What do you think?
Rate this book
Natural Born Killers. The Original Screenplay
Natural Born Killers is a disturbing and brilliant indictment of violence in the media and American celebrity culture. Mickey and Mallory Knox, outlaw lovers on the run, go on a killing spree of startling viciousness -- and find themselves transformed into cult celebrities by the tabloid media. The film, directed by Oliver Stone, departed significantly from Tarantino's original screenplay, so much so that Tarantino removed his name from the screenplay credits. Now available in America for the first time, the original screenplay offers fans and film buffs of all stripes the opportunity to compare Tarantino's original vision with Stone's version of the story of Mickey and Mallory.
128 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
8 people are currently reading
611 people want to read
About the author
Quentin Tarantino
54 books1,756 followersQuentin Jerome Tarantino is an Academy Award- and Palme d'Or-winning American film director, screenwriter and actor. He rose to fame in the early 1990s as an independent filmmaker whose films used nonlinear storylines and stylized violence. His films include Reservoir Dogs (1992), Pulp Fiction (1994), Jackie Brown (1997), Kill Bill (Vol. 1 2003, Vol. 2 2004), Death Proof (2007), and Inglourious Basterds (2009).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews
December 15, 2017
Natural Born Killers is the only work of Quentin Tarantino that I reference directly, by name, in Drug Gang. It is also the best Quentin Tarantino screenplay to read in order to separate Tarantino the writer from Tarantino the filmmaker.
The film version of Natural Born Killers, which Oliver Stone directed, ended up being very different from the original script Quentin Tarantino wrote. Quentin Tarantino has been a big influence on me as an author, and when I site him as an influence, I am not only talking about Tarantino the filmmaker, I am also talking about Tarantino the writer.
While those who have watched his films will be aware of his great storytelling and his amazing dialogue, when you read his screenplays you are also struck by just how good his descriptive writing is. Here you can let him paint a picture for you with his words, without necessarily comparing that picture to one you have seen on a cinema or television screen.
Let him use his words like weapons of cutting social commentary, biting wit and bloody violence. You will not be disappointed…
The film version of Natural Born Killers, which Oliver Stone directed, ended up being very different from the original script Quentin Tarantino wrote. Quentin Tarantino has been a big influence on me as an author, and when I site him as an influence, I am not only talking about Tarantino the filmmaker, I am also talking about Tarantino the writer.
While those who have watched his films will be aware of his great storytelling and his amazing dialogue, when you read his screenplays you are also struck by just how good his descriptive writing is. Here you can let him paint a picture for you with his words, without necessarily comparing that picture to one you have seen on a cinema or television screen.
Let him use his words like weapons of cutting social commentary, biting wit and bloody violence. You will not be disappointed…
October 5, 2012
Confession: I am of the opinion that Quentin Tarantino is overrated. He is a poor director and an overly self-indulgent screenwriter with a flare for dialogue. This doesn't mean that I hate his films or his screenplays, yet when I've offered this confession to Tarantino lovers in the past, they tend to assume that I do. I've enjoyed most of the Tarantino movies I've seen, but I don't understand the adoration of his work.
In fact, I think the two best Tarantino movies are those made by other (dare I say "real") directors. Tony Scott's True Romance was excellent. A film that benefited greatly from Scott's slick style and Hollywood sensibility. It is Oliver Stone's version of Natural Born Killers, however, that is the very best of Tarantino's stories on film.
Tarantino's tale spent way too much time "telling" us the story of Mickey and Mallory rather than showing us their story, and to do that he made Wayne Gale -- the douchebag Geraldo Rivera stand-in -- the star of the show. Moreover, Tarantino's telling falls squarely on the "nature" side of the nature vs. nurture debate, which undermines his stated determination to critique America's media culture.
Stone saw the flaws and addressed them in his adaptation of the story. He made the tale about Mickey and Mallory, putting them front and center, recasting Wayne Gale as the supporting character he needed to be, and those changes allowed Stone to make the story about "nurture" (making the title appropriately ironic) which also ensured that the story could become an actual critique of America's media culture. And Stone did all this with a fractured, hyperactive style that presaged the coming of the internet. He dragged amazing performances out of unlikely actors like Juliette Lewis and Rodney Dangerfield, added some impressive scenes on the nature (or nurture) of evil, and experimented with his craft in ways that Tarantino would eventually mimic in Kill Bill. And Stone did all of this without Tarantino's blessing, pissing off the young filmmaker so much that he wanted his name removed from the film.
To be fair, I've not yet seen Inglourious Basterds, so perhaps Tarantino has worked himself into being as good a writer/director as he thinks he is, and I'd love for Django Unchained to kick some serious ass, but for now I'd much rather spend my time with Tarantino movies Tarantino didn't direct.
