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


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. --


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.


This is a big, loud, colorful tragicomic and articulate satire on human society, media, politics and the most inner desire and organic need of man to destroy. There has been criticism on the high content of violence, and has been categorized as instigating, but it's actually quite obvious that it's just a satiric view of contemporary "personal success" driven society. All characters are natural born killers, not only the ones doing the actual killing. They are all shown as predators with no morals, who will do anything to achieve their goals. The movie will take you flying, smash your brains and feast your eyes..., it will feed your senses, it will make you love it and hate it. Combining the brilliant early writing skills of Tarantino, Oliver Stone's addiction to violence with the brilliant performance of Woody Harrelson, Juliette Lewis, and all the supporting cast(Rodney Dangerfield, Robert Downey Jr, Tom Sizemore and Tommy Lee Jones). Fantastic soundtrack and graphics. It's THE eye opener. The ultimate 90's movie.

It's a ride!


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


Natural Born Killers (1994) is by far one of the best films ever made. Written by Quentin Tarantino and directed by Oliver Stone, this controversial film still to this day remains infamous for it's message and the extreme graphic violence. But that shouldn't stray you away from watching it. It actually has an interesting love story in the center of all the carnage. The story:

The film opens at a dinner in the middle of nowhere. Mickey (Woody Harrelson) and Mallory (Juliette Lewis) Knox are relaxing there with six other people. Well, it doesn't take long before they kill everybody except one person, whose mission is to tell everybody that Mickey and Mallory Knox did it. Cue the opening credits. From here on out we are thrust into the Knox's world. They soon become notorious for their killings, with a body count of about 52. This catches the attention of an ultra-sleazy Wayne Gale (Robert Downey Jr.), a reporter for the show "American Maniacs". Finally, Mickey and Mallory are caught and sent to prison under the supervision of warden McClusky (Tommy Lee Jones) and psychotic Detective Scagnetti (Tom Sizemore). But the film doesn't end there. The ultimate climax includes an interview with Mickey gone horribly wrong and a massive prison riot.

Natural Born Killers created a giant ripple throughout Hollywood for a lot of reasons, especially the film's violence. Now I must admit, even though the violence is brutal and gory, the filmmakers don't glamorize it. As a matter of fact, I give a standing ovation to Oliver Stone for showing violence in all of it's ugliness. I'm sick of seeing people in other films getting shot and showing very little, if any, blood. When you get shot or tortured, it not only hurts but it gets quite bloody. At least Natural Born Killers shows it unflinchingly.

The story, amongst all of the mayhem, manages to tell a touching love story between Mickey and Mallory. These two are only killing because it's what they grew up with. They had very messed up childhoods and they lashed out in the only way they knew: violence. Amidst all of the pain and suffering, they found love with each other. And their love isn't just a one night stand type of "love". No, their love is the kind that lasts forever, where love can overcome anything. This is why the ending is gory yet touching at the same time.

The acting is top notch. Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis both should have received awards for their performances. Only real actors do something out of the ordinary and take a risk with a role. That's why teeny-bopper movies are all pointless and stupid: because the audience has already seen the same actor(s) do the same performances. Harrelson and Lewis capture the essence of Mickey and Mallory expertly. It's great to see actors display such a wide range of emotions: fear, love, hate, violent, isolated, depressed, e.t.c... All the other actors perfectly play their characters with enough reality to turn in believable performances. You know, throughout the film I always thought that Mickey and Mallory were the only sane people. Everybody else around them were just psychos and nutcases. When I first saw Natural Born Killers, I thought there was something wrong with the movie because of the editing. But after I figured out it was all part of the movie, I became convinced that NBK is in fact, a masterpiece. The film changes narratives from black and white to documentary to animation to surrealistic. With each different narrative, the viewer sees the characters for who they really are or what they are really thinking. It's great.

If you can, see Natural Born Killers in it's full entirety with the director's cut DVD. It will add more depth to the story and characters. Everybody should see this movie: it's a classic. I give Natural Born Killers a full 10 out of 10.


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 outrageddisgusted 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 Knoxthe glorified killersget 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 coreand 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 zombiesthe 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


*Spoilers* Some people claim that Natural Born Killers is brilliant criticism of the media obsession with violence. But this contention ignores the actual content of the film. Oliver Stone could have shown his serial killers as vicious, inhuman murderers of innocent people and contrasted this with a morbid media fascination. Instead he lends them justification. The movie portrays just about every victim as someone who deserved to be hurt. Engaging in vicious stereotyping, Stone presents the victims as unpleasant caricatures - dumb rednecks, broken-English speaking immigrants, lazy fat people. The one person that the homicidal lovebirds is also a stereotype. Of course they befriend the old, hallucinogen-using American-Indian - because they're trendy, dude? Let's make him an admirable character. Fat, Chinese clerks and "hicks" are uncool, so let's make it seem like the deserve to die. Instead of twisted,hateful that are corrupted by their misdeeds, their rampage makes them happier and more in love. Mickey and Mallory are made sexy and cool and surreal visuals are bound to entice more impressionable people. Justice is mocked. The police and prison officials are portrayed as brutal, ugly and scowling compared to the GQ murderers. Again, this is not in the media reports within the film but in the "reality" in the film. There is no nuance or subtlety in the film - just overblown performances and visuals. The film says nothing new or specific about the obsession with violence. The proof that the film fails in its message lies in actual real world reactions to it. Some impressionable young people who saw this movie cited it as inspiration for murders that they committed. The film's "message" is a failure because it inspires people in the opposite direction with horrendous real-life results. The clever message is nowhere to be seen.


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.


Absolutely great film, one of the best I have ever seen. Great director, great actors, great story, great music. But it s not film for everyone, as you can see in the rating. Lot of people gave it 10 or 9, but also lot of people gave it 1,2 or 3. One of the most controversial films ever, but everyone i have told about it, said it was super. It is a love story, it is action film, it is drama it is everything. Tommy Lee Jones stars like never before and Woody Harrelson with Juliette Lewis are also super. It s a film about violence, but against violence and it has a lot of hidden messages, so you must see it more times to understand it all. Personally i have seen it three times and it s not a final number.


fine, i was wrong, i admit it. in fall of 1994 i went to the theater and sat thru several hours of what i believed at the time was complete nonsensical garbage. the initial impression made by 'natural born killers' was one of overkill...literally. several years later i had the chance to revisit this film with the directors edition, what a difference it was. i still do not know whether it was seeing the entire movie as stone envisioned it, or if it had to do with seeing the nineties play out as a decade obsessed with celebrity, prizing infamy over fame. it was hard for me to come to terms with juliette lewis's style of acting. one has to admit that she is unlike any other to come before, or will probably come after. it is the same intensity that she brings to every role that makes her a star, and an annoyance when in the wrong mindset.


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


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!


God, what an awful thing ! Oliver Stone probably wanted to experiment or something (see the terrible use of music and pictures here) but what for really ? The whole thing behind "Natural born killers" seems to be a "clever" look at how medias can turn into complete trash but unfortunately the movie turns into trash itself. Please Mr. Stone, next time you want to criticize the fascism of tv shows using violence to get high rates, avoid doing the same with your movie ! Michael Haneke said quite cleverly about this film that it was denouncing media fascism with fascist cinematographic ways. How true... Only he forgot to tell us about the massive headache you get after sitting through this overlong load of crap !


This is the kind of film that everyone involved with should be embarrassed over. Poor directing, over the top acting and a plot that rambles on with no point other than to show violence. I thought when I first saw it that it would be perhaps a satire of the media and how it shows violence but it's not. I'm not sure what makes the film worse. Oliver stone does his worst directing ever. From scenes where Woody Harrelson's face morphs for no reason or Robert Downey Jr's dreadful performance as Wayne Gale who is a reporter who seems totally bonkers, this movie is simply a mess.


