Natural Born Killers (1994) User Reviews

A bizarre acid trip of a film that has good and bad points

[FilmOtaku · 7/10 · 20 October 2003]

Oliver Stone seems to have outdone himself on this one. Not only is Natural Born Killers a visual masterpiece, but it is probably one of the most insane and nonsensical social commentary films I have ever seen. Disappointing, since it was penned by one of my favorite film directors, Mr. Quentin `Bad Motherf***er' Tarantino himself. The elements of a good story are there: Boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love and go on a mass murdering spree which is lapped up by the media. While there is definitely a strong social statement, the story is too erratic and scattered to be completely coherent.

Visually however, Natural Born Killers is stunning. It is intensely colorful, unflinchingly violent and innovative in its cinematography. This movie is not for most, but if you decide to try it out, be warned: It is not for the faint of heart, and not for the weak of stomach. But it is an important film for its visual merits, at the very least.

--Shelly

Blame the media

[rbverhoef · 8/10 · 20 March 2003]

Natural Born Killers is a disturbing film. It is a great film as well. Visually it looks great and between all that violence there is a message. Criticizing the influence of media with another form of media called film.

With a lot of cuts, strange camera angles, different colors, the kind of music and a lot of symbolism the sick world of mass murderers Mickey (Woody Harrelson) and Mallory (Juliette Lewis) is presented. And the sick world of how people react to their violence. Director Oliver Stone shows it to us with this satire in a great and really disturbing way.

Harrelson and Lewis hit the right tone for Mickey and Mallory. Tom Sizemore as a cop, Robert Downey Jr. as a journalist (representing the whole media) and especially Tommy Lee Jones as the prison warden are great too. Originally written by Quentin Tarantino, although he was not too happy with the result in the end, this is one of the best satires I have seen. May be it is not for everyone, the images are not always that nice, but the meaning must be for everyone.

You'll love it or hate it.

[MovieAddict2016 · 7/10 · 4 May 2005]

I remember "Natural Born Killers" making a huge fuss when it was released because the media and conservative families were in an outrage over the level of "glorified violence" in the film. To some extent they were right -- the violence isn't glorified but much of it is unnecessary. The movie could still be a brilliant satire of society/the media without going into such graphic detail -- it's been proved in cinema before that sometimes seeing less is better than gratuity. If Oliver Stone's movie has one outstanding flaw, it's the lack of subtlety.

That said, if you can handle the level of violence and take it tongue-in-cheek, "Natural Born Killers" is so bizarre and funny that it's worth the "trip." (Pun intended.) This is a crazy drug odyssey that would have made Hunter S. Thompson look like Ronald Reagan. The film is twisted, outlandish and out of its mind -- Oliver Stone has gone stone-cold crazy and it's awesome.

Despite my reservations about his lack of subtlety, there is a flip side to the coin: It is a story about excess. Stone's film-making has gone somewhat awry over the years (look at the pointless excess of his films after this), but this fits the bill because it IS a story of excess.

Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis play the titular "Natural Born Killers," Mickey and Mallory, a pair of crazy serial killers who both suffered traumatic childhoods and are now rampaging America on a literal killing spree.

After they are finally apprehended, the media has by now turned them into such icons and glorified personalities that the public and media seems to respect them as titans of filth.

This is where the social satire of the film comes into play, essentially saying: We focus more on the killers than the heroes.

I do think it's a bit hypocritical of Oliver Stone to attempt to point this out, as he is a die-hard liberal at his core and, as the controversy surrounding this film's release proved, the conservatives are too conservative to praise killers. It seems to be the liberal media that glorifies violence (to some extent of course) so I thought Stone would be the last person to ever criticize the media.

So yes it does come across as somewhat of a moot point but nevertheless the film is still enjoyable despite its sometimes sickening amount of over-the-top violence (the opening sequence of the Director's Cut is stomach-turning).

The cast is superb - Rodney Dangerfield, Robert Downey Jr., Tommy Lee Jones, Tom Sizemore, Edie McClurg (the rental car agent from "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" and Rooney's assistant in "Ferris Bueller"!) and Denis Leary and Ashley Judd in deleted scenes included in the Director's Cut.

The story was conceived by Quentin Tarantino (and it's very similar to his "True Romance" script -- a sort of modern-day "Bonnie and Clyde Redux") and re-written by Stone (much to the chagrin of QT). I'm not sure which would have made for a better film but, despite its flaws (which are mainly a none-too-subtle message and too much violence), "Natural Born Killers" is a sort of bizarre, outlandish masterpiece of drugged-out cinema. --

good messages get lost in all the raucous

[Special-K88 · 12 March 2007]

From director Oliver Stone comes this flashy but frustratingly uneven and unfocused story of a sadistic, recently married couple who brutally butcher random people across the United States as part of their honeymoon. Their heinous acts and eventual apprehension attract the attention of the media and interested viewers all over the world, but instead of punishing them they would prefer to tell their life story. Well-crafted film holds your interest by making social points that are poignant, provocative, at times even satirical, but alas, they're set in the midst of so many noisy and excessive action scenes that are relentless and headache-inducing, not to mention extremely violent. Cast is good, especially unapologetic miscreants Harrelson and Lewis who make a good match, but they need much more sturdy direction. **

Controversial media satire

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 1 September 2016]

Oliver Stone's most controversial film is a breakneck satire of the media's attitude towards violence. This notorious movie tells the story of a couple of mass murderers who end up getting caught in a media whirlwind as they're pursued by a shock journalist desperate for the 'number one' interview. Stone goes all out on style with this movie and it's one of the craziest you'll see: back stories are played out in the manner of '50s sitcoms, all manner of media is called into play (black and white film stock, back projection, hand camera) and the film itself is an over-the-top glorification of violence and insanity that just screams offence at just about everybody.