In fact, I think the two best Tarantino movies are those made by other (dare I say "real") directors. Tony Scott's True Romance was excellent. A film that benefited greatly from Scott's slick style and Hollywood sensibility. It is Oliver Stone's version of Natural Born Killers, however, that is the very best of Tarantino's stories on film.
Tarantino's tale spent way too much time "telling" us the story of Mickey and Mallory rather than showing us their story, and to do that he made Wayne Gale -- the douchebag Geraldo Rivera stand-in -- the star of the show. Moreover, Tarantino's telling falls squarely on the "nature" side of the nature vs. nurture debate, which undermines his stated determination to critique America's media culture.
Stone saw the flaws and addressed them in his adaptation of the story. He made the tale about Mickey and Mallory, putting them front and center, recasting Wayne Gale as the supporting character he needed to be, and those changes allowed Stone to make the story about "nurture" (making the title appropriately ironic) which also ensured that the story could become an actual critique of America's media culture. And Stone did all this with a fractured, hyperactive style that presaged the coming of the internet. He dragged amazing performances out of unlikely actors like Juliette Lewis and Rodney Dangerfield, added some impressive scenes on the nature (or nurture) of evil, and experimented with his craft in ways that Tarantino would eventually mimic in Kill Bill. And Stone did all of this without Tarantino's blessing, pissing off the young filmmaker so much that he wanted his name removed from the film.
To be fair, I've not yet seen Inglourious Basterds, so perhaps Tarantino has worked himself into being as good a writer/director as he thinks he is, and I'd love for Django Unchained to kick some serious ass, but for now I'd much rather spend my time with Tarantino movies Tarantino didn't direct.
Read
September 3, 2014super violent! even more violent than the movie, which was hard to believe.
June 20, 2022
Didn't really hit his stride here in regards to screenplays when compared to the brilliance, of say, Pulp Fiction. He should have directed this and not Oliver Stone. His film was mediocre at best.
July 19, 2019
there's something inherently dissatisfying about reading screenplays. after all, the things are meant to be watched, not read. I was interested in this because of the purported differences between the Tarantino film and the Oliver stone movie. There are a lot of them. The Tarantino script still plays big with the media satire, but it doesn't overindulge in the psychedelics that Stone's version does, which makes the messaging more poignant and specific. There's something fascinating about screen directions and visual cues on the page that translate into your brain, in ways that cause you to absorb the text in a different way: there's lots of descriptions about camera changes and movements between black and white and color film here as well as 16mm and 35mm, which - if we're reading this text outside the context of the movie that it became or the movie Tarantino meant for it to become - plays like resets for your brain, functionally redesigning the scenarios in a similar way that it does on film but in a way that you rarely get when reading a BOOK. I was in the sun a lot today. I am a dumb idiot.
February 8, 2023
One of the names that often pops up in modern day filmmakers’ lists is one of the always relevant Quentin Tarantino. Ever since his film debut in 1992 with the timeless and acclaimed ‘Reservoir Dogs’, Tarantino had been delivering installment after success, from instant classics such as ‘Pulp Fiction’, ‘Kill Bill Vol.1’ and ‘2’, or ‘Inglourious Basterds’, to moderate popular hits such as ‘Jackie Brown’, or ‘Death Proof’. One thing is for sure, Tarantino manages to build an entire career out of flicks that many people seem to either love, or straight up enjoy, either for entertainment pleasure, or as an analytic work in filmmaking, he seems to be the kind of guy that inspires cinema whether because of his work, or because of the way he expresses his knowledge and taste on interviews or commentaries.
In 1994, on the other hand, while ‘Pulp Fiction’ earned the hearts of millions during its release, another movie came in a couple months before, a film that, while not directed by our dear director, was- in a way- related to him on a “creative” way. Oliver Stone’s ‘Natural Born Killers’ arrived with great expectation due to its creative team behind, and while the film managed to be well-accepted enough to receive several nominations such as for the Golden Globes, and the Venice Film Festival, ultimately the film was mixed regarding its reception, and critics pretty much destroyed it. Nowadays, the film has gained sort of a cult status among viewers, mostly due to the release of its ‘Director’s Cut’, but one thing everyone
(who was aware of the film’s story behind its production) wanted to check was the actual conception of the original story, that is, Tarantino’s original script that he sold to Warner Brothers and Oliver Stone.