When Olivier Stone is dead and gone.When his films have been long buried somewhere in the forgotten vaults of history...one 3 minute film clip from all of Stone's work will stand tall,like a giant Redwood. What is this film clip ? The film clip of Leonard Cohen singing the words to the song FUTURE as the credits roll by...." GIVE ME CRACK AND ANAL SEX,TAKE THE TREE THAT'S LEFT,STUFF IT UP YOUR CULTURE,GIVE ME BACK THE BERLIN WALL,GIVE ME STALIN AND ST. PAUL,I'VE SEEN THE FUTURE,BROTHER,IT IS MURDER...." This segment may mark the end of the film,but will live forever.The movie dissolves into Cohen's lyrics and the lyrics dissolve into the black abyss. And you have found the song to play as you cut your wrists.


They don't make movies like this one anymore.

Simple concept: two people with messed up childhoods fall in love and go on a killing spree.

However, with great imagery and styles used to execute many of the scenes, Natural Born Killers stands out quite a bit.

The great performances were one reason this movie did so well. The soft-spoken, poetic, bi-polar psycho Mickey Knox was expertly played by Woody Harrelson. Juliette Lewis went all out here playing Mallory, the traumatized, angry lover of Mickey. Robert Downey Jr. gave one of his best performances here as Wayne Gale, the Australian news-reporter who blows the Knox's killing spree way out of proportion. Tommy Lee Jones gave an award-winning show as Warden McClusky, the bi-polar, crazy, eccentric prison warden. Tom Sizemore was very good as Detective Jack Scagnetti, the crazy Detective who chases after the Knox's.Rodney Dangerfield really helped steal the show as Ed Wilson, Mallory's drunken abusive father. Russell Means was very well cast as the Old Indian who helps Mickey and Mallory. There were also a lot of great side-performances by Dale Dye, Lanny Flaherty, Steven Wright, Richard Lineback, Kirk Baltz, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Edie McClurg, Sean Stone, Everett Quinton, Arliss Howard, and O-Lan Jones.

The camera-work was especially good and nauseating at the same time, just how it seems to have meant to be.

The music score was very well put together as well.

All of these elements made this movie very enjoyable, unfortunately I felt the plot was pretty thin. However, that didn't stop me from enjoying this.

8/10


Been meaning to give this one a watch for a while. Thank god i got round to it!.

It has to be one of the most unique and amazing films i've seen.

First thing you notice about this film is it's not like what you've seen before.

The way it's shot you is fantastic. It's so cool and slick you would honestly not believe it was an "older" film. It could easily be pulled off as something that came out last year. It has stood the test of time better than many other films ever do.

The story is what makes this film great. It's outstanding it's so interesting and often sick?! and at the same time twisted. It's not a film of beauty in anyway it's ugly and twisted but that is what it does so well you can't help but fall in love with the film and the characters involved.

The story is pulled off that well that i actually thought it was based on a true story until i found later it wasn't. Stupid me but it is pulled off and written so well i guess it shows.

With phenomenal performances from Woody and Juliette. I don't think i've ever seen characters come to life on screen like i did in this.

It's not Juliette and Woody your seeing it's Mickey and Mallory! It's a great film that i think anyone with a good taste for films will love.

Also look out for great character acting from both Tommy Lee Jones & Robert Downey JR (Playing a Australian documentary interviewer).

And come on 7/10? what the hell is going on there. Top 250 worthy to say the least!.

8/10


Sensory overload is what came to my mind after watching Oliver Stone's 'Natural Born Killers'. With psychedelic, subliminal visuals and a soundtrack that shifts gears from scene to scene till the credits finally roll--it's an unrelenting barrage of images and sounds that certainly makes an impression. But as Mickey (Woody Harrelson playing a serial killer on the run) says towards the end of the movie when he is getting ready to shoot Wayne Gale (Robert Downey Jr. as a manic journalist) 'Killing you and what you represent is a kind of statement--I'm not 100% sure what it is'. After the influx of sensory overload, what exactly is Stone trying to say? We are not sure, I guess. And neither is Stone--even now he's still having trouble defending his film. But not everything is bad, however, since the innovative visualization--that of mixing various formats, be it 35mm, 16mm, 8mm and even standard NTSC video--has left us with a visually and aurally interesting piece that can be appreciated again and again. And really, that's what keeps me coming back to this film. About it's content, I'm not sure. Some have even said it is an immoral film--including the director's ex-wife. John Grisham--the famous author--even took to court against the film since it spawned some copy-cat murders. But there's no doubt that it's a film that you cannot ignore, and has firmly cemented it's place as one of the most notorious films in history (Premiere placed it in their list of the '25 Most Dangerous Films Of All Time'). See it if you appreciate cinema, but if you're looking for a message you'll be hard-pressed to find something coherent here.


... and it focus on the mainstream manipulation. The Manipulation Of Mass Media.

Society today isn't ready to see this kind of stuff, this kind of movie, this kind of reality. I have to say the movie surprised me, in the good way, of course. Instead, on one hand the movie sucked, but on the other hand it was like one of the most important movies of all times! From Oliver Stone, master of controversial films, there is a piece of cinema which some of us may call crap or others call it art!

Your choice.

The movie tells us about two psychotic lovers, who kill everyone in their way just to strength their love for each other. As the movie grows, their passion grows too. They were sent to prison, they were ready to be sent to a psychiatric asylum, but... the main theme of this film get ready to action: the media. The media get in the way of this two killers, trying to manipulate people to like them and to earn money by making them superstars.

A controversial movie which may be sadistic to everyone; or masterpiece to other ones.

Enjoy it if you can!


I think it is a violent movie and if there is any controversy with this movie it was invented by the media because it makes them look really bad. Hell the end of the movie they blatantly says we need to kill what you represent. I don't know why the media would promote this movie. It would have been dumb to do so. I liked the movie. I thought it was well done. I had to watch it twice to get some of the symbolism and camera work, but I think I get a lot of it. I think the two tools that stone used here was both based on the American attention span. The first was through channel flipping and then projecting multiple things on screen and not being able to focus on just one thing. I think it was clever and it brought into the movie that relationship with media with the viewer and did not just make it a movie where the blame the media. I really thought there was some amazing performances there and I loved Tommy Lee Jones over the top warden. Robert Downy is still up in the air whether I think he is a good actor or not. I need to see more movies of his before I can decide. I think the dialog when they actually stopped to do it very nicely written and well executed. I like how there was no mistaking the heroes and the villains in this. The whole time I was cheering for Mickey and Mallory and I think the director did a good job of making the viewer drawn to them and what they stood for. Il liked the soundtrack a lot and the use of any Rage against the Machine with Leonard Cohen in the same movie is something to be respected. I was reading some of things that IMDb considers mistakes and it was obvious that they did not get it. I am not saying that this is the best movie ever and some of scenes were really well done and as a whole movie experience it was a great vision, but as a whole the movie was a little too over the top. I realize that it was supposed to be, but I think the message would have been a little more effectiveif it was not o over the top. My favorite scene in the whole movie wasthe Roger Dangerfield scene where it was set up like a sitcom. I am all about a message, but for me it was made over and over again and I think it might have been interesting if one could have seen some of the scenes play out in a more realistic fashion.


Rated R for Strong Graphic Violence,Language and Sexual Content.