It's actually a very good satire – one of the most biting I've ever watched – and also one of the darkest movies you'll see. That's after you get past the first hour, that is. Word up – I absolutely HATED the first hour of this film, which tells the story of a modern day 'Bonnie and Clyde' and their murderous antics. Stone's outrageous direction is matched by the outrageous performances he elicits from his stars, and it got very tiring after five minutes or so. There are plenty of better films in a similar vein and the previous year's KALIFORNIA, also starring Juliette Lewis in a very similar role, was much better.

Then the killers are caught and the film becomes interesting AND original. Obnoxious TV journalist Robert Downey Jr., is introduced, sporting an annoying Australian accent and giving the craziest performance of his career; he damn near steals the movie from everybody else. Tom Sizemore's on hand to show that perverts don't just exist on the wrong side of the law, and then the whole film moves to a prison for the last third where it gets REALLY good. Stone depicts a prison riot as a trip to the very depths of Hell and his use of the hand-held camera during this bloody moment of mass insanity recalled to me the gut-wrenching depths of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. This final set-piece is bigger, starker, and darker than anything that's come before, and it's where I REALLY sat up and started taking notice.

I don't really like 'message' films as such – and there's plenty for Stone to dwell on here. The cult of celebrity, the media's obsession with violence, true crime programmes, insanity, true love, crime and punishment, it's all covered here with plenty of intelligence. Woody Harrelson holds everything together with the bone-chilling performance of his career and while I've never liked Juliette Lewis, she's impossible to ignore here. Tommy Lee Jones goes way overboard as the agitated prison governor and Stone has a lot of fun with the violence, script and twisty-turny plot. Weird – a film I started off hating ended with me absolutely loving it. NATURAL BORN KILLERS is one heck of a roller-coaster ride.

Hypnotic, but...

[dee.reid · 10/10 · 20 December 2003]

...people really need to take another look at "Natural Born Killers."

The plot: Mickey and Mallory Knox (Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis in roles that are a little too convincing) are a husband/wife pair of serial killers whose vicious crime spree across the country has made them into media superstars.

This movie is a barrage of frightening and surreal images, and is damn near hypnotic to watch.

I can see where the controversy surrounding this film comes from but what I don't understand is where the hate is coming from.

1994's "Natural Born Killers" has to be one of the best movies of the 90s - its sole purpose on this planet is to showcase America's fascination with violence.

But lets try to understand the hate. This movie is here for one reason and I think that we can all agree on that reason. Oliver Stone is a competent and accomplished filmmaker and most of the hate seems to be directed towards him. Stone, who is working from a script that has since been virtually disowned by Quentin Tarantino, pretty much took over and shaped the screenplay to his own vision.

I can understand why fans of Tarantino have a right to be p*ssed off, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that they truly hate the finished product, and the same goes for Tarantino. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Tarantino fan myself, and I'm sure he didn't appreciate Stone re-writing his script, but he should be proud of what was done with it.

The message, if you can call it that, is that we are obsessed with violence, and Stone exposes our love for it and spits it back in our faces. To quote Marlon Brando - "The horror, the horror." I say to hell with the hypocritical people who find this movie offensive for they are the ones that this movie is truly aimed towards.

Yes, horrific images are displayed in this movie and terrible things happen to people all throughout, but it's giving us we want, and we hate it. The hate surrounding this film is extremely misguided. My high school paper recently did an article about sex and violence on television and one of the supposed outlets of that violence would be our fascination with the war in Iraq and the Jessica Lynch story.

It said that we are much, much more concerned with the sex (I personally don't think today's teenage girls are THAT impressionable, but who knows?), rather than the violence (which apparently seems to be causing a misguided sh!tstorm of controversy, too, and like the sex, I don't think that people are that impressionable), namely the kind that is seen in music videos and such. Though the article refused to go into specifics (but we know who the people being discussed are and I'm sure they do, too), it brings me back to "Natural Born Killers," which I think people need to take another look at.

In this day and age, violence on television is becoming more and more commonplace, and this movie's relevance seems to make its viewing that much more important. Before we go and continue to bash the hell out of it again, people need to come back and take a look around themselves and watch "Natural Born Killers."

Great movie about this screwed up world!

[Stibbert · 7/10 · 6 September 2005]

This movie brings up several important issues about todays society. Does this movie make too much use of violence. When it first came it brought up a lot of debate. Some refused to show it because of it's violence. When I saw it, I wasn't shocked by it and I found that frightening. However, it made me start to think about the world we're living in and the power the media has to affect peoples meanings and opinions. This movie is one of the most anti-violent movies I have ever seen. Some say it is just violent, but I clearly see a anti-violent message in there along with criticism of the media making heroes without thinking about the consequences first. While some action movies got you all worked up with all the shooting and heroes this movie just makes you sit there and think: "What the...?". It may not rise as much debate today, as we are getting used to more violence, but it certainly opens you're eyes and it's criticism of the media is now probably even more topical then it's ever been.

