortunately, I was begging to get out about twenty minutes down the road. So, it's not hard to see why Tarantino was enjoying himself up to that stupid "sitcom thing". In fact, even this bit of dialogue sounds like it was plucked directly out of a Tarantino film:

Mickey: Maam, what kind of pies do you have?
Waitress: Well we got um...Apple, Pecan, Cherry and Key Lime
Mickey: Which do you reccomend?
Waitress: Well the Key Lime's great but it's an acquired taste.
Mickey: Well I ain't had Key Lime pie in ten years
Waitress: When you had it did you like it?
Mickey: No, but that don't mean much, I was a completely different person back then.
(pause)
Mickey: Lets give that Key Lime pie a day in court and a big 'ol glass of nonfat milk, if you please.

I LOVED this exchange, it was perfect and while I'm on the subject, who knew Woody Harrelson had these kinds of skills in him. I'm not just talking about this scene, but he's perfect throughout the entire film and gets added to a long list of actors I need to see more stuff from. Also, again we get an absolute knockout performance from Tommy Lee Jones and while he doesn't have a whole lot of screen time, he damn near steals the show when he gets the opportunity - add his name to that same list.

Once that Mallory Knox "sitcom thing" came on though, I knew me and this film just weren't going to jive. I knew Oliver Stone, like always, was going to take a less traveled path in telling his story and everything was going to be very unconventional. Stone uses animation, black and white photography and back and front projection to tell his story and ultimately it just didn't work for me. I loved what I was able to love and took away what I was able to take away, but in the end, I just can't give "Natural Born Killers" a recommendation. It was far too weird for my tastes and hey, I'm all for a little weirdness, but this fucking thing is as weird as shit! And, of course, as per usual Oliver Stone is trying to make some sort of statement about the media and violence and the glorification of evil men and I'm really tired of having statements made on me. Tarantino also said in an interview that if you like his movies, you probably won't like "Natural Born Killers" and if you like Stone's work, you'll probably love it. I love me a Tarantino movie, so I guess he nailed it there.

RATING: 4/10  That might be too generous of a rating, but maybe not. I liked "NBK" better than "Platoon" and "Salvador", but would have to give "JFK" the honors of being the best Stone flick I watched this week.

A WORD OR TWO ABOUT OLIVER STONE

I don't like him. 'Nuff said.

Just kidding.

To say that Oliver Stone was a bad filmmaker would be too easy, so I'll just say that Oliver Stone was a fine filmmaker, who just happened to make films that didn't appeal to me. I'm sure there are people out there who love his work and good for them, because it's obvious that the guy has a great deal of talent. Unfortunately, his films and my tastes just weren't a match made in heaven and in the end, I'd have to put him in the thumbs down column when it comes to listing director's. Oliver Stone was more concerned with making statements, rather than telling stories. The director's that I admire are the one's who are the best storytellers and when I look at Stone's work, I don't see a good storyteller, I simple see someone who is technically great at making movies and that's not good enough for me. There was also the case of just not being interested in a lot of what his movies were about - the Vietnam War, the Salvador crisis, etc. I liked "JFK" a lot, but not necessarily for the direction, but because I found the subject matter to be very interesting. With "NBK", I admired Stone's vision and applaud him for trying something different, when a lot of director's would find solace in the safety of a formulaic mold. However, "NBK" just didn't work for me. Anyway, in closing, let me say that if you're looking for a really good Oliver Stone movie and one that also gets my seal of approval, then check out "U-Turn". A lot of people trash it, but I really liked, you get a good performance from Sean Penn and a nice little story.

On a side note, if THE BOOK insisted on including four Oliver Stone movies, here's the four I wish they'd have chosen.

1. U-Turn
2. Born on the Fourth of July
3. JFK
4. (tie) Wall Street (because I've never seen it and want to)/The Doors (because it's not bad, although still not a "must see")

MOVIES WATCHED: 573
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 428

November 6, 2012  6:47pm

Read More

838. JFK (1991)

Running Time: 189 minutes
Directed By: Oliver Stone
Written By: Oliver Stone, Zachary Sklar, from the book Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy by Jim Marrs and On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison
Main Cast: Kevin Costner, Tommy Lee Jones, Gary Oldman, Joe Pesci, Michael Rooker
Click here to view the trailer

STONE WEEK: 3 of 4

After manually manipulating a '10' rating with the watching of "Fargo", I return to the "Stone Week" festivities and follow Oliver into a new decade and his 1991 film "JFK".