Fortunately, it didn’t took long for Tarantino to publish his original script, and seeing the final result over the film’s theatrical version, it is suffice to say, is an interesting examination and study, seeing which elements were changed, replaced or even left in the final draft. The film version that Stone ended up delivering was re-written by David Veloz, Richard Rutowski, and Stone himself, and I cannot help but to notice how a single writer- Tarantino- managed to craft the better version single handedly. One aspect we can all agree on is that Stone’s vision towards the film is both, extravagant and artsy, but I’ve always seeing those elements exploited in a pretentious way, rather than a positive one; there is plenty of over-the-top performances, eerie and random shots and camera angles that have almost zero to no reason for being the way they were shot, particularly in the way the film mixes imagery, coloring and setting, all for the sake of style. I recognize it is all part of a “nightmarish” aesthetic focus Stone gives the film in order to make it feel as part of a conventional “tv-selection” of programming, which its all part of the film’s main criticism against media, and the depiction of society celebrating characters such as “Serial Killers” as some sort of celebrities, but the final product, while interesting to look at, never really comes together in a convincing way, and most of this can be seeing in Stone attempting to adapt the narrative work of a filmmaker that is completely different, when it comes to style. Reading the script, it isn’t hard to realize how much of his own signature Tarantino is able to portray within each sequence; from the scenery he uses, to the way his characters talk and expresses themselves. Perhaps the most evident difference between Tarantino’s original vision is the focus; the story doesn’t concentrate on Mickey and Mallory as the lead roles, but the character of Wayne Gale (played by Robert Downey Jr., in the film), which allows to understand Tarantino’s main objective towards the story’s commentary; how is the media depicting the mayhem created by these two maniacs. Most of the script actually focuses on Gale planning on the footage that he’ll use in the actual interview with Mickey.
As for the characters, both versions- film and original script- of Mickey and Mallory Knox demonstrate that both, Woody Harrelson, and Juliette Lewis are ideal names for the roles of the main killers; in Stone’s film their chemistry is unquestionable, and both performances go toe to toe with the craziness and unique style of the film, which in the original script still captures the main moments in which these characters exposes their motivations. Most of their absences in Tarantino’s script validate themselves by crafting amazing sequences where both communicate interesting and intellectually-like dialogue- pretty much what we’re used to in Tarantino’s cinema-, and imagining Harrelson and Lewis performing that way still adds value to both performances from the film, since their moments in the original script are essentially the ones used by Stone. Curiously enough, Tarantino’s sequences for both characters are the better ones in the theatrical film, and the stuff added by Stone is what drags the film’s pacing and tone to pretentious-alley. It is strange, but not knowing much of the character’s personal chemistry, interactions and relationship helps mystifying their mythos and “urban legend” element from the whole “media criticism” that Tarantino wonderfully mixes with creative dialogue, and constant pop-culture references.
Details, such as the way these two expresses their love, or even the way they talk to each other in the “extra” sequences feel excessive and unnecessary, considering part of the charm towards these two relays on not knowing exactly what drives them to commit those horrible crimes. I believe that Tarantino’s focus around Wayne Gale (truthfully the main character in the film) is a more interesting approach to the story, than constantly follow Mickey and Mallory in their day by day. Sure, there’s fun in watching them in a “killing spree”, but Stone reaches a point where he almost “glorifies” those crimes, instead of exposing them. Also, Tarantino toys with the non-linear storytelling in his script, and that signature alone makes it feel way more captivating and “thought-provoking”, pretty much as the rest of his filmography.
The only aspect from Tarantino’s script that disappointed me-in a certain way-, was the lack of specific music selection. There are certain songs some of the characters do sing in a couple of sequences, but I always assumed Tarantino crafted his soundtrack selections from the very script, which comes as odd to see only one song intended for the title card at the beginning of the film, being ‘Rebel Rouser’ by Duane Eddy (a fantastic track to quick start the film), when in Stone’s film the initial song for the intro is ‘Waiting for the Miracle’ by Leonard Cohen, followed by Jesse Bernstein’s ‘No No Man’, which it kind of gives a similar vibe, as ‘Rebel Rouser’ can actually be heard as a sort of background noise among the rest of the sound mix in the title card sequence.