I think Oliver Stone did this Tarrantino story very good. On the other hand there was some elements I found confusing and effects I didn't quite get the meaning of. However, this is one of them movies you can watch several times and still see something new each time. This is probably not the last time I've seen it.

The acting is great. There is really not much more to say. The casting did a good job finding the right actors for the roles and the actors deliver.

The cinematography is also very nice done. There are no boring or unnecessary shots and the lightning is just magical. The change between color and black and white is also nice. You notice it at the beginning, but then the you don't notice if the color is changed from green to red. It all just seems natural and right at the moment. It's the same with the sound. You notice some songs, but mostly it's just there creating the atmosphere just as it should.

This is a movie everyone should see. It's upsetting and raises a lot of topics that is worth discussing and bringing forward. I'm gonna watch it again because it is a little confusing, but never the less a good and recommendable movie!

Post-script on Hypocrisy

[Erick-12 · 9/10 · 10 February 2005]

Natural Born Killers

Released just long enough ago to be forgotten by today's standard of speed amnesia, this film by Oliver Stone is worth seeing again. The violence in it was sickening just a few years ago, but such things have quickly gotten normalized in our culture's ongoing desensitization. Ironically, this very process of media desensitization is precisely the topic of this film's satire. NBK has since even been the subject of copycat crime sprees, or so the culprits claimed. This is troubling, because while the film works hard to analyze the dubious process by which violent killers are turned into romantic heroes in the mass media, NBK seems unable to escape from the same orbit, ending with the killers as living happily ever after, justified by the brutality of their backgrounds, and morally superior to the prison officials and popular journalists who pursue them. But as a postmodernist satire of media saturation-violence, from wrestling to sit-coms to real crime dramatizations to obsessive live news interviews, Stone's film is a thought provoking exercise that is stylistically mesmerizing.

As a postscript, several people accused Stone of inciting copycat crimes and called for him to be sued for damages-- which happened. The lawsuit was dismissed. At the least he was negligent, they argued. Interesting to me that the glorification of violence found everywhere in the thriller genre is taken to be safely neutral, while a powerful satire of glorification is condemned as, well, too violent. The last time I checked, this was always defined as "hypocrisy". The major contradiction in media culture now is that on the one hand, Natural Born Killers is reviled for inciting violence, while on the other hand, it is reviled for being _too obviously_ critical of media violence in a simplistic and unsubtle manner. But can we have it both ways? No.

A 2nd postscript on another form of hypocrisy: Quentin Tarantino, the reigning postmodernist "King of Cool" who plays with pastiche of pop culture genres, wrote the script for Stone's Natural Born Killers, but then criticized the way the film was directed. Ironically, Tarantino then copied several formal film techniques and innovations straight out of NBK for his later "Kill Bill" films. -- with the key exception that Tarantino continues the tradition of glamorizing violence. The Tarantino crowd sees itself as properly aesthetic and cool, far above the ham-fisted Stone! Creepy isn't it?

Obviously good script mis-directed by Stone

[archyon · 6/10 · 16 October 2000]

Don't get me wrong because of the one-line summary. I think Stone is a very good overall director (Platoon comes to mind), but Natural Born Killers is his all-time worse movie.

It's not that I mind extreme violence. I'm a giant fan of Tarantino, and his script on the movie is obviously intelligent and witty. When it comes to the script, this movie is absolutely fine. But when it comes to the directing...

I don't know what happened to Stone when he directed it. Maybe he was half-asleep, in a bad mood or just was tempted by the devil. But anyway, this movie has been turned by his inept direction into a juggernaut. A sinking juggernaut.

The switches of color to black and white, the insane delusions, the below average soundtrack, the twisted colors, the worst joke ever in a movie - the absolutely stupid sitcom spoof, which is dumber then "Plan 9 from Outer Space", which does make you crack in laughter - but because you are laughing at the director's stupidity.

Once again, Stone is a great director. But I don't know what happened to him.

P.S. If Tarantino would have directed it, it would surely be a masterpiece. I ranked it 6 because of the great script and solid performances.

The 8th most controversial film of all time, according to Entertainment Weekly

[Flagrant-Baronessa · 9/10 · 29 July 2006]

Note: This is probably the longest review I have ever written and it mostly deals with the source of controversy surrounding Natural Born Killers, so if you just want a brief summary of why this film is worth watching, skip to the end!

I remember when Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers was released in 1994 and delivered a well-deserved kick up the arse to American audiences. Stone set out to criticize media for its mindless glorification of violence and criminals in the media and did so through a sharp satirical spectacle about two infamous killers-turned-idols, starring the "it" actors of the early 90s.

Unsurprisingly, conservative American families were outraged—disgusted at what was presented to them and saw the film itself as a mindless glorification of violence and criminals as opposed to criticism. Indeed, they were so outraged that, when teen-fans left their Oklahoma home to go out east and shoot fellow Americans, parents blamed Natural Born Killers for having inspired the shootings. Oliver Stone was left with blood on his hands, while more murders were being linked to his masterpiece. Lawsuits were filed; cases were tried and reinstalled, until finally they were dismissed in Louisiana in 1998.