To outline the entire plot of "JFK" would take entirely too long, as the film clocks in at a whopping three hours and change and covers a lot of ground as it plays out. For the unaware, the film is not a biopic about the life of the 35th President of the United States, but rather a probing into the events surrounding the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy on that fateful November day in 1963 (forty-nine years ago this month).  The film's central character is New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (Costner), a man who was somewhat traumatized by the events that occurred on November 22, 1963 and made it his personal mission to uncover the truth about whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald (Oldman) acted alone in assassinating JFK. Garrison disagrees with the shoddy questioning and tactics implemented in the Warren Commission, a commission organized to investigate the assassination and who concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby both acted alone in committing their crimes. The film uses lots of fast, genius editing techniques to really make the viewers head spin and throws out a lot of information over the course of it's three hour running time. The film also stars and features dozens of Hollywood A-listers, including Joe Pesci, Vincent D'Onofrio, Michael Rooker, Wayne Knight, John Candy, Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau, Ed Asner, Sissy Spacek, Kevin Bacon, Donald Sutherland, Tommy Lee Jones, Laurie Metcalf, John Larroquette and Martin Sheen as the narrator. Okay, so maybe I'm using the term "A-lister" loosely, but my point is that there's a lot of recognizable faces in it.

It's kind of ironic that I'm writing about "JFK" one day before millions of people will head to their voting stations and choose between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. This film really made me aware of my country and my government and made me question the ethical background of, not only the politicians of yesterday, but also the politicians of today. It's not that prior to watching "JFK" I had a truckload of faith in the United States government, but this film really makes you wonder, question and feel skepticism. To think that the John F. Kennedy assassination could have been orchestrated by people as far up as Lyndon B. Johnson is mind boggling. This film made me wonder what it must've been like to be standing on Elm Street on November 22, 1963, surrounded by chaos and having all the truths right in front of you, but not knowing what to look for. The truth about who killed John F. Kennedy was in broad daylight, in Dallas, on that November day and thousands of people who arrived to watch the President's motorcade were there, but NO ONE was able to give a definitive eyewitness report. People claimed to have seen smoke, coming from behind a fence, on a grassy area, but no one was able to conclusively say whether or not Oswald did or didn't commit the crime, nor were the able to finger a second gunmen.

Prior to even watching "JFK" and despite not being born until 1984, I was always of the opinion that Oswald didn't act alone and I'd even go one step further and say that it's very possible Oswald wasn't even one of the shooters. Maybe that's my dramatic instinct kicking in though, my need to have situations be more exciting. I think that's actually where the success of "JFK" comes from. People want to believe that there's a hidden truth, a super secret being shielded from the public, something we're not allowed to know about. People love to speculate, theorize and draw conspiracy theories and perhaps not knowing is half the fun of "JFK". If you walk away from this movie and you're still of the opinion that "no, Oswald and Ruby both acted alone - one was a nutcase who wanted to kill the President and one was a patriot who wanted to avenge the death of his fallen leader", then you're not playing along with the plot of the film and obviously you're a close-minded person. Being open-minded is so much more fun, because it allows you to take all points of view and make your own theories and assumptions.

If nothing else, this film obviously made me think. It made me want to learn more about the JFK administration, the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis and probe further into the events surrounding the assassination. While watching this movie I wished desperately that I would've been more educated when it came to those subjects so that I would've had some frame of reference when I was getting information fired at me at rapid speed and trying my best to take it, process it and understand it. I had a little bit of a hard time keeping up with all of those facts, figures, testimonies, theories and ideas and several times throughout the film, I had to rewind the movie to reassess what I'd just heard. The film is a political thriller and we all know how I feel about mixing movies and politics, but this one gets my seal of approval. I didn't love it to death or anything, but I applaud Stone for making me want to take an interest in my country's history (no matter how shady it may be) and for making me think and be baffled by his theories. Oh and as much as I dislike Kevin Costner, I have to give the guy credit here. He managed to do a great job giving a very LONG speech at the end of the film. However, best performance of the film honors go to Tommy Lee Jones who, no joke, stood on a film set surrounded by those dozens of stars I mentioned above and easily was the best one there.

RATING: 7/10  Only one Oliver Stone picture left and I plan to give it a look later tonight - "Natural Born Killers".

MOVIES WATCHED: 572
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 429

November 5, 2012  10:33pm

Read More

753. Salvador (1986)

Running Time: 123 minutes
Directed By: Oliver Stone
Written By: Oliver Stone, Rick Boyle
Main Cast: James Woods, James Belushi, Michael Murphy, John Savage, Elpidia Carrillo
Click here to view the trailer

STONE WEEK: 2 of 4

Yes folks, you read that right, James Belushi somehow managed to get a role in a "must see" film. However, the fact of the matter is that I'd rather watch reruns of "According to Jim" than have to sit through "Salvador" again and that's saying something.

James Woods stars as Richard Boyle, a down on his luck, American photographer. When his wife takes their child & leaves him and he's ousted from his apartment, Boyle hits the road, alongside Dr. Rock (Belushi), an American disc jockey, headed for El Salvador. At the time, El Salvador is in the middle of a civil war and it's Boyle's plan to scrape up some freelance work, shooting some pictures. Boyle is a born con-artist and manages to weasel help out of anyone with a set of ears, managing to get together some funds and a camera. Once there, Boyle hooks up with his old girlfriend, Maria (Carrillo) and falls in love all over again. However, his girlfriend is without proper paperwork and if stopped, she could be killed for not having it. Boyle tries diligently to get Maria her papers, all the while trying to convince her to marry him, get some pictures and get his nose into the middle of the political turmoil.