Natural Born Killers is a very violent and controversial film.The two Columbine school shooters were said to have have watched this film over and over again.Its a very violent film and not recommended for children who cannot handle this type of material.I am 15 now and I saw this film when I was 13.It didn't affect me in any way.I play plenty of violent video games and watch violent movies and they don't make me want to kill anybody.This is because I can separate fantasy from reality.Anyway that was my rant...now on to the film review.Natural Born Killers is an underrated and excellent movie.Im surprised its only 6.8, I think it should be in IMDb's Top 250.The performances in this film are great.Woody Harleson the actor who played Mickey Knox ironically had a father who was a hit-man.Anyway the story is great as it shows how the media portrays murderers.The film basically shows the life of Mickey and Malloryy knox.In a comedic "I Love Lucy" spoof, you see Mallory's life at home with her abusive father.Mickey is a butcher who delivers meat and delivers it one day to Mallory's home.The two both led disturbing lives and basically they kill Mallory's family and start going on killing spree's.After a while, they get caught and go to prison while a reporter wants to do an interview with Mickey.A prison riot breaks out and basically they are set free.A cool aspect about this film is sometimes during the violent scenes of the film, you see some trippy images.Natural Born Killers is a great film worth watching for anyone who can handle it.


I'm pretty sure, many who reviewed this movie here, have used this summary line. It's just the fact that it is true. It seems that most people can only love or hate this movie. They can not be indifferent about it though ... Which is of course something that suits Mr. Stone better than a "the movie is OK" statement. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't like that!

And as much as he wouldn't like that, the same bitterness (or maybe hatred) is coming from Quentin Tarantino. He absolutely loathes what Oliver Stone has done with his material (original script is by Tarantino). Although I can't say, what a more accurately Tarantino script would have looked like as movie, I can say that I do like what Stone did. I'm more than satisfied with his interpretation and re-imagining of Tarantino's original draft!

For some it might be too violent, for some too crazy (some shots just seem ... out of this world, which is of course the point). The colour palette Stone uses is also incredible (especially the green tone for certain emotional charged scenes, because green represents something in the movie ... when you watch it you will figure it out), but he was also experimenting a lot with this film. He used different cameras, different lenses, different formats ... anything he could get his hands on that would produce "film".

This paragraph sees a comparison with another movie, if you don't want to read this, just skip it! Many have compared it to Bonnie & Clyde, but for me there are more parallels to the Terence Malick movie Badlands to be found here!

And of course his experiment was incredible successful (I'm not saying that you will like it, but that was what Stone was aiming for!)


Yeah, hard to sympathize with any 'mass-killers'---yet Mr. Stone strikes a true blow vs. the USA's continuing personality of same. When 'Mickey' explains 'We all have a Demon', best remember he is speaking as an American, not an Amsterdam 'hippy', Canadian, current German (they learned), rather as a member of a 'mass-societal-killer', political 'mob'---who simply reflects his heritage.

Are 'Mickey and Mallory' as 'guilty' as our present, past Presidents, illegally slaughtering millions? Not by a long-shot---as guilty as our 'Big-Pharma'? Nope. Our 'cig-industry'? Nope. The potential mass-extinction, of humanity, via the Green-House? Nope. Small change, simply portraying 'victims' of a dangerous-laden criminal society---that is the core of this work. Bravo! Now some of you don't 'get-it'--2,000,000 wasted Phillipinoes, before and after they helped stop the Japanese invaders? 3,000,000 Indo-Chinese, after violating The Geneva Convention's lawful ruling--Nixon destabilizing Cambodia, leading to Pol Pot's 'killing-fields? The millions of Native Americans? Who knows how many Central, South American's murdered? Who of you knows, my father was a principal maker of the Nagasaki bomb, he told me, 'We saved those two Jap cities, as they were flat, no military significance, but 'the Brass', fearing Field Marshall Zhukov's troops would take all Europe, needed to both test the bomb-efficacy--and stop the Russkies. Sad, but true--Zhukov would have torn the other allies apart. That is why we waited for invasion, 'till Normandy--not to save Europe from Hitler, Russians did that, but to get men there to counter them--'the bomb' settled that deal---a nation of 'Natural Born Killers'---don't blame Mickey & Malloray--simply a product of a murderous history---did the Canadians need a Revolution? Nope--wake-up America, or else---that makes this movie great--just don't have a cop in your audience.


I just love the film Natural Born Killers. I reckon Oliver Stones managed to thrill me once again with his work as he is unafraid to expose what some might say "explicit images". I feel he does this with reason behind his work and truly make you think by the end of the film. The casting is brilliant in my opinion as the actors and actress's, i feel, really capture the events and feelings in the film.

I decided to do my film essay on this film as it contain so much detail and things for me to speak about in the essay.Many people i have spoken to about this film don't like it and say it's just mindless violence. I think this is rubbish and they haven't obviously gained the full perspective of what the film is trying to present and obviously don't understand Satire. I have no problem with people disliking to film but i dislike it when people comment on the film as just being mindless violence and not giving the film it's chance to show it's potential. A lot of the film is about love and the struggle of relationships which i'm sure many can relate to. I believe Quentin Tarantino managed once again to create a fantastic story.


Despite being gruesome and gory (and not for the faint hearted) this movie is a political piece of art and a beautiful representation of love. Give or take slight exaggeration, it portrays a clear example of the media's influences of mindless western masses to an immoral act that the majority of human instinct should be able to over power. I do believe killing is a natural animal instinct that as an evolutionary species, most humans should be able to distinguish as wrong. Yet when these 'natural born killers' create these anomalies of the human being, through media their faults can be praised and cheered, as the decreasing presence of morals, values and individuality of western society become history. But maybe all is not lost in western society. It is uplifting to see a couple truly devoted to each other. However, as this film appears slightly exaggerated in some respects, maybe by removing the rose tinted glasses, it would end in divorce.


The more I watch this movie, the more I love it. It's a gift of a genius who proves how easily Literature and Cinema can be mixed in a powerful way. Although is short and barely commercial, is a gem, a masterpiece of colour, rythm, music and words. The lasts shots, are simply magic.


Initially, this film might seem dismayingly disappointing. Based on an Isak Dinesen novel, it appears not to transcend its literary origins. Narrative and dialogue are quoted verbatim (and often mumbled or too fast) to accompanying pictures. The pacing is very slow for a Welles film, with little of his trademark, disruptive editing. The symbolism seems literary, rather than cinematic.

And yet the film is, under this surface, recognisably Wellesian - the old man who has amassed great wealth at the expense of an emotional life, who seeks to control others; the use of storytelling as a metaphor; the idea of the author as a repressive God, who makes his characters conform to his will; the subsequent destruction of the author who uses his power to repress, not express, or create, who does not realise that making a story 'real', in the fatuous hope for immortality, can only mean that the author becomes superfluous; the loyal assistant/friend whose life has been emotionally deadened by the need to serve (and suppress moral qualms about) the great man; the tone of the film, nocturnal, quiet, still, cicadas resounding, suffused with sterility and death.

Even the look of the film, seemingly precious and over-formal, is quietly Wellesian (no, not an oxymoron!) - the use of locale as a private labyrinth (there is very little of the Orient here, in spite of attempts at local colour - its anguish is very European and decadent); the idea of the dark, fettered house as a figure for the mind or the soul; the use of found locations, especially old buildings, suggesting older, better, nobler days, also irremovable reminders of decline; the restrained bursts of disruptive editing in the elegant design; the deep-focus long-shots form distorted angles, revealing characters to be mere pawns, geometric shapes in a total, hostile design; the idea of the film being the final dream of a dying man. There is also, in Welles' first non-black-and-white film, a gorgeous use of deep colours.