The reason I bring this up again, after so many years, and so many more violent films later, is because Entertainment Weekly has published a list of The 25 Most Controversial Movies of All Time and Natural Born Killers is ranked as #8. Now, I don't want to knock Entertainment Weekly as they report on reality, but when a film like NBK gets a high ranking as 8, they should be called Entertainment, Weakly. My point is, rather, that this is a film that dealt with such an important, realistic issue that it should never have been controversial in the first place. So why was it?

The reason for this high ranking, I assume, is the ending of the film. Instead of opting for your typical, clichéd cop-out in which the "good guys" win and the "bad guys" are punished, Stone lets Mickey and Mallory Knox—the glorified killers—get away with precisely everything and ride off in their car on the highway. This was what lead to a public outcry and what caused an anti-violence film like Natural Born Killers to be mistaken for a pro-violence advertisement.

Firstly, it is my opinion that audiences who need everything to be carefully spelled out for them in a film in order to get the message and morals right are probably devoid of morals in the first place (no offense, Crash (2004)). So because Natural Born Killers did not have a perfect righteous ending with a "good guy" shaking his finger and telling you that this was unacceptable and having the bad guy repent their crime, some people took this as homage to serial killers. This fills me with concern for your average movie-goer.

Secondly, Natural Born Killers shouldn't have inspired this much controversy because, while it often exaggerates to get its message across, it is realistic to the core—and why should realism be labeled controversial? Isn't it just the opposite? Having violence in a film is a realistic portrayal of the world today. Having media glorify violence is even more so, because that is what is happening. By making Mickey and Mallory Knox into infamous symbols ("If I were a mass murderer, I'd be Mickey and Mallory!" one worshipping teen tells the TV camera team), Stone is parodying reality. He is parodying the idea of media turning serial killers, like Jeffrey Dahmer, into celebrities. Dahmer was on the cover of new magazines more than once, for example. The prison interview with Mickey is based upon the Charles Manson interview with reporter Geraldo Rivera. The story told on "American Maniacs" about Mickey killing a cop after asking him for directions is taken almost verbatim from a story made up by J. Edgar Hoover in the 1930s about bank robbers Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker in an attempt to try to silence the couple's growing fan base. In other words, no one can argue that Natural Born Killers is not a realistic portrayal of the media's response to criminals.

Now thirdly, it is my guess that the film struck a little too close to home when it opened and therefore attracted unfair criticism. It pointed to things that were too familiar with audiences. Take the famous sitcom scenes of Mallory's family, featuring hammy acting, clown-like sound effects and canned laughter. All the stylistic elements were present –it was just the content that was overblown; Mallory's father made lewd suggestions and it all culminated in a ruthless killing spree. Yet, somehow, it was still funny because it was so close to the average sitcom. This was Stone's intention. In prison, when Mickey is being interviewed on national TV, the film cuts to a simple black and white image of a typical American home. The family is sitting around watching the interview, glued to the television like mindless zombies—the very same people who hated this film. That's biting irony.

So, controversial? I have watched Natural Born Killers many times and cannot see anything else than a satirical masterpiece. I also do not think that exaggerating images or scenarios is overkill – I think exaggerating morals and 'happy endings' to get a point across is overkill. Natural Born Killers had the perfect balance and was meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek. It doesn't glorify violence; it shows how desensitized the media and the public have become to it. And it does so with flair and fury.

9 out of 10

Great idea and actors, but too trippy and messy

[mardalsfossen01 · 6/10 · 24 February 2020]

I really had to struggle with myself not to turn off. The recordings are really messy and trippy. It's tough to find a tangible moment. Mainly the good actors, foundation of the plot and my will of knowing all of it kept me watching.

Well I have a headache now but at least I know what the movie's about.

Good, unique and highly stylized

[851222 · 8/10 · 12 July 2022]

Greetings from Lithuania.

"Natural Born Killers" (1994) was and still is a messy on purpose and highly stylized action thriller take on media and its approach to violence. The way media sometimes glorifies violence and murders only to get their ratings higher, and a viewer / consumers who is basically responsible for that. In that regards "Natural Born Killers" do work. I also always liked acting of actors in this movie - its like they are having fun despite of controversy subject of the material. This movie also works as extremely dark comedy. Pacing in pretty good and at running time almost 2 hours this movie never looses its steam. Editing and cinematography were crazy - no other way to put it, but of course it is done on purpose.

Overall, "Natural Born Killers" (1994) is a cult classic movie at this point. Even 28 years after its release its still works i think. Acting is entertaining by everyone, directing is unique and on spot and editing as well cinematography are like no other. Good movie but not for everyone's taste.

Doesn't work

[AlphaBravoCheesecake · 6/10 · 22 June 2021]

I watched it three times since the film came out, and each time something just doesn't click with me each time I watch it. A lot are claiming over-stylisation, which I agree with.

The acting is good/great in parts, but there are parts where there is some serious overacting by others. The music is massively overbearing, and the so-called "message" comes across as pretentious at best.

People who rate movies like this a 1 out of 10, however, are a bit silly. This is not a perfect film, and i certainly am not a fan, but if you think this warrants a 1 out of 10 you are just obtuse.

Great potential, poor delivery

[kp789 · 4/10 · 7 March 2013]

A film with vast potential and creativity in the shape of Tarantino's pen and a decent cast in front of the camera, who to the most part, deliver with what they are given. However, it is behind the camera where the problems start to occur. Oliver Stone's insistence to completely ignore the story and focus entirely on mindless and repetitive violence which leaves the film feeling empty. Some very 'distinctive' camera-work makes an original effort at conveying certain character moods and states, to a certain degree of success, but the minimal success is coupled with the audience being led into a uncomfortable state of nausea, questioning whether the film was actually just a boring,violently charged hallucination.

