Originally titled "Thrill Killers" about a newlywed couple so madly in love with each other that they go on a murder spree, this movie is the second feature film to be written, but not directed by QT. However, director Oliver Stone and his screenwriters changed the script so much, turning it into a political statement and sort of a "shame on you" to the American public for its supposed gratification of stylized and graphic depictions of violence, that QT's credit was downgraded to "Story By".So, how does Oliver Stone try to chastise the movie-going public with this film? By cramming 2 hours of stylized and graphic depictions of violence in a completely obnoxious and morally devoid manner.
Of course the film was highly controversial. QT hated what they did to his script, but wished them well all the same. Coke, who allowed their logo and polar bear commercials to be used in the film, was furious. Warner Bros. was so unhappy with the film, that immediately upon contractual agreements were complete, they disavowed and removed all logos from the film. Lionsgate released the film on DVD in 2000, but Warner Bros. once again decided to be associated with it when it released the director's cut BluRay, which is said to be even more violent (the NC-17 cut of the film).
I love when films are controversial because so very seldom does the actual content of the film warrant the controversy. To all the "Catherine Did It" protestors of Basic Instinct, settle down. Just because she is bisexual and a murderer, doesn't mean the film is implying bisexuals are murderers. Same to my fellow Christians who still feel the burn form Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, easy there cowboys, the filmmaker is giving a "what if" scenario, not trying to debunk Biblical events. You don't have to agree with it, you don't have to like it, but let people decide for themselves whether to buy a ticket or click their remotes to something else.
Whoa that was a sudden digression to my anti-censorship and freedom of speech soapbox. I'm supposed to be talking about QT, but since this has so little to do with him, it's hard to stay on topic. I dislike this film, not because of its content or admittedly original/rare style, but I really don't like to be preached to cinematically.
Does it make any sense to chastise an obese person by giving them a chocolate cake? Does it make sense to say to help a problem gambler by giving them money and dropping them off at a casino? Because that's what Stone does with this film by getting all up in your face about it.
Starring: Woody Harrelson, Juliette Lewis, Tom Sizemore, Robert Downey Jr., and Tommy Lee Jones
Directed by: Oliver Stone
Budget/Gross: $34 mil / $50.3 mil
IMDB Score: 7.1/10
Tomatometer: 47% critics and 80% audiences liked it