The thrust of the film remains too literary to be a total success, but it is exquisitely beautiful and mournful. All three characters are locked in typical Wellesian solipsism, all are alone, creating myths and stories to cover up the truth of their own failure to shore against the ruins. The thwarted possibility of escape only makes the entrapment all the more suffocating. And yet, there is an otherworldly quality to the central bedroom sequence, aided by Jeanne Moreau's astonishing performance, that raises the film into the realm of the magical. The rarefied atmosphere of the film is thus entirely appropriate.


If it weren't for The Immortal Story popping up once on TCM and by chance getting to tape it, I'm not sure if I would ever see the Immortal Story due to its lack of circulation. Not too ironic, or a coincidence more likely, to what the film is about. In line with a couple of Welles's other works like Mr. Arkadin and F For Fake, The Immortal Story is about storytelling, or how extraordinary things that happen are sometimes less so when taken into account for what's really underneath them- the person telling it, or being told it, and if it really makes sense or sounds like it isn't b.s. Welles's character Mr. Clay, taken from a novel by Isak Denison, probably doesn't have any good stories to tell, and more than likely doesn't like hearing them. "I don't like pretense, and I don't like prophecy. I want facts," he says to his butler/servant Levinsky (Robert Croggio), and after so much time hearing his company's accounts and finances- a very empty task for a codger like Clay to hear- he decides on something that might get the juices going in his head, to make real a story that's been told many many times, about the sailor getting paid by some rich man to sleep with his wife. It isn't 'Indecent Proposal', however, as Moreau's character happens to be in her own was as notorious as Clay, and has a history of sorts with Clay and her family.

Matter of fact, the main thrust of Immortal Story is that stories are never fool-proof, and that's what makes them interesting/fun to those who hear them for years and years; it can't *really* happen, otherwise there's a falsity that defeats the whole purpose of it being spontaneous. So, a lot ends up being more fascinating for what is in the subtext this time, even if I still loved looking at Welles's direction, which is always an incredible feat of ingenuity, not to mention here when it's mostly talking heads. He uses color very well here, too, as it's his first time using shades of brown and gray for the Macao town parts, little flourishes of color that become darkened when around Clay, and the characters of Virginie (Moreau) and the Sailor (Norman Eshley) who compared to Clay are vibrant in appearance. Much of the dialog is exquisite and unlike in some of Welles's other works not exactly dense and rapid-fire in taking it all in. There's even an elegiac tone going on here, as Clay is far from a Kane or Sheriff in Touch of Evil- he's dying, really, or at least mad, and there's a loneliness to his 'what-I-say-will-be-done' manner of speaking to his servant. Welles taps into that completely, even if it takes a little getting used to over the hour-long running time.

The other actors are hit or miss, however, with Moreau being the clear top choice in this field. With still some of those same melancholy beats she had when she appeared in French New Wave pictures, she taps into Virgine as someone who's more complex (albeit in small part my plot convenience, oddly enough) than someone like Clay would've thought in his factual-type realm. The facts for her make things awful to bear, even under payment, and Moreau also gets to reveal a deep level of sexuality that gives Welles another challenge never done before for him- how to handle a sex scene (this includes a great exchange of dialog between Virgine and Paul about an earthquake). The men, however, are a little more shaky. Coggio isn't bad as Levinsky, but by nature of his character he has to be a stiff kind of guy, and sometimes it works well (his reaction to Clay's demand to re-enact this 'story' is very good), and sometimes not (his delivery of the lines, which aren't well-written, at the very end is unbelievable). I also found Eshly to be like an extra Welles might've picked up from Fellini's production of Satyricon with the pretty-boy men, this time with an awkward English accent. Only when looking at him under the surface did things seem a little intriguing, but on the surface ineffectual.

But for the patient Welles fan- yes, patient even at 62 minutes- The Immortal Story puts another good notch on the filmmaker/actor's club of of work. It deals with a subject that I could think and rouse about for hours, about what it is to live a life where things aren't predictable, or when things are mandated and put in rigid structure what it means to want to find why a story isn't made true or not. Why does Clay want the story to be real, and for only one person to say that it's for real or not? The final revelation from the sailor, of course, brilliantly contradicts everything that came before. Facts (or rather, the usual exposition), of course, aren't usually the best parts of any story, as any filmmaker can tell you.


If you looking for action here or, if aware of the plot outline, expect a bit of soft porn, you will be disappointed. "The Immortal Story" is more of a visual and acoustic painting than a narrative. Especially since, according to another commentator, this was actor-director Welles' first venture into colour, he has used the unaccustomed medium masterfully both in his interiors and exteriors, and with the addition of the strident and insistent cicadas and refreshing dawn chorus has rendered the subtropical oriental night and its golden dawn beautifully realistic.

The Orson Welles' character, Charles Clay, a powerful expatriate merchant established in Macao, approaching seventy and dying from gout, is like a motionless fat spider in the centre of his web who controls everything and everybody within his range. As a control -freak he even wishes to make factual a much told sailors' yarn about a couple manipulated through bribes and some coercion to go to bed together. He is obsessed with this story but cannot stand fiction, (he rails at his personal assistant, the Jew Lewinsky, against the biblical prophecies he reads to his master). Facts he already controls, fiction must also come under his sway.

The enforced but, from the point of view of both the bully Clay and his victims, successful liaison between Jeanne Moreau and the young Danish sailor (satisfactorily played by an obscure British actor), the latter losing his virginity in this encounter, is tasteful, beautiful and not in the least prurient. That is except for the D.O.M. (écouteur?)listening at the keyhole, whose nocturnal presence we, however, spontaneously forget about. The couple appear to fall in love under these strange circumstances, though future relations seem to be highly doubtful. Just a couple of points bother me here: when the sailor tells Moreau (whose character's name is significantly but inappropriately Virginie) that he is 17 and is informed by her that she also is 17, it is quite evident that both, and especially Mlle. Moreau, are much older Maybe we are to assume that she lied to the ingenuous young man in order not to spoil the idyllic illusion of love-at-first-sight. The other point worrying me is why the attentive Chinese servants, besides feeding him, neglect to give the young man a good bath as well, especially as he had refrained from entering Clay's open carriage explaining that he was covered in tar and would soil the upholstery. And so he enters the nuptial chamber in his original torn and filthy clothes. Who knows, perhaps a whiff of tar has aphrodisiac properties...

Lewinsky the down-trodden but still spunky assistant/companion to Clay is well played by Roger Coggio. A Jew - Moreau calls him "the wandering Jew" - he has lost his parents in an Eastern European pogrom, and is inured to the blows of fate, and politely imperturbable when upbraided by his imperious master or slapped in the face by an outraged Moreau.

Fernando Rey, for decades Spain's foremost actor, equally able to perform in French and English as well as his native tongue, is included in the cast in a cameo part merely to spread the gossip about Clay's/Welles' ruthless machinations. I suppose the French TV company who commissioned this film was able to afford his services too because the cast was so small: apart from those mentioned above, there are only a few Caucasian listeners in Rey's audience, and half-a-dozen silent Chinese menials who would have cost little to hire.

The location on which the film was shot I was unable to ascertain, but it could have been anywhere in the world where there are large elegant 19th Century European houses, the colonial Portuguese element being supplied by one company sign with the word for export in Portuguese and the Chinese by the garish signs and notices with which the street is cluttered. Perhaps it is the old quarter of Marseilles.