Let down by poor performances

[richard.a.cross · 27 March 2000]

I'm not even sure that this qualifies as a film. It feels like little more than an exercise in camera angles and filter effects.

I first watched this film when I was at university, simply because it was so notorious. I was impressed by the camera work but felt that the plot was either extremely weak or non-existent, making the film seem a little pointless.

The real let-down were the characters that vary from reasonable to utterly ridiculous. I am told that Robert Downey Jnr's character is supposed to be English - if that is true, why does he speak with an Australian accent? A word of advice for American actors here: if you're asked to do a British accent, try it in front of a Brit first before you make a complete fool/Dick Van Dyke of yourself. Tommy Lee Jones's character is equally ridiculous; somewhere between Dick Dastardly and Sheriff Roscoe P Coltrane from the Dukes of Hazard(!).

I tried really hard to like this film when it was shown on Channel 5 but the silly cartoonish elements and supposed comedy moments kept cropping up and spoiling the better scenes. Although I'm not a massive fan of his, I can't help but feel that Quentin Tarantino would have made a better job of this.

Worth watching only so that you can discuss 'the influence of media violence on society' with film-student-types at parties.

One Of The Wildest, Sickest & Craziest Films You'll Ever See

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 5 November 2006]

Yikes, this is a sick movie and one of the wildest I've ever watched.

THE GOOD - This is so stylishly-filmed it's unbelievable. The wild camera techniques - quick flashes, sudden changes from color to black-and-white and back, distorted sound bytes, tilted camera angles, wild colors and symbolic images, distorted sound bytes - are all fascinating to watch. Then there's the crazy story, which ranges from really good to really bad. It's good to see the tabloid media mentality mocked for the trash it is, glorifying evil just to get ratings and the evil killers feeding off that media frenzy. Most of the characters in this film, as bad as they are, are definitely attention-getting. The two leads, "Mickey and Mallory" are two names that now go together, thanks to this film and the ultra-sleazy portrayals of them by Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis.

THE BAD NEWS - Most of the people in this film, if not all, are so vile, so profane, so morally bankrupt, so disgusting you want to take a shower after watching this film. Even the film critics who gravitate toward evil were repulsed by this movie. I actually enjoyed the story up to a point: about the halfway mark. After that, it becomes one gigantic mess, almost too difficult to watch in one sitting. I am mainly referring to all the scenes in the prison including the drawn- out riot/prison break, which goes on way too long. Over 20 usages of the Lord's name in vain - almost all of them in the second half of the movie, didn't help in my rating. Tommy Lee Jones, as the warden, and Robert Downey, as the Aussie scumbag tabloid reporter, absolutely go over-the-top.

OVERALL - In order to stomach this film, you have to look at it as some outrageous satire on violence and the media and take these characters as extreme cartoon-like people and nothing else. Take nothing seriously here. It might help to wear earplugs, too, in profanity and just plan noise bother you.

Cinematic excellence

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 10/10 · 7 November 2004]

I haven't seen too many Oliver Stone pictures; JFK, Scarface(which he wrote, not directed), and this one. I don't know too much about his directorial style, but if any of his other films are like this one, I'll have to watch more of them. The visual style is amazing. The whole film has sort of a psychedelic visual style, and utilizes constant cuts and constant change in color scheme, often changing between powerful green, blue, red and even black/white. Of course, none of this is random. It's there to project symbolism and keep the mood intense and constantly evolving, and, believe me, it works perfectly. With many references to popular media(television, mainly), demons and the desensitizing effect of television. The effect of half of the imagery being seen through a television screen or hallucinated is amazing. The film is experimental and psychological. As Stone puts it in the documentary, it's a film about two people breaking the rules, so it's only fitting that the film-makers are also breaking the rules. It's chaotic and wild, insane and mentally exhausting. It's a film about pain, violence and giving in to cravings and desires. But it in no way romanticizes the aforementioned three points. Quite the opposite. I believe someone once told me that the film makes killing and violence look appealing. I can't even explain how wrong that is. This truly is an amazing film. If you can sit through this, and you (honestly) think of yourself as perceptive and intelligent, you have to see this movie. It's not just recommended or a good idea to watch, it's mandatory for anyone that 'get' it. The plot is great and well-paced. It's never boring. The acting is great. The characters are well-written, credible and so easy to understand and sympathize with that many will hate the film for it. The whole film is amazing on so many levels. I recommend it to any person who believes himself or herself to be hardened and intelligent enough to sit through it, and, more importantly, understand it. I recommend you get the directors cut, as it keeps everything that the other released version cut off. Highly recommendable. 10/10

Violent and weird yet insightful

[allieuofm · 7/10 · 14 February 2022]

Woody Harrelson is always fun to watch, even when he's playing a demon. This movie was so weird but the statement about media's treatment of criminals in the 90s was insightful and made me reflect on the differences in how media portrays criminals today.

An Exploited Kiss, From The Devil They Born!