Now, paying attention to the script, and the movie as well, the differences between the original Tarantino version is basically this:
Quentin Tarantino's original screenplay played the story very roughly the same way as the final film, with significant changes to the motivations and characterization of the cast. Very little was revealed about Mickey and Mallory's past other than their killing of Mallory's parents which played out the same way through in a more darkly humorous light. There were no indications that Mallory had been abused by her father. Much of the film played out after the Knoxes had been caught, with a significant part of the film being dedicated to Wayne Gale's documentary about the murders. In the script, Wayne Gale was the main and less negative character. His murder at the end was not justified by Mickey as Wayne having "created" Mickey and Mallory, but rather out of hatred for him. Dwight McClusky was not the warden of the prison, but rather a character called Phil Wurlitzer. McClusky was the chairman of the California State Prison Board and a minor character. Neighter of these characters died in Tarantino's screenplay. Mickey's and Mallory's first meeting, Scagnetti's murder of a prostitute, the conflict about the female hostage, the scenes with the Navajo man and the Knoxes capture at the drug store were additions made later to the screenplay. Much of Tarantino's dialogue was kept the same for the final film, but often put in different contexts. The opening scene of the film remains much the same as in the original screenplay, with the only real differences being the red necks being more openly misogynistic, and references that hinted toward Mallory's racism being removed.
Being familiar and closer to Tarantino’s filmography rather than Stone’s I can see the differences working for the worse in the final film; the psychedelic atmosphere, extravagant environments, and the cartoon depiction of most of the characters makes the film deviate considerably from what Tarantino intended in the first place, making a film that it is mostly having fun with its concept, rather than construct it for us, the viewers, to create our own critical judgement in the plot’s commentary. Yes, the criticism towards the media and the American obsession towards public figures being celebrities- including serial killers-, is still present, however, I don’t really think the film captures the need to expose those elements in order to create satire, but rather, Stone ultimately bastardizes the original script, creating a goofy and pretentious music video, with a hell of a cast, and some of the original elements still intact. I guess that’s the reason why I do consider the film a guilty pleasure, one that is pleasing to appreciate from a stylized point of view, but which ultimately falls in the category of “style over substance”, which comes as unfortunate, considering the “substance” was there in the first place, and we are able to check it out. Stone’s version does have good elements to itself, and some creative choices (such as the character of Rodney Dangerfield), and the music selected for the soundtrack, but undeniably, it is Tarantino’s original script the better and superior version of the story.
In 1994, on the other hand, while ‘Pulp Fiction’ earned the hearts of millions during its release, another movie came in a couple months before, a film that, while not directed by our dear director, was- in a way- related to him on a “creative” way. Oliver Stone’s ‘Natural Born Killers’ arrived with great expectation due to its creative team behind, and while the film managed to be well-accepted enough to receive several nominations such as for the Golden Globes, and the Venice Film Festival, ultimately the film was mixed regarding its reception, and critics pretty much destroyed it. Nowadays, the film has gained sort of a cult status among viewers, mostly due to the release of its ‘Director’s Cut’, but one thing everyone
(who was aware of the film’s story behind its production) wanted to check was the actual conception of the original story, that is, Tarantino’s original script that he sold to Warner Brothers and Oliver Stone.
Fortunately, it didn’t took long for Tarantino to publish his original script, and seeing the final result over the film’s theatrical version, it is suffice to say, is an interesting examination and study, seeing which elements were changed, replaced or even left in the final draft. The film version that Stone ended up delivering was re-written by David Veloz, Richard Rutowski, and Stone himself, and I cannot help but to notice how a single writer- Tarantino- managed to craft the better version single handedly. One aspect we can all agree on is that Stone’s vision towards the film is both, extravagant and artsy, but I’ve always seeing those elements exploited in a pretentious way, rather than a positive one; there is plenty of over-the-top performances, eerie and random shots and camera angles that have almost zero to no reason for being the way they were shot, particularly in the way the film mixes imagery, coloring and setting, all for the sake of style. I recognize it is all part of a “nightmarish” aesthetic focus Stone gives the film in order to make it feel as part of a conventional “tv-selection” of programming, which its all part of the film’s main criticism against media, and the depiction of society celebrating characters such as “Serial Killers” as some sort of celebrities, but the final product, while interesting to look at, never really comes together in a convincing way, and most of this can be seeing in Stone attempting to adapt the narrative work of a filmmaker that is completely different, when it comes to style. Reading the script, it isn’t hard to realize how much of his own signature Tarantino is able to portray within each sequence; from the scenery he uses, to the way his characters talk and expresses themselves. Perhaps the most evident difference between Tarantino’s original vision is the focus; the story doesn’t concentrate on Mickey and Mallory as the lead roles, but the character of Wayne Gale (played by Robert Downey Jr., in the film), which allows to understand Tarantino’s main objective towards the story’s commentary; how is the media depicting the mayhem created by these two maniacs. Most of the script actually focuses on Gale planning on the footage that he’ll use in the actual interview with Mickey.