I saw this film for the first time yesterday on the local Spanish channel which runs a series of classics in the original language, so that I saw it in French. This meant that Welles' unmistakable resonant and commanding basso profundo, so appropriate to this rôle was dubbed by a relatively mild-mannered francophone with a much higher register. With his over-brimming culture and long European residence, it seems very likely that Welles could have managed the French dialogue himself, just as Jeanne Moreau can perform equally well in English. Maybe he didn't because he was a perfectionist, even though the character portrayed is not a native French speaker

There are just two further points I should like to make that nobody else has touched on thus far:

First, the story for the script is from the pen of Danish raconteuse Karen Blixen, magnificently portrayed by Meryl Streep in "Out of Africa", who, Sheherezade-like, beguiled her lover and his friend with her fluent and fascinating tales.

Secondly, at the end of the film, the departing Dane about to take ship presents the old man with a mother-of-pearl-like conch he had acquired during his year of solitude on a desert island, and said by him to be virtually unique. As the young man moves away with a backward glance through a wood whose floor is auspiciously tinged with brightness by the rising sun, the shining conch falls to the floor of the verandah from the dead fingers of the merchant. No equivalent of "Rosebud" is uttered, but the incident is obviously a reprise of the ending of "Citizen Kane", Welles' early black-and-white triumph.


This was Orson Welles' only film in color apart from the documentary F for Fake which he made in 1973. After this film he sadly did not get the change to write and direct more movies. As mentioned before he made one documentary in the seventies, shot sections of the movie Other Side of the Wind (never finished it), made a bunch of commercials and starred in horrible movies (apart from Catch 22). So the only great thing we have from Orson Welles as a pioneer movie director during the last 20 years of his live (he died in 1985) is Chimes of Midnight (1966) and this film which he made in 1968 for french television. This film is short and excellent. The way Orson uses color celluloid is spellbinding, i've never seen anything like it, he uses red and green colors like a painter and projects a certain eerie feeling seldom seen in cinema. The story is a typical one by Welles. A rich and powerful older man is lonesome in his mansion and only wants to be loved. For those of you who love cinema, this film is a must see by one of the greatest directors of all time. Based on a story by danish writer Karen Blixen.


Some films are very long. For instance Antonioni's "La Notte", again with Jeanne Moreau - sorry for being in love with her. Hardly anything happens in that movie. Though you can't keep your eyes out of the screen. Fascinating (to me, at least).

The producers nowadays are afraid of "zapping". Films are stroboscopic. Add zoom and tracking. Mix the three together. You have TV's "CSI: Miami". Caruso is great fun, notably because of his caricatured acting (though he plays exactly what he is supposed to play, and he does it very well - his lines are so stupid... poor actor), but such obvious manipulation in filming is off-putting. And I get bored, so bored...

"The Immortal Story" is quite a short film. But the most beautiful I have ever seen in my whole life. I could watch it again and again 'till death do us part'. People call this "movie" literary, because of (the great great) K. Blixen - I. Dinesen. It is. It is nonetheless a move of the soul, a story of tale, legend, fate, and (un)achievement. It tells us you cannot be a link of the immortal story - the chain - unless you give your life to it, and die. So always did Welles, the greatest director of all times (to me). It is all about creation: genesis, generation, transmission and... your life.


hey this is pretty good. i was sort of afraid that i wouldnt like it. i was surprised. not because Orson Welles directed, and co-starred. he's my favorite director, and actor. it's just that, well, since it was made for French television i had my doubts. but it was a good movie and i enjoyed it and the shots were very cool and it had a sort of hypnotic power in its lazy simplicity. Orson Welles was truly the greatest director of all time. he was the first director to make the camera move like a ghost, and act like a ghost. the camera acts as a character in itself, but of course, it isnt there. some directors "over direct" by imitating Welle's style; one can over direct the same way one overacts. this movie reminded me of a Bergman piece. it moved slowly, thoughtfully, coolly. it's a cool movie to mellow out to.


Director-star Orson Welles also adapted Isak Dinesen's rather pointless book about an aged millionaire recluse living in China who tells his employee of an incredible story he heard while in the service regarding a rich, dying man, his terrible wife and a sailor-stud. The employee explains that this tale is just a legend, but the millionaire aims to make it fact. The sexual implications in the narrative aren't ignored by Welles, though they are tip-toed around (probably due to the restrictions of 1968), and when Welles as the "old gentleman" finds himself the perfect boy to complete his plan, it's hard not to smirk when he calls the bottle-blonde "a fine looking sailor" and then offers him money. Who needs Jeanne Moreau when these two are hitting it off so well? ** from ****


This show can best be described as the most innovative, ground-breaking television show of the past 50 years. The reason this show is so ground breaking is the fact that it has used split screen cameras, and a real time format to create the element of a quality made show.

The show follows the worst days of likable, down-to-earth hero Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) and each episode chronicles every hour of the day, and is shot in real-time. What makes this show so unique are the character relationships, the shows writing and the attention to detail.Whether the shows themes are about kidnappings, bomb threats, personal vendettas, assassinations, or terrorist attacks the themes are handled in such a compelling way that the viewer is hooked at every jump and turn.

The viewers really learn to care about Jack as we learn more about his life and his past. Kiefer Sutherland was perfect for the role as Jack Bauer, so much that many people describe him as "born for the role". Dennis Haysbert does a superb acting job as Sen David Palmer and the show has an excellent group of characters who make the support team of the show and these include Carols Bernard as Tony and Elisha Cuthbert as Kim Bauer. A big bonus of the show is that 24 is constantly surprising viewers in unexpected moments, and you never know what to expect on the show. Anything can and does happen.

The scripts on this show are top class and they deserve a mention in their own right. The attention to detail as I mentioned earlier is prominent with the real time aspect of the show. There are very rarely any mistakes with the time aspect of the show, and this is a strength of the show. The show always uses multiple split screen camera shots and this is innovative work because it helps to make the show seem realistic and also in real time. You will also see most of the camera focused on Jacks point of view and this is to make the show from a humans point of view and it helps to bring the viewer more involved in the show.

The story may change; new characters may arrive and leave but one thing always stays the same; the underlying story of the show is about one mans fight to do what is right. If there is a bad aspect to this show it may be that some of the action sequences are a bit too predictable, but this is rare and should not detach from the viewers viewing pleasure of the show. This show will make you feel every emotion under the sun but nevertheless it is gripping, thrilling storytelling of the highest calibre. Long may this show continue and the legacy of this show will be remembered for many years to come. Miss this at your peril 10/10


Yes... I love this series. I bought it on the big DVD pack with the complete first season, because it isn't available in German television right now. Anyway, I love it because it's not only the concept which makes it thrilling, even without that real-time style it would be extremely exciting and suspenseful. Also, it stars one of my top ten favourite stars, Kiefer Sutherland, and a truckload of exceeding supporting actors. Elisha Cuthbert, Leslie Hope, Sarah Clarke, Xander Berkeley, Dennis Haysbert... I could go on forever, even the characters who die after two episodes are very convincing.

Overall one of the things you can't stop watching after you've seen five minutes of it.


The fact that so many seem to love this show makes me seriously question my faith in the American public. This show is so bad it's actually, well, just bad. The acting, the writing, the plot development, the technical details and just about everything else is bad to the point of being comical. The show should be renamed "2.5", because that's about the total of viable screen time that was stretched out into this daylong abomination.

Perhaps if the writers had thrown in another overused, Hollywood cliché, 24 could've been worse. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. They already used up all the clichés. I find it amusing that anyone was surprised by any outcome of this show when all of the supposed twists and turns wouldn't have been more obvious if they were scrolled, news-ticker style, across the bottom of the screen. Just a few snippets: 1. First, let me start off by saying that if real counterterrorism agents are half as inept as those on "24", then we're all really screwed. These guys couldn't catch a drunk first grader if he came up and bit them in the ass. Cliché is one thing. Stupid is quite another.