[TheAnimalMother · 9/10 · 3 November 2009]

Many have been quick to judge NBK as a senseless exploitation film that glorifies violence. When in fact the film is quite obviously a jab at news media and the Hollywood T.V. and film industry for their lack of true depth, and insane glorification of brutal violence. The very propaganda that has led to an extreme level of desensitization for a large percentage of the general public, and as a result, an inevitable increase in violent crimes. For years, Hollywood and other media outlets have been glorifying violence as a progressive means to an end. To the extent that even our own news media reports almost exclusively from the point of view that war is often necessary, and can lead to a positive outcome. While Oliver Stone's film is filled with over the top violence and hilariously profane dialogue, it strikes a very true cord in its symbolic and open references. NBK also poses interesting questions about the natural instinct of murder, and the overly programed thoughts and reactions of a deeply fabricated society. Mostly, Natural Born Killers is a satire of exploitation, to kick dirt in the faces of the senseless and irresponsible. Not that they would understand the film of course, nonetheless, Stone's bulls-eye is squarely planted on their foreheads. NBK is certainly an entertaining and thought provoking film for open minded individuals. The film is filled purposely with larger than life characters that are wonderfully performed by some of Hollywood's finest actors. Most notably...Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelson, Juliette Lewis, Robert Downey Jr., Tom Sizemore, Edie McClurg and last but not least, Rodney Dangerfield. While NBK certainly is a film that exploits violence, no film this interesting and thought provoking really qualifies as senseless.

"Doesn't anyone out there in Hollywood believe in kissing anymore?" - Mickey Knox

9/10

Confusing, loud, and unlike much else

[harrylosborne · 6/10 · 29 January 2021]

My mood whilst watching Natural Born Killers went like this: intrigued, confused, disillusioned, re-engaged, before finally, unsatisfied.

Oliver Stone's acid-trip of a pseudo-action/comedy/drama is a demanding watch, switching between so many different mediums that sometimes you're tired just watching. It makes sense, given that over 3,000 cuts are used during the movie (the average being 600-700), but that is about the only thing that lines up.

The first half sets a scene (supposedly), but I found it more grating than anything. You have no empathy for the characters, the wackiness is borderline headache-inducing, and the plot seems thin to say the least.

Towards the latter half I did begin to engage slightly more, and I actually thought it was the best Robert Downey Jr performance I've seen; despite this, I was not convinced that this was anything more than an artistic experiment - and not one that needs repeating.

A visual assault on your senses. Bold and brilliant.

[The_Eighth_Passenger · 9/10 · 16 April 2007]

Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers is quite possibly the most controversial film ever made. No other has sparked such a debate of violence in cinema, and has caused such a divide between lovers and haters. Many people see it as a poignant social commentary, a wickedly funny and dark outlook at a society gone mad with the idea of celebrity and media obsession. Others see it as depraved celebration of sick violence, and a catalyst for what it seeks to undermine. The film certainly contains scenes of horrific, deplorable, violence, but I would argue that the over-the-top 'cartoon' violence is done to let the audience know that the film is not meant to be taken too seriously. Yes, the message is serious, but we need a bit of black comedy with our satire, otherwise it's just like watching a very boring fact based documentary. The violence (and the whole film) is completely over the top because that is what Stone is telling us; "We have gone too far."

Based on a script by Quentin Tarantino, the film follows two young lovers, Mickey and Mallory (Woody Harrelson and Julliette Lewis) as they travel across America killing because it's what they want to do. Hot on their heals is hot-shot cop Jack Scagnetti (Tom Sizemore) who is not quite what you would call an "honest cop". Also along for the ride is sensationalist journalist Wayne Gale (Robert Downey Jr) who hosts (and produces, and directs) the cheesy tabloid show 'American Maniacs'. The first 45 minutes of the film shows us how Mickey and Mallory meet, and shows us their murderous rampage across the country. Like Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, the first act of the film is the most shocking part. Most people who have turned off either film has done it by the end of the first act. The two films share many other things in common; at the end of the first act our antagonistic protagonists are caught and sent to prison, they both have "graphic violence" and are hated by politicians and mother's groups, and both have much to say about our society and the mindset of it's outcasts. NBK is very much the A Clockwork Orange of the 90's.

Whilst incarcerated Mickey gives an interview to Wayne Gale, and it is here that the film is at its most interesting. He provides a thoughtful, in-depth insight into why he is what he is and does what he does, and the brilliance of the film is that it makes us see his point of view. Of course, this is also where the film makes itself vulnerable to attack because anybody who goes out and murders somebody, and happens to have a copy of the DVD, can be said to have been "warped" by the films 'pro-violence' message. The film is about as pro-violent as American History X is pro-Nazi, but unfortunately far too many people are unable to watch a film with an open mind, or a view to learn something new, and so the message goes over their heads. *SPOILER* If NBK had ended with Mickey and Mallory being killed by a relative of one of their victims then I'm sure everybody would applaud it's "profound message of evil never triumphs". Instead, Mickey and Mallory escape from prison and are last seen walking into the sunset, so therefore Stone must like killers because he lets them live. Right? *END SPOILERS*

How can you talk about NBK and not mention the fabulous look of the film? Shot on everything from grainy black & white 8mm to glossy Super 35mm, and using in excess of 2500 edits, the film is a visual feast. Stone uses 'vertical cutting' to show what a character is reading into a situation, rear projection to show what is influencing their thoughts and decisions and many other great techniques which make NBK the most unique film I have ever seen. Unlike Tony Scott's cinematic turd Domino the style is not done merely for the sake of it, to "look cool", it is done to place us amongst the chaos of the film. Plus, it looks really friggin' cool! I must also mention that all of the performances are top-notch. Harrelson and Lewis fit their roles perfectly and really convey that these two people love each other. Sizemore also gives a solid performance, as does Downey Jr, who is absolutely bloody hilarious! The best of the bunch, however, has got to be Tommy Lee Jones as the prison warden Dwight McClusky. He oozes with creepy redneck sliminess, but is also incredibly funny and charismatic.