As for the characters, both versions- film and original script- of Mickey and Mallory Knox demonstrate that both, Woody Harrelson, and Juliette Lewis are ideal names for the roles of the main killers; in Stone’s film their chemistry is unquestionable, and both performances go toe to toe with the craziness and unique style of the film, which in the original script still captures the main moments in which these characters exposes their motivations. Most of their absences in Tarantino’s script validate themselves by crafting amazing sequences where both communicate interesting and intellectually-like dialogue- pretty much what we’re used to in Tarantino’s cinema-, and imagining Harrelson and Lewis performing that way still adds value to both performances from the film, since their moments in the original script are essentially the ones used by Stone. Curiously enough, Tarantino’s sequences for both characters are the better ones in the theatrical film, and the stuff added by Stone is what drags the film’s pacing and tone to pretentious-alley. It is strange, but not knowing much of the character’s personal chemistry, interactions and relationship helps mystifying their mythos and “urban legend” element from the whole “media criticism” that Tarantino wonderfully mixes with creative dialogue, and constant pop-culture references.
Details, such as the way these two expresses their love, or even the way they talk to each other in the “extra” sequences feel excessive and unnecessary, considering part of the charm towards these two relays on not knowing exactly what drives them to commit those horrible crimes. I believe that Tarantino’s focus around Wayne Gale (truthfully the main character in the film) is a more interesting approach to the story, than constantly follow Mickey and Mallory in their day by day. Sure, there’s fun in watching them in a “killing spree”, but Stone reaches a point where he almost “glorifies” those crimes, instead of exposing them. Also, Tarantino toys with the non-linear storytelling in his script, and that signature alone makes it feel way more captivating and “thought-provoking”, pretty much as the rest of his filmography.
The only aspect from Tarantino’s script that disappointed me-in a certain way-, was the lack of specific music selection. There are certain songs some of the characters do sing in a couple of sequences, but I always assumed Tarantino crafted his soundtrack selections from the very script, which comes as odd to see only one song intended for the title card at the beginning of the film, being ‘Rebel Rouser’ by Duane Eddy (a fantastic track to quick start the film), when in Stone’s film the initial song for the intro is ‘Waiting for the Miracle’ by Leonard Cohen, followed by Jesse Bernstein’s ‘No No Man’, which it kind of gives a similar vibe, as ‘Rebel Rouser’ can actually be heard as a sort of background noise among the rest of the sound mix in the title card sequence.
Now, paying attention to the script, and the movie as well, the differences between the original Tarantino version is basically this:
Quentin Tarantino's original screenplay played the story very roughly the same way as the final film, with significant changes to the motivations and characterization of the cast. Very little was revealed about Mickey and Mallory's past other than their killing of Mallory's parents which played out the same way through in a more darkly humorous light. There were no indications that Mallory had been abused by her father. Much of the film played out after the Knoxes had been caught, with a significant part of the film being dedicated to Wayne Gale's documentary about the murders. In the script, Wayne Gale was the main and less negative character. His murder at the end was not justified by Mickey as Wayne having "created" Mickey and Mallory, but rather out of hatred for him. Dwight McClusky was not the warden of the prison, but rather a character called Phil Wurlitzer. McClusky was the chairman of the California State Prison Board and a minor character. Neighter of these characters died in Tarantino's screenplay. Mickey's and Mallory's first meeting, Scagnetti's murder of a prostitute, the conflict about the female hostage, the scenes with the Navajo man and the Knoxes capture at the drug store were additions made later to the screenplay. Much of Tarantino's dialogue was kept the same for the final film, but often put in different contexts. The opening scene of the film remains much the same as in the original screenplay, with the only real differences being the red necks being more openly misogynistic, and references that hinted toward Mallory's racism being removed.
Being familiar and closer to Tarantino’s filmography rather than Stone’s I can see the differences working for the worse in the final film; the psychedelic atmosphere, extravagant environments, and the cartoon depiction of most of the characters makes the film deviate considerably from what Tarantino intended in the first place, making a film that it is mostly having fun with its concept, rather than construct it for us, the viewers, to create our own critical judgement in the plot’s commentary. Yes, the criticism towards the media and the American obsession towards public figures being celebrities- including serial killers-, is still present, however, I don’t really think the film captures the need to expose those elements in order to create satire, but rather, Stone ultimately bastardizes the original script, creating a goofy and pretentious music video, with a hell of a cast, and some of the original elements still intact. I guess that’s the reason why I do consider the film a guilty pleasure, one that is pleasing to appreciate from a stylized point of view, but which ultimately falls in the category of “style over substance”, which comes as unfortunate, considering the “substance” was there in the first place, and we are able to check it out. Stone’s version does have good elements to itself, and some creative choices (such as the character of Rodney Dangerfield), and the music selected for the soundtrack, but undeniably, it is Tarantino’s original script the better and superior version of the story.