2. Hey, you know what would be great? If, when Jack goes to meet his CTU mentor in a darkened, deserted building, the guy got shot right before the was about to give him the key piece of "evidence". Of course, it would only be exciting if this happened right as they were about to make it to safety. Nah, that wouldn't be telegraphed, would it? 3. When Nina discovers that Mason has been keeping from Jack that his family has been attacked at the safe house, she immediately begins working the computers. Tony, seeing this due diligence, asks her if she's checking the hospitals. Tony says this is a good idea. Tony, of course, is a moron, since, raving terrorism expert that he is, should have done this hours ago. Don't blame Tony. The writers made him do it.

4. Or how 'bout when the Drazens attack the DOD prison? Gee, you think a top secret government prison would at least have enough surveillance to detect 8 foreign nationals setting up a communcations bunker 300 yards from a top secret prison? In broad daylight? 5. Of course, once inside the aforementioned prison, which is underground, presumably shielded against some form of electromagnetic radiation in order to protect communications and which is also, by the way, in the middle of freaking nowhere, it's remarkable how everyone's cell phone works.

6. I love how Jack goes six-guns-a-blazing in the last episode, nine-mil in each hand blasting away at the Drazens on the dock. Of course, as a former spec ops soldier, I'm sure he'd know that, aside from totally screwing his aim, all he was really doing was expending his ammo twice as fast. And not hitting anything while doing it. If this guy was specs ops, we're doubly screwed.

7. If it was so easy to cut the power to the prison, why the hell did they need to pay some jackass from the power company? 8. Terri Bauer deserved to get killed. Not for any plot reason, but because Leslie Hope couldn't act her way out of a paper bag. Gee, if it was my husband and kid, I might be distraught, instead of spending the entire time wandering around a secure government facility like a 12 year old on Vicodin, with a goofy smile on my face. I think the producers wrote her out so they wouldn't have to justify paying her again.

9. And speaking of Terri Bauer, wouldn't you think that the hub of the United States' West Coast counter terrorist operations would be at least secure enough to prevent a complete stranger from, you know, wandering around the joint or anything? 10. The NSA dude who got capped in the New Orleans bar: So let me get this straight, an NSA officer is hanging out in a French Quarter bar with an unsecured laptop full of classified information, as well as an encryption device to access, all the while chatting away about it on an unsecured cell phone inside a bar full of complete freaking strangers? Right...

11. Is it me, or did Dennis Hopper sound like he was Dracula from Transylvania? What's up with the accent, D? He sounds like a Marvel comic.

12. You know what would make for compelling TV? If the wife and daughter get kidnapped and all 3 spend about 3 hours of screen time reassuring each other they'll be OK. Couldn't we just accomplish this with a couple lines of dialogue and just move on? 13. What would've happened if Kim Bauer got caught sneaking out of the house? I guess the show would've only been one episode.

14. Why did Rick and Dan have to hang out with the girls in a furniture store? Wouldn't it have been more convenient just to hit them over the head and them bring them to Gaines? 15. At the safe house, why was the CTU agents assigned to guard duty sitting inside the tree trimmer of an electric company truck? What would he have done if he needed to get out quickly? Can't exactly jump down, can you? Of course, since he was trying to be discreet, I'm sure no one would've noticed a truck parked out there for hours on end, working on the same telephone pole? You know, like trained countersurveillance experts or something. On second thought, let's just make the professionals as stupid as possible, so that we can insure more episodes and, thus, greater ad revenue.

Please, do yourself a favor. If you own this DVD set, burn it immediately. You will be glad you did.


Don't buy into the hype surrounding this show. There's nothing original or interesting about it. The only thing that intrigued me was the real time gimmick, but after a few episodes you realize that the show could just as easily not be in real time for all the difference it makes.

The things that CTU does to get information and find people are repulsive. If real law enforcement agencies were to employ the torturous tactics utilized by the characters on the show whenever some crisis arose, we'd all be in trouble. Apparently it's perfectly legal to abduct people that might be involved in terrorism and torture them. It would be one thing if the show demonstrated the horror of such tactics, but these methods are glorified because it's Jack Bauer who does them. The same idiots who think Jack Bauer is their hero are the ones who belly-ache if they hear about the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay not getting soft enough pillows for their cells.

Another problem with this show is the way characters constantly relay information to each other that we, the audience, are already aware of. A clever writer could imply a relay of information between characters (for example, when one characters begins to tell another character about something that we already know, cut to something else). But "24" doesn't have clever writers, so what we're stuck with is a bulk of each episode devoted solely to unnecessary exposition.

It also seems like the writers tend to resurrect one-shot characters from previous seasons just because they want another familiar face to show up in the new season. Perfect examples are Sherry Palmer and Kim Bauer. The only purpose Kim had in the first season was to be kidnapped and serve as the bad guy's bargaining chip against Jack. After season 1, her purpose was over. The writers should have written her out and explained that she was going to college. But Elisha Cuthbert was apparently too good-looking to be excluded from the second season, and as a result we have an uninteresting and unrelated sub-plot involving Kim Bauer getting chased by an abusive father and a mountain lion.

And another thing: what's with the robotic, wooden acting? This show is so busy being suspenseful that it forgot to inject a little humanity into it. Real people don't stand around and scowl, or constantly act serious about everything and only say things that have to do with work. This show needs a little humor -- nothing over the top, just maybe have a character make a wise crack every now and then or even (*gasp*) smile. So far, the only actor who isn't so caught up in the ridiculously contrived tension that he forgets to chuckle or make dry comments is Xander Berkeley, a wonderful character actor whose very human character George Mason is my favorite.

Bottom line, the show is badly written and poorly acted. The real time gimmick is the only thing that differentiates this from any number of soap operatic TV dramas, and even that doesn't hold up after a matter of episodes. Don't buy into the hype -- avoid at all costs.


My friends have raved about 24 for a few years now, and I never caught any of the episodes on Sky ( cable ) to really comment on it.

However, a friend lent me the first season box set last week, and I started watching....up to the "13th hour", so I have tried my best to give it a chance, when I actually exclaimed, "enough"! this is so bad! It's like a serious, but still funny version of the A team; "American Idoled up" with adolescent heart throbs from E.R. / "Six Feet Under" / central casting.

Here's why....

That annoying noise as the clock counts down, then two seconds of black screen, before that annoying noise again with a split screen.

Blow up a Jumbo ( 747 ) and HALO out of it to steal some photographers security pass? ( having mile high membership too - cool!) "Lets party" said the central casting pretty boys, oh how I cringed when Ray? Roy? Rick? started dancing on a furniture store table! Okay so your speed dialler is really fast ( and loud ) Apparently unlimited battery life too.

If you are hiding a "cell phone" in the rafters, and a bad guy is looking for it, do you A) look up at it? or B) look at the floor? or C) Look really guilty and shifty, and then, look up at it? Your Mother can navigate in unfamiliar terrain using downloaded satellite imagery on an unfamiliar Palm Pilot, but the bad guy in charge of running the show, misses every time with his sniper rifle.

You never swear, except for "ass".

Ask a stupid question? Believe every lie; ( Q )"Are you a double agent"? ( A ) "No" - "Okay here's the secret codes then"! Okay bored now, but you get the idea? When 24 grows up, it wants to be CSI ( don't get me started on why that sucks too )


This is the most creative, intelligent, well-written, unpredictable, and suspenseful program that I have ever seen, and this is coming from a man who watches a lot of television.