NBK is without a doubt one of the finest pieces of art ever produced. For years to come it will be talked about, and I'm sure it won't be long until another murder is blamed on it. NBK sets out to show us that we are far too obsessed with fame and celebrity, and in my opinion it does just that. The media makes celebrities out of criminals whilst people who deserve recognition go unnoticed. How many of the 9/11 victims can you name? How many doctors who have saved hundreds of lives can you name? How many of the Columbine victims can you name? Can you name the killers? Probably. THAT is what NBK is all about, and that is what it seeks to discourage.

I tried... I really tried to like it...

[cyguration · 6/10 · 9 March 2023]

This gets a reluctant 6 out of 10 that borders very close on a 7 out of 10.

So why the reluctance? Because this is a film that deserved better editing to service the award-winning performances put on by Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis. My goodness, they really were a tour de force here.

The problem is that the spastic and surrealistic editing made it impossible to really sink into the film; it always felt like it was trying to throw a thousand things at you all at once while trying to unfold these very complex and disturbed characters.

In some ways, I kind of get it -- the story itself is way too ridiculous to be told through traditional story linearity; it's not that kind of film. But at the same time, the over-abundance of quick-cuts, flashing lights, and over-the-top camera angles and performances by everybody else in the film just made it... weird.

Apart from Woody and Lewis putting on appropriately show-stealing, endearing, crazy, and hypnotic performances, Tom Sizemore does a fine job of pushing right up to the edge of zany but still manages to reel it in and scale it back so you get this kind of, sleazy, scumbag cop character who you could almost... almost see being real. He reminded me a lot of a character out of Sin City -- particularly Benecio Del Toro's character.

But therein lies the problem with this film -- Woody and Juliette turn in very realistic portrayals of these disturbed killers. You could see them being real; they aren't too far removed from the couple in Kalifornia. But there's -- and maybe this is the wrong word for it -- a sense of groundedness to their characters. I believed they were real in a surreal world crafted by Oliver Stone and Quentin Tarantino.

The over-the-top cartoon caricatures portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones -- who I usually adore in just about every role he's in -- and Robert Downey Jr. -- who I also usually adore in just about every role he's in -- really took me out of the film. It was just... it was too much.

I don't know if the actors decided to push it over the line or if Oliver Stone told them to push it over the line, but it was just too much. I think someone like Rob Lowe may have been a better choice for Robert Downey Jr's role. I don't think Lowe would have been quite as over-the-top, because once again, it took me out of the film with the zaniness of it all.

In some ways, the film played out more like a comedy than a crime-drama. And it was all because of the zaniness and wacky editing.

I kind of would have liked to have seen this film done better justice with more naturalized performances and less over-the-top editing and skit pieces.

In some ways I now -- upon reflection -- understand all the crazy press this film received when it first released. I originally thought it was because it was like Silence of the Lambs, or The Onion Field, or Lumet's Q&A -- something so grounded and realistic that it made people recoil. But that wasn't the case at all. This film had a lot of brutal but over-the-top violence, which made it difficult to take seriously, and the set-pieces and surrealism really dampened the more controversial subject matter that the movie inferred through flashbacks and quick-cuts.

Interestingly enough, if this film had been released today it would hardly garner a peep from most people because it likely would have ended up on a streaming service and then become quickly forgotten. Back when movies were either in theaters or went straight to video, there was a lot to talk about with this film, but not all of it in a good way, and mostly in good part to the fact that not all of it is entertaining.

I will say, though, that it didn't feel like a two-hour film. It's a gripping film, no doubt. The third act kind of whizzes by due to a lot going on, even if the whole thing becomes so ridiculous it borders on parody. I just have a hard time completely disliking this film because Woody and Juliette were star-stealers in this one, but man... I wish the editing, the script, the storyboarding, and the rest of the cast were working on the same wavelength as the two leads.

A completely twisted, chaotic work of art.

[toonyjakes · 10/10 · 6 May 2020]

Modern day cinema takes little to no risk these days, in favor of being politically correct. Natural Born Killers is a full-fledged, in your face anthem about the glorification of violence in American history.

Plot- Mickey and Mallorie leave their life behind after murdering their parents and embark upon an aimless rampage, gathering extreme media attention. It's about the very raw nature of serial killers, and how the media virtually feeds off of tradgedy for a story. It's a wild ride.

Characters/Acting- The main characters are obviously awful human beings, but they have enough humanity to observe and admire, much like watching a gangster flick. All of the acting is outstanding for how frantic and sometimes grimly comical this movie can be.

Writing- The writing is solid, but I would have liked to feel more of Tarantino's spice, for the final script ommitted most of his content aside story.

Quality- This film was shot in 18 different formats. I'd say it's so perfectly edited, animated, and shot for the tone, that I'd recommend psychopathic people don't watch it. It truly gives you the frantic feeling of madness, while also being in a psychadellic trip.