May 23, 2024
Being in college in the early 90’s in Knoxville, where Quentin Tarantino’s grandmother lives, and at the height of his directed movies that shared a storyline and characters (True Romance, Reservoir Dogs, and Pulp Fiction), I was obsessed with his work. I had a black and white 6 foot Reservoir Dogs poster in the living room. When I found out that he had written the screenplay for Natural Born Killers, I was super stoked! I even named my two white rats Mickey and Mallory. True Story.
Recently, I watched them all again, but when I was trying to piece together all the characters across the movies, I read that Tarantino had “disowned” the movie, and that he hated what they did to his story.
Apparently, Oliver Stone took GREAT liberties and changed it a LOT. When I heard, further, that Tarantino tried to sell his original screenplay, he was told he couldn’t because he had sold his rights to it for the movie (or something like that). He was not happy. But he somehow got the rights back and started selling HIS original story.
So… I HAD to read it. And WOW! He was right… It’s NOTHING like the movie. It’s SO much better!!!!
When Tarantino said, “If you like my work, don’t watch that movie,” he was right!!
PLEASE read HIS screenplay! You won’t be sorry!!!
Recently, I watched them all again, but when I was trying to piece together all the characters across the movies, I read that Tarantino had “disowned” the movie, and that he hated what they did to his story.
Apparently, Oliver Stone took GREAT liberties and changed it a LOT. When I heard, further, that Tarantino tried to sell his original screenplay, he was told he couldn’t because he had sold his rights to it for the movie (or something like that). He was not happy. But he somehow got the rights back and started selling HIS original story.
So… I HAD to read it. And WOW! He was right… It’s NOTHING like the movie. It’s SO much better!!!!
When Tarantino said, “If you like my work, don’t watch that movie,” he was right!!
PLEASE read HIS screenplay! You won’t be sorry!!!
May 16, 2010
I was not fan of screenplays, but it changed when I got load of scripts from Quentin Tarantino´s movies. They are fun to read and sometimes the ideas, which did not get in to the movie are quite interesting and it is pity that some of them did not made it in to the screen.
Story of Mickey and Mallory, version of very brutal Bonnie and Clyde types, who were roaming trough USA and brought up perverted version of psychopathic celebrity cult. At the first sight it is casual brutality but on the second it shows the hunger for blood int he society.
Story of Mickey and Mallory, version of very brutal Bonnie and Clyde types, who were roaming trough USA and brought up perverted version of psychopathic celebrity cult. At the first sight it is casual brutality but on the second it shows the hunger for blood int he society.
March 10, 2016
Brilliant surprise reading this script, not into the Oliver stone film that much but Tarantino's script is one of his best. His original version of natural born killers is socially and politically aware, which is an element rarely present in Tarantino's films that are more concerned with the culture of films rather than the culture of the real world! Natural born killers highlights the way that media can represent and often sensationalise violent crime. The film suggests to the viewer that media distortions can ultimately result in very real consequences
February 20, 2019
Létezik kétféle, jól bevált elmélet, melyeket az adott helyzettől függően előszeretettel alkalmazunk. A két elmélet igazság szerint szöges ellentéte egymásnak, mégis, mikor kimondjuk, azt olyan bölcsen, ellenvéleményt nem ismerő határozottsággal mondjuk, hogy az bizony nem lehet más, csak szentbeszéd.
1., Az ember, áh, az ember… Az ember romlott, rossznak született, állatnak született, ösztönlénynek született, gonoszság és aljasság csörgedezik az ereiben. Íme, az Ember.
2., Az ember, áh, az ember… Az ember tiszta, jónak született, egy magasabb cél elérésére született, eleve elrendelten Jó, becsület és jóindulat csörgedezik az ereiben. Íme, az Ember.
De össze lehet-e egyeztetni ezt a két elméletet, igaz lehet-e egyáltalán bármelyik? És ha igen, akkor inkább melyik? Ha saját magamból indulok ki, akkor inkább az utóbbit támogatom, de ha mindenki más így gondolkodik, akkor miért létezhetnek Mickey-k, miért létezhetnek Mallory-k? Az igazság valahol a kettő közt leledzik.