Throughout its four seasons, 24 provides a cliff hanger at the end of most episodes to keep you attached and has provided some of the most unpredictable twists that I have ever seen, including the ultimate shocker at the end of the first season (which I won't go into because somebody may read this before watching the first season).

As far as acting goes, there isn't a weak-link on the show. Kiefer Sutherland leads a cast of exceptionally impressive and compelling actors/actresses that make the show great week after week.

I would strongly recommend that if you do not already watch 24, start now because you're really missing out.


Now I've watched all of the first two seasons, half of the third and the first four of the sixth, I figure I should write a short comment.

24 can be a very good show but many of the problems that have been there from the start haven't been resolved. Here are seven of the most irritating.

1) When minor characters are introduced, you wonder when they'll be killed or written out. One notable example is the anthrax scare in either Season Two or Three. The kid who is supposedly carrying the virus and his family take up a lot of screen time while it advances the main plot, but then they are written out and never mentioned again. In the end you don't really care about any minor role, and when minor characters are filling up a significant proportion of the screen time you have a problem.

2) It becomes tiresome to see the incompetence of the CTU team. If they're not having endless trouble with double agents of one kind or another, they're bickering and being insubordinate like children. Even in Season Six they have this problem. Milo and the bald man with the British accent, being broken up from fighting by Chloe. Completely unprofessional especially for a supposed national agency. It's surprising they can get anything done.

3) It seems that too often when Jack Bauer breaks with procedure people go on as normal. Rarely is it mentioned that his unorthodox methods of working could jeopardise everything; the team just goes with it. And it's also very convenient that Jack always knows the president and/or some of the cabinet on informal terms, so they'll give him some leeway.

4) Occasionally I get the feeling that the series is some form of propaganda. The villains always seem to be Serbian, or Iraqi, or from other Middle Eastern territories. Even in Season Six where Bauer starts working with someone of this origin, it is not before we are filled in that he was once a terrorist himself. Also in that season, the character Ahmed is saved by an American man only to betray him later, by taking him and his family hostage. To me this seems to promote the idea that your Middle Eastern neighbours can't be trusted and always feel they are victims of inequality, which is completely unacceptable.

5) The implausibility of everything I can often stomach. But sometimes they just take it too far and the suspension of disbelief is stretched and snapped. I'll use Season Six as an example as it's fresh in my mind. Episode Two is awful. The part where the lawyer deletes personnel files from a computer within a large organisation. Are we to assume that the place has no backup server, or no hard copies kept safe somewhere else in the building? Also from that episode there is a man who attempts to suicide bomb a subway train. And how does he decide to do this? By sitting on the last seat of the final carriage of that train. For maximum collateral damage it would make sense to sit in the middle carriage! Then it turns out he was only sitting there so Jack Bauer could save the day by kicking him through the door, out of the train.

6) The use of set pieces can be annoying. It can appear that when the plot gets too mundane or slow-moving the problem can be solved by throwing in an explosion, collision or death of some kind: that seems to be a de rigueur standard for the show. It helps the audience forget that the plot was snail's pace beforehand.

7) What's going on with the villains? They get captured and then they escape. They often seem incredibly stupid, and without contingency plans of any kind. There are times they could be captured before they commit some atrocity, or destroy some seemingly vital piece of evidence, but this doesn't happen. This leads me to think, from time to time, that the villains are stupid and the CTU team progressively more so.

Those are the negatives that annoy me the most, and probably annoy quite a few other casual viewers. What the show does have in it's favour is an iconic, modern Jame Bond-style hero. A slick and always suspense laden veneer with a heavy overtone of drama (sometimes melodrama, of course). Occasionally the show clicks and the implausibility seems natural like the implausibility of life etc, and the audience is kept guessing and also given a satisfying conclusion, with not too many silly subplots.

I've given the show a low rating because it too often misses the target, like a lot of the bad guys. But when it hits it can hit hard, being thought-provoking and stimulating like all the best art. I just wish it would hit home more often, which it could do if they broke from the concept more and had fewer episodes.


24 is a great TV series. It's design and story lines are really a thrill to experience. The day out of the life of agent Jack Bauer is one of a kind. The series plays in real time (including the commercial breaks).

I can certainly recommend to watch this series. It's even more fantastic, if you not watch it as it's aired, but record some episodes and then watch them in in a pattern of 2 per evening for some days after another. In this way you find yourself addicted to the adrenaline which 24 unleashes.

This is TV as it was designed. I must admit that I look forward to the movie which is planned. I hope not that it's a normal movie, but that they put elements of the real time (or something similar) into it. At least the thrill should be similar.

I just finished Day 6 (season 6) and now have to rehab from my 24 addiction again.


What i found amazing is how can anyone criticize 24 ... The actors are not boring, they all have their own role on the show. Each season speaks about a terrorist problem, and what's the problem? do they look so much alike? no! If you start to watch a episode with all the suspense and REALLY GREAT action, you'll keep sit on the couch till it's end! Watching 24 won't make you smarter or add anything new to your brains, but will definitely entertain you more than any other TV show for 43minutes and you'll pray till next Monday arrives! If you expect a drama, or worst, a similar show to any of those recent movies such as "body of lies", you can turn your head to the other side, 24 only offers what best the TV got, the pleasure of be inside the screen..

It's a perfect 10 in 10 for 24 and Jack Bauer!


Its the best action T.V show in the history, I like the characters Jack Bauer(Kiefer Sutherland) and Tony(Carlos Bernard) they was a nice N-team, and sure the President. David Palmer(Dennis Haysbert) he is really a great actor and can be the president in the real life ;), oh i forget about Kim Bauer(Elisha Cuthbert)she is nice and sexy ;). The best Season I like is season 4 and 5 was the best seasons. Now I am waiting the next season I think now jack must have some peace in his life. Last thing i like to talk about is the music of the Show its very nice and so cool. In the end i wish the best for this T.V show and more success. Thanks ;)


It's "TV weight". It drags on and on with silly "revelations" and preposterous situations. It's profoundly ordinary and unlikely to make any sense if you think about it at all. I suppose the intent is just to keep you watching week after week with the anticipation that the story will be tied up in 24 episodes - Which should not come as a surprise as THIS IS JUST A TV SHOW. I nearly gave up on it about 10 minutes into episode 1 Season 1 and by the end of that episode I was astonished that THIS was the hot show people had been so impressed by... I've seen the next two episodes and parts of episodes 4-12 (My wife is watching the series - Her review would be, at least, Luke-warm but she does just like to veg in front of the TV).

Watch a bad movie instead. It won't last as long.


i would say that I've watched only the past 3 series and series after series its the same storyline middle eastern fundamentalist getting hold of a nuclear bomb and jack having to defuse it . thats about it ....................... zzzzzzzzzzz with the budget they have got you would have thought that they would have spent the money on proper sets instead of a car on a rolling track for example when the shots are inside a car the background is whizzing past at 200 miles an hour !!!!!!!!!!!!!! - what the hell is that all about i think that they should bring this series to a hasty conclusion because its done its time now!


As always, I have to wait a year or two before getting into watching a television series. A show needs to give me a good reason to watch next week.

I really wish I could've seen "24" from the beginning. I only saw bits and pieces of the first season and I liked what I saw but did not stay with the show for various reasons. While watching "24" for the past two weeks, I kept on thinking about the first time "The Fugitive" appeared on television in 1963 and how that show was called innovative. "The Fugitive" and "24" mentioned in the same breath? I think that it's a valid and complimentary comparison.