Overall I can see why this film caused an uproar and how it triggers some violent people out there, but for someone who loves cinema and seeing something unabashedly bold, this movie is worthwhile. Just don't watch it on drugs or alcohol, you'll spin out.

Get ready for the future: it is murder.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 25 May 2012]

Director Oliver Stone's incredibly wild take on Quentin Tarantino's story is a candy store full of surreal images, soundtrack choices, film clips, newsreel footage, and satire. It's not going to be for every taste, as ultimately it's such an attack on the senses that it becomes a little numbing. It takes jabs at a number of aspects of pop culture, specifically the way that certain media types conduct themselves, how they and the public make celebrities out of criminals, and the utter fascination held for certain crazed individuals. Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis have two of the best roles of their careers as Mickey and Mallory, two lovers, each coming from traumatic backgrounds, who fatefully meet and celebrate their union by going on a spree of mass murder. Robert Downey, Jr. is Wayne Gale, the tabloid journalist with a sensational TV program who's determined to capitalize on their infamy. Tom Sizemore and Tommy Lee Jones contribute truly over the top supporting performances, and many familiar faces appear in roles both big and small. Stone experiments with all sorts of styles and goes for dutch angles at many different points, but there are times when the weirdness is reigned in somewhat and the story becomes more straightforward. Still, things get cranked up to a high level for the climactic prison riot, of which Mickey and Mallory take full advantage. Perhaps the oddest moment in the whole thing is the way that Mallory's demented home life is presented in the style of a sitcom, laugh track and everything, with none other than Rodney Dangerfield as her ultra creepy dad. (Director Stone's son Sean plays Mallory's brother in this sequence.) The tone is set right up front as Mickey and Mallory raise Hell in a diner and things stay, let's say, *interesting*, for about two hours. Particularly potent is the jail house interview with Mickey and Wayne, modelled after the Geraldo Rivera / Charles Manson interview. Of course, this also works as a love story - a thoroughly unconventional one - but a love story just the same, and after all the digs the movie takes at various subjects, it doesn't go for a safe, Hollywood style resolution. There are no "good" or purely "bad" characters here; everybody's got their flaws in this story. Continuing the tradition of law breaking lovers also portrayed in films such as "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Badlands", "Natural Born Killers" is definitely something one doesn't just watch but experience. And when it's all over, it's not something easily forgotten. Seven out of 10.

A frenzied, manic, bloody orchestration of piercing sounds and astonishing images...

[galileo3 · 4/10 · 30 December 2007]

NATURAL BORN KILLERS (1994)

Cinema Cut: R

Director's Cut: NC-17

It's an unusual Oliver Stone picture, but when I read he was on drugs during the filming, I needed no further explanation. 'Natural Born Killers' is a risky, mad, all out film-making that we do not get very often; strange, psychotic, artistic pictures.

'Natural Born Killers' is basically the story of how two mass killers were popularised and glorified by the media; there is a great scene where an interviewer questions some teenagers about Mickey and Mallory, and the teenager says 'Murder is wrong.... but If I was a mass murderer I'd be Mickey and Mallory'. Mickey describes this with a situation of 'Frankenstein (the monster) and Dr. Frankenstein' - Dr. Frankenstein is the media who has turned them into these monstrous killers

Most Oliver Stone films examine the flaws of the America, the country that the director loves and admires. I guess 'Natural Born Killers' is about the effect of mass media, technology and how obsessive as a nation, Americans are (and most of the world) over things such as mass killers and bizarre situations.

The killers played by Woody Harrelson (Mickey) and Juliette Lewis (Mallory) are executed astonishingly by two excellent actors who step into the lives of two interestingly brutal killers. Mickey and Mallory believe that some people are worthy of killing, perhaps in the cruel theory of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) - Mickey says in his interview in prison, that other species commit murder, we as humans ravage other species and exploit the environment; the script is interesting, but it is questionable how much this film amounts to, in the sense of making us think about society and human behaviour, rather than the intensity of a 2 hour bloodbath that we have seen.

The last hour of the film takes place in a maximum security prison; we see the harsh realities of prison life; the attitudes of the warden etc;overfilling of prisons - maybe Stone is questioning the future, the path that society is leading to.

Two other interesting characters; First, a reporter who runs a show about 'America's Maniacs' and is obsessed with boosting ratings, that he goes to any length to capture the story of Mickey and Mallory. The other is police officer Scagnetti, an insane, perhaps sadistic officer that is in love with Mallory - he also has some weird obsession with mass killers, since his mother was killed during the massacre at Waco, Texas by Charles Whitman.

The cinematography is superb; different colours, shadows, styles create a feeling of disorientation; the green colour most evident of all is green, to resemble the sickness of the killers (in the drugstore when they are looking for rattlesnake antidote).

The camera work is insane; shaky, buzzy, it takes some determination to get use to it and accept it. Highly unorthodox, psychedelic and unusual.

'Natural Born Killers' does not glamourise the existence of insane murderers, it questions it and how we as the public may fuel this attribute...

Although the above review sound quite positive, I did dislike the film. Quentin Tarantino, who originally wrote the script for the film, was not pleased with the altered screenplay and he asked for his name to be removed. I can see why. While mildly interesting at times, Natural Born Killers is a mess of a picture.

4/10