Mi lehet az oka annak, hogy gyakran kezdünk el szimpatizálni az antihősökkel? Mondhatnánk azt, hogy van bennük azért jó is, nehéz eldönteni, hogy valóban antihősök-e. De Tarantino sorozatgyilkos házaspárja egyszerűen minden kétséget eloszlat afelől, hogy ők akár hősök is lehetnének. Csupán saját maguk hősei, de ez még nem elég, ez nem elégít ki semmit, ha emellett könyörtelenül gyilkolásznak kényükre-kedvükre. Csupán egymás iránt fejeznek ki érzelmeket, igaz az talán erősebb mindennél, és itt van elrejtve a nehézséget okozó erő, mert Mallory és Mickey szerelme egészen idillikus, és valahol az ember tudat alatt, egy mélyen elrejtett kis zugának a szívében éppen ezért elkezd arról ábrándozni, hogy milyen keserű az életük, hiszen egyetlen vágya van mindkettőjüknek, hogy lássák egymást, ez azonban nem történhet meg, mert az igazságszolgáltatás így döntött. Meg is történt a baj, és Tarantino ki is elégíti vágyainkat, (anti)hőseink újból láthatják egymást. Happy End?
1., Az ember, áh, az ember… Az ember romlott, rossznak született, állatnak született, ösztönlénynek született, gonoszság és aljasság csörgedezik az ereiben. Íme, az Ember.
2., Az ember, áh, az ember… Az ember tiszta, jónak született, egy magasabb cél elérésére született, eleve elrendelten Jó, becsület és jóindulat csörgedezik az ereiben. Íme, az Ember.
De össze lehet-e egyeztetni ezt a két elméletet, igaz lehet-e egyáltalán bármelyik? És ha igen, akkor inkább melyik? Ha saját magamból indulok ki, akkor inkább az utóbbit támogatom, de ha mindenki más így gondolkodik, akkor miért létezhetnek Mickey-k, miért létezhetnek Mallory-k? Az igazság valahol a kettő közt leledzik.
Mi lehet az oka annak, hogy gyakran kezdünk el szimpatizálni az antihősökkel? Mondhatnánk azt, hogy van bennük azért jó is, nehéz eldönteni, hogy valóban antihősök-e. De Tarantino sorozatgyilkos házaspárja egyszerűen minden kétséget eloszlat afelől, hogy ők akár hősök is lehetnének. Csupán saját maguk hősei, de ez még nem elég, ez nem elégít ki semmit, ha emellett könyörtelenül gyilkolásznak kényükre-kedvükre. Csupán egymás iránt fejeznek ki érzelmeket, igaz az talán erősebb mindennél, és itt van elrejtve a nehézséget okozó erő, mert Mallory és Mickey szerelme egészen idillikus, és valahol az ember tudat alatt, egy mélyen elrejtett kis zugának a szívében éppen ezért elkezd arról ábrándozni, hogy milyen keserű az életük, hiszen egyetlen vágya van mindkettőjüknek, hogy lássák egymást, ez azonban nem történhet meg, mert az igazságszolgáltatás így döntött. Meg is történt a baj, és Tarantino ki is elégíti vágyainkat, (anti)hőseink újból láthatják egymást. Happy End?
May 29, 2018
3.5-- while I think Natural Born Killers is far better than 99% of the screenplays out there, I didn't find the language to be as clever as his other works, like Jackie Brown or True Romance. While Quentin is no stranger to writing characters who should be unlikable, his trademark wit imbues them with a magnetic quality, so that we find ourselves liking them despite their often horrific behaviors (i.e. murdering tons of people, typically). But here, the characters aren't witty enough to make us forgive them for their murder spree, and the tertiary characters are also rather flat and/or dislikable. All of that being said, the plot here and the actual storytelling is phenomenal. I actually think this is one of the few screenplays of his (perhaps the only one) that is a traditional 'blueprint for a movie' as opposed to an entertaining work in and of itself.
December 5, 2021
The most interesting thing about this is seeing what the movie kept or eliminated. If I hadn't already seen Natural Born Killers and didn't know it was a Tarantino story and had read this I wouldn't know it was him. I'm guessing the idea behind this was to make a script that could be turned into a low-budget horror movie. Oliver Stone turned it into a horror road TRIP movie.
The first half of the script, the reporter guy is the main character and we don't see much of Mickey and Mallory's rampage. There is a courtroom scene, so I wonder if Tarantino was watching the publicized court cases of the late 80s and 90s and if he was watching the news coverage of serial killers. Both the script and the movie focus on the media but I don't think either say much on the subject.
The first half of the script, the reporter guy is the main character and we don't see much of Mickey and Mallory's rampage. There is a courtroom scene, so I wonder if Tarantino was watching the publicized court cases of the late 80s and 90s and if he was watching the news coverage of serial killers. Both the script and the movie focus on the media but I don't think either say much on the subject.
February 27, 2020
It’s certainly better than the awful Oliver Stone directed movie, but it’s also clearly an early work.