I believe it'll be very hard for "24" creators Joel Surnow and Robert Cochran to sustain the pace for many seasons. I never thought I would ever say this but I hope "24" doesn't stay on the air for a long time because the power of the show comes from its innovative 24 episode arc: a day in the life of agent Jack Bauer.

One last point: this is Kiefer Sutherland's best role in his career. Many of his movie roles don't hold up at all to his complex role of Bauer. You can be in the movies for many years but your best role might come from the so-called small screen and that's the case for Sutherland.

Update (May 22, 2005): I just finished watching the season finale of season 5 of "24" and despite a few missteps within some seasons, the show is still an exciting thrill ride. Kiefer Sutherland has signed for three more seasons and I'm looking forward to more shows.

I've always felt that past regulars which includes Dennis Haysbert, Reiko Aylesworth, Xander Berkeley and guest stars including Shohreh Aghdashloo gave Emmy-award worthy performances but, unfortunately, Sutherland has been the only actor nominated for 24. Maybe for the concluding season, Mary Lynn Rajskub, Gregory Itzin and/or Jean Smart will finally break through the annual snub from the Emmys.

Update (August 28, 2006): Congratulations to "24" for finally winning Emmys for Best Drama Series, Kiefer Sutherland for Best Actor in a Drama Series and Jon Cassar for Best Directing in a Drama Series.


I was blown away by the reviews. I liked the sound of the concept. I bought the DVD. I turned it off half way through and binned it. This is awful.....Oooh so it's got a big name cast....So what! The 3 marks I have given are solely for the concept. It's new and original, and that deserves credit. But for me it was so painful to watch. To keep viewers to speed of what is happening in other parts of the story, Jack Bauer is constantly on his mobile phone. This started to annoy me. Then the storyline started to become unbelievable, re the lady contract killer who parachutes to her rendezvous for just one example. Then the incredibly bad acting/direction from the guy who appears to be a normal American business man, who when put under the slightest interrogation suddenly starts speaking in an eastern European accent....What happened to his perfect American accent.....Sorry, I'm not overly keen on Keither Sutherland anyway, maybe that didn't help... but I cannot for the life of me see how anybody thought this was good!


I'm on Day 5 and have tried to avoid watching the present edition of the show although I did see a portion of the recent episode where CTU is breached and there's a lot of hand to hand fighting going on. I enjoy the show. I question my enjoyment of the show. There's so much to criticize about the plotting and the propulsive style of the narrative. You really aren't given a moment to think about the implausible stuff. Which is the point and arguably its greatest strength. Jack is a thug, have no illusions, and short of raping his daughter and putting the video online there's very little Mr. Bauer won't do. Sutherland is really tremendous in the role. Its so tailor made for him you really can't imagine anyone else in the part. My only beef with the show is how expendable everyone else is. I miss Nina, Michelle, Edgar, etc. Some folks think this show is Pro-Bush. I don't get that at all. Its hyper patriotic though. It feels like a cartoon sometimes and the violence goes so far out there but then so does the evening network news. I love the show but I question that love, sometimes.


"24" sticks Sutherland in the vortex of suspenseful intrigues involving an assassination plot, kidnapping, murder, countless looks askance, um...oh, yeah, and the in-flight demolition of a jumbo jet. Set in 24 hours of real time where a minute in the series is a minute on the screen, this 16 hour (approx with the deficit going to commercial advertising time) linear story heaps suspense upon suspense filling huge, gaping plotholes with it for a riveting edge-of-the-seat small screen experience. All but the most analytical cynics will get caught up in this well crafted thriller which squeezes 10 pounds of dramaction into a 5 pound bag magically making room for the excess with hi-tech gadgetry. Good stuff for t.v. junkies. (B)


It's only recently that I started watching "24" when a German TV station announced a rerun of the first season. I was amazed about the many soap-opera elements found in this series, the mostly boring plot, and the unbelievable technical goodies. Just to give you one example: The whole story about Palmer's son is completely uninteresting. In fact, characters in this series behave amazingly stupid (i.e. Jamie when interrogated by Nina and Tony), and Jack's wife after calling the CTU about Alan.

It seems like that Robert Cochran took a soap-opera style family story and just mixed it up with technical terms (like "formatting files") and electronic equipment even the NSA would be proud of. Numerous times the story reaches a point where you can even feel that the story writers got stuck. Then they just invent a new technical device which Jack happens to have in his car/wallet/trousers/jacket/..., have somebdoy say something freaky, and afterwards the world has changed. Now that's an easy way of constructing stories!

All this makes "24" definitely a show that is not worth viewing. However, it is strange that Robert Cochran produced such a bad thing after being very good at "The Commish". There we had believable characters, funny stories, and sometimes even a bit suspense. None of these can be found in "24".


I think upon all the episodes i watched it seams it talk about American history and all the suffering that America is facing from their enemies were caused by their great white leaders i think a black head of state can resolve this issues.And also i think if there such movies yet going to be released in the future all the main supporting characters should survived at least seven seasons before they are ripped off.Even though 24 is a very nice movie and it tells a lot about what America is capable i think America is boasting its self to the world that no one can touch them and it can also attract more enemies around the world by also tempting them in so many ways.


Honestly, this show has some of the worst acting I have ever seen. I hate every character (except Jack, but he can be really annoying at times.) The plots are so ridiculous and drawn out it almost gets so extreme that you want to throw up. Not to mention it's boring as hell. Wait, wait, there's maybe two or three action scenes in an entire season, in a show that is labeled "action." Seriously, there is no action, horrible stories, and absolutely ridiculous acting. If you want to watch something good and original, watch LOST. Now that is a quality show.

L O S T

Owns!


When 24 first premiered, I was quite skeptical that it would last an entire season, let alone 6. I saw the first few episodes and didn't think much of it. I stopped watching it because Tuesday nights became bad for me, but later on in the season I saw the episode when Bauer and Palmer finally met. From then on I finished out the season and was amazed. I bought the first season DVD over the summer and watched it all. After I finished, I could hardly wait for the next season. The first half of the season was solid, but then the second half got predictable. Nonetheless, I was still on the edge of my seat and by the end of the year I was left wanting more. Even though the fourth season was the worst, I was and remain convinced that a bad season of 24 is still better than a good season of any other show. Originally I was simply amazed by the constant cliffhangers that are drawn up week after week by the amazing writing crew. I'm now hooked on the soundtrack by Sean Callery and the performances by the characters, most notably Kiefer Sutherland as the great Jack Bauer. I was particularly impressed with his acting this season. Season 6 was the most emotionally traumatic season for Jack Bauer and Kiefer's acting was more than top notch! I don't understand how this last finale only has a 5.8. This finale was pure 24. The action sequences as well as the intensity of the acting by Kiefer in the last 12 minutes left me on the edge of my seat, more than ever! This show is the best on television because the writing is impeccable as well as the acting and the music. The character's performances among these other elements make this seem like more than a TV show or a movie for that matter. I'm impatiently waiting for the next season because this show is truly one in a million. No...one in 24 million!


All seasons of 24 have been fantastic. I've been on the edge of my seat throughout each season!! The direction, storyline and acting is brilliant. Jack Bauer is a fantastic character...friendly, kind hearted, yet certainly not a guy to mess with.

I only started watching 24 recently, treating myself to the first season. After that I was hooked and went to buy the other seasons. Although if I'd watched 24 on TV and had to wait each week for an episode I would have gone crazy. At least with the box sets I could watch 3 or 4 in a row each night! Can't wait for season 6...and the movie!

For those who haven't seen it treat yourself to season 1 and you'll be hooked!!!! It'll be the most intense 24 hours of your life ;)