Okay, so maybe "Salvador" wasn't so bad that I'd prefer "According to Jim" reruns, but I have to say I really didn't take to it. Oliver Stone is obviously a talented filmmaker, but he tries too hard to educate us, rather than just tell us a story. I just can't seem to get interested in films that deal with politics, civil wars and the like. I had absolutely no interest in learning about the history of El Salvador and the turmoil they faced, yet here was Stone trying his best to try and entice me. I didn't care for the cast here either, as Woods tried too hard to be funny and the comedy didn't mix well with the heaping piles of dead bodies. Oh and did I mention James Belushi's in this? And yet, I have absolutely no idea why he was in it, because his character literally does nothing. If I didn't know any better, I'd think that Belushi wandered on to the set one day and stumbled into a dozen or so scenes and they just felt sorry for him and left them in. So lets see here...

CHECKLIST:
*hated all the politics, civil war talk and the history lesson
*hated Woods and his feeble attempt at trying to be funny in the midst of an otherwise very serious film
*HATED James Belushi

Yeah, I think we got it. I will say that the film started out well and I appreciated Stone's efforts to try and familiarize us with the characters, before throwing us into the real meat of the plot - that was a smart move. Unfortunately the movie didn't work too well on me and I ultimately found the film to very basic and pretty formulaic. 'Nuff said.

RATING: 4/10  Okay, that's TEN films in a row now that have failed to garner at least a '7' rating. Either I'm getting too picky or this book seriously lowered their standards when labeling movies as "must see". Either way, this ends with the next movie...I guarantee it.

MOVIES WATCHED: 570
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 431

November 3, 2012  4:07pm

Read More

749. PLATOON (1986)

Running Time: 120 minutes
Directed By: Oliver Stone
Written By: Oliver Stone
Main Cast:  Charlie Sheen, Tom Berenger, Willem Dafoe, Forest Whitaker, Francesco Quinn
Click here to view the trailer

STONE WEEK: 1 of 4

Oliver Stone began directing films in 1974, with the release of "Seizure", which he also wrote. However, it wasn't until 1986 and the release of "Platoon" that he started to get recognized as a big time director. Since then he's churned out a handful of hits (and misses) including "Born on the Fourth of July", "Wall Street", "The Door", "JFK", "Natural Born Killers" and "Any Given Sunday". Today, for the initial post of "Stone Week", I take a look at "Platoon" - a film based on Stone's own Vietnam War experience.

I'll barely be able to fill a full paragraph with a plot synopsis for "Platoon", because really the film is just about a platoon of men in the Vietnam War. A lot of the film is actually plot-less as we simply observe the men and watch what they experienced on a day to day basis, during the war. The main character is Chris Taylor (Sheen), a boy who left his rich upbringing and college life to take part in Vietnam, because he felt like he needed to make a difference. The film is also narrated by Chris, as we overhear letters that he's writing back home to his grandma. He admits that he doesn't know what he's doing out there and that no one has the time to show him how to be a soldier, something he ultimately has to figure out for himself. After an incident at a Vietnamese village, where Sgt. Barnes (Berenger) murders an elderly Vietnamese woman, the platoon is split in two, with half of the soldiers siding with Barnes, while the other half take the side of Sgt. Elias (Dafoe), a hippie soldier who plans to bring charges against Barnes.

The reason I can't stretch the plot summary of "Platoon" into a full paragraph, is the same reason why I don't like it. Listen, war movies aren't for me, end of story. I've said that from day one on this blog and that's USUALLY the truth. Every once in a while, however, there is an exception to every rule and when I see movies like "All Quiet on the Western Front" or "Saving Private Ryan", I start to question my own disdain for war films. However, "Platoon" is a text book example of what I don't like about war films and that's when all we get is war. There's no subplot, there's no nothing and all we end up getting is scenes that depict life in war. I have a feeling that Stone's movie is, perhaps so personal that you had to have experienced war to really get the full effects of it. It's one that I just don't like because of it's genre and because it doesn't work for me and there's no further dissection required.


I will say, however, that some of Sheen's narration is pretty effective. At times, it works to enlighten a viewer who may be completely unfamiliar with military life and let them in on some of what it would be like to be out on the field of battle. And what about that cast, huh? Actually, I find it kind of funny that the supporting cast is far more talented (or would go on to be far more talented) than the three lead actors (with the exception being Willem Dafoe). What was Stone smoking when he decided that it would be a good idea to let Charlie Sheen and Tom Berenger star in his movie? God, I can't stand either of them. Now then, if you take a look at the supporting cast, you've got some major talent in there: Forest Whitaker, John C. McGinley, Johnny Depp, Tony Todd, Richard Edson and Keith David - all fine actors or guys who would develop into fine actors.

SPOILER ALERT!

Of course, the famous scene in "Platoon" is the overly long death of Sgt. Elias, but it's a goose bump inducing moment, so be on the lookout for that.

RATING: 5/10  Can't go higher than the average marker and really, it's probably not even THAT good, but a '4.5' just seems too low...for now.

MOVIES WATCHED: 568
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 433

October 30, 2012  4:12pm

Read More