Tarantino’s talent, even at this stage in his writing career is undeniable. The dialogue pops and the script flits effortlessly from grotesque violence to the farcical.
However, the script lacks control and Mallory is entirely sidelined for the more charismatic Mickey. The script seems to have been written with a view to Tarantino directing on a micro budget, and as a result it feels restrained, as the writer tries to force a penny pinching visual style on the reader.
Tarantino’s talent, even at this stage in his writing career is undeniable. The dialogue pops and the script flits effortlessly from grotesque violence to the farcical.
However, the script lacks control and Mallory is entirely sidelined for the more charismatic Mickey. The script seems to have been written with a view to Tarantino directing on a micro budget, and as a result it feels restrained, as the writer tries to force a penny pinching visual style on the reader.
April 29, 2022
Interesting to see what is lost/gained in translation. All the elements of Stone’s film are here (albeit in reduced form - this is clearly written to be shot cheap). What’s most revealing is the treatment of these elements: Stone’s film is broad and hysterical satire, whereas Tarantino seems to present them uncritically. The result is a pretty vapid, witless and boring B-movie script that nonetheless served as a blueprint to a vital and unique movie - which, if nothing else, gives it value as an artefact.
October 6, 2024
An outstanding and visceral screenplay from one man, that was made into an outstanding and visceral film by another man. Only thing is that film is not this screenplay, it is someone’s wild interpretation of it. They are both five star work for me.
𝘔𝘐𝘊𝘒𝘌𝘠
(𝘵𝘰 𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘺)
𝘏𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺, 𝘐'𝘮 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦.
𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘔𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘺'𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘴, 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘬𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴
𝘬𝘪𝘴𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺'𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨
𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯.
𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩. 𝘞𝘦'𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘰𝘰. 𝘊𝘈𝘔𝘌𝘙𝘈 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝟹𝟼𝟶 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘦.
𝘔𝘐𝘊𝘒𝘌𝘠
(𝘵𝘰 𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘺)
𝘏𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺, 𝘐'𝘮 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦.
𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘔𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘺'𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘴, 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘬𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴
𝘬𝘪𝘴𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺'𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨
𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯.
𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩. 𝘞𝘦'𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘰𝘰. 𝘊𝘈𝘔𝘌𝘙𝘈 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝟹𝟼𝟶 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘦.
October 30, 2024
I read this hoping that there would be some material not in the movie and was disappointed. Stand alone, it's great. But it's the same as the movie without most of the flashbacks. You don't see much about Mallory's family or anything to show the pair's relationship wasn't perfect. I can see why Tarantino didn't like what they did to the movie, but the movie is much better for what was added. Also disappointed because I couldn't find this little book anywhere for cheaper. I've spent less on a hardcover novel
October 7, 2020
Another fantastic screenplay from one of the greatest filmmakers ever. really enjoyed this script and wish Tarantino would have made the movie. I was delighted when the scenes of Malorie's parents from the movie weren't in the original script as I hated the scenes and thought they made the movie look stupid. Tarantino has an amazing talent for dialogue and it shows in the script, loved it.
April 10, 2020
I read this for my thesis on Oliver Stone and Orson Welles. Overall, Tarantino’s script was pretty solid, but I thought that Stone developed the themes with more complexity in his draft. For example, Tarantino did not delve into Mallory’s parents as much as he should have.
July 14, 2022
I can see why Tarantino isn’t fond of the movie, because this was quite a bit different. The focus is mostly on the character Wayne who would eventually be played by RDJ and it reads like a documentary. If QT got the remake rights and shot this, I’d watch.
March 1, 2018
I love Oliver Stone's film, but Tarantino's version is even better.
April 18, 2018
A well-written screenplay that helps me when I feel I just can keep writing screenplays. I read this and find the confidence boost I need to push on.
July 1, 2020
You feel the fun the writer had writing this, but the story just doesn't make much sense.
August 23, 2020
For me, the original screenplay (how Tarantino wrote it) is 10 times better then how it was actually directed on screen by Oliver Stone.
August 5, 2021
4.5 out of 5
March 3, 2023
Movie was better
February 9, 2024
Very cool, criticizing the media's obsession with crime and violence through...... crime and violence ?
Potentially his weakest screenplay and story.
Potentially his weakest screenplay and story.
October 8, 2024
Would love to see Quentin’s movie made
June 16, 2023
Read like a Tarantino movie. Obviously.
8 pages in I thought, well they already killed 6 people and the screenplay is 150 pages. At this rate, a dead person per page.
I wasn’t too far off.
8 pages in I thought, well they already killed 6 people and the screenplay is 150 pages. At this rate, a dead person per page.
I wasn’t too far off.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews