Session 002 - The DoorsWho saw it and what are your thoughts on it?
Sunday, July 15, 2007
In the Screening Room - Oliver Stone's
The Doors
Session 002 - The DoorsWho saw it and what are your thoughts on it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I'll get back on here in a little while and post my reactions to it, mostly because I haven't yet finished it. We started it on Thursday and couldn't get entirely through it (should give you a hint on my reaction).
Still I was going to post this on Thursday but was looking for an image from the movie online and couldn't find anything of any quality to put on here (something other than the poster, which I ultimately decided to throw up there anyway).
Anyways, from what I saw - about half thus far - I won't say it's a terrible film, but I will say it's in keeping with some of Stone's later work such as Natural Born Killer, U-Turn and Alexander. It was a hint of what was to come, for better or worse. Take from that what you will.
I had the exact same reaction Mulligan.
I actually sat through the entire thing without interruptions, but believe me, I wanted to be doing something else. I found this movie to be really annoying. Mostly because watching people get drunk and stoned is not really all that illuminating or fun.
It is very clear that this movie will lead the way for his style of the 90s...and I hate it. He is so damn prententious. He has the weird ethereal sequences that are supposed to represent something, but in the end, it all leads to me scratching my head.
Kilmer was great, but the role only really calls for him to be intoxicated or stoned throughout the entire film. There is never really a moment of clarity or revelation. We literally witness a man spiral down. But it is all of his own accord, so I never once pitied the man, yet that is what Stone wants.
Never been a fan of Stone. I find him wholly pretentious and just really bizarre in his story telling. I loved Platoon, but other than that, I can't really think of any other films of his I love. I think Natural Born Killers could have been amazing, but his methods ruined that. I wish Tarantino got to direct it himself.
But dammit if the music wasn't great. Went out and bought there Greatest Hits set. Perhaps that may be the beauty of it. As a movie, I couldn't really stand it. But if the music inspires you, than maybe that is all we should hope for.
The one thing I can say about Oliver Stone is that he's never boring.
Sure The Doors is, to a large extent, worthless... but some of the cinematography that was captured for it was terrific and it's a good example of a director who just wants to indulge himself.
And I understand that that's a large part of what the problem is with The Doors but can you think of another filmmaker whose as, can I say stubborn? as Oliver Stone is.
Especially evident in those movies I mentioned before like Natural Born Killers, Alexander, U-Turn and here in The Doors Stone just films it any damn way that pleases him and screw the consequences. I'd be surprised if he's actually planning anything out in these films, instead just choosing to throw a lot of balls in the air and let them haphazardly fall all around him.
I do however think you're being a bit too hard on him Chachi. Platoon itself is enough to warrant him as a filmmaker and Wall Street is pretty good too. I've also heard lots of good things about Salvador with James Woods. Those films were all early in his career though, and I think he got careless and carefree as he got older and thus his films turned self-indulgent and a lot of times suffered as a result.
His last movie, World Trade Center I think is as close as he can get to straightforward storytelling anymore (and I believe he only did that film in that manner because of how enormous a bomb Alexander turned out to be).
And after all that, I don't think Kilmer did a good job either. I feel like it was a Keanu Reeves-like performance in its range. I think Kilmer seriously improved as an actor the later he gets into his career (to the point that now he can be genius in something like Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang) but in this film? As uninteresting as it is to watch someone be stoned and strung out for two hours, it isn't that hard to act like you're out of it and never change your disposition either. It's boring.
Alright Chachi, how bout you pick the next one?
Nevermind Chachi, I just listened to Movies 101 podcast and they were discussing Alfonso Cuaron... so, I decided the next movie in the marathon would be Great Expectations because I haven't seen it. If you've already seen it, you can just chime in with your thoughts (you did say pick some films that you've already seen too so you can revisit and I'd love to see this film now that Cuaron is a bigger name).
You pick next week's choice. But do it quick... I gotta see Y Tu Mama Tambien too, haha.
I agree that Platoon was brilliant, but than again I thought Sixth Sense and Unbreakable were too, and I'm completely over M. Night. I would agree that Stone is all about indulgence and excess, but in the end I don't think it amounts to anything. Gilliam took excess to another level with Fear and Loathing, but I think the excess is essential to the story. Stone does it more to evoke a pretentious feel in my opinion. I think he is one of those guys that goes to art shows and looks a paintings that are literally only just a variety of colors splashed all over it and says how they touched his soul. That is Stone in a nut shell, he throws everything at you and sees what sticks. For me, he is far less successful than he thinks he is. Though JFK is really damn good too, but the guy just hasn't convinced me he is a good filmmaker anymore.
I do think Kilmer has gotten better nowadays, but I thought he really captured the stage presence that Morrison had, but like I said he doesn't get to do much other than be stoned the entire flick. Could have been a great performance, but it becomes too one note.
As for our next flick hows about Naked Lunch. You need to see more Cronenberg. I would recommend Videodrome as well if you haven't seen it. I think those two films back to back will probably open up a new dimension. It will certainly be unlike any of these other films were watching.
That's what I get for not checking his filmography beforehand, I leave out JFK which I consider to be an excellent movie, second in his work only to Platoon and the last great movie he's directed (that it happened 16 years ago should be an indicator he's lost a step or three).
Then there's Any Given Sunday. Half-bad/half-good film for the most part, but damned if the Pacino/Foxx relationship in it doesn't get me every damn time. I love it. I love that ending. It goes a long way towards making up for some bad decisions (making the movie without the NFL's consent and improvising teams) and some bad action (LT loses his eye? Really?).
I still see glimmers of genius in his work, but I think you're right to disregard him as somewhat of an irrelevant filmmaker nowadays (same can be said of M. Night for now, but I feel like he has a better chance at a comeback - and I didn't even think Unbreakable was all that good either).
Of course, I think you should lay off Stone just a little bit. You're making excuses for Michael Bay (Michael f'n Bay) in one post and then you come down hard on Stone? At least the man can give you a character to watch, however loopy it comes out.
Then again, Born on the Fourth was awful, Nixon bored me to death and I haven't truly ever been legitimately excited for a Stone film, so what do I know?
Alright...so I'll chime in...despite the fact that I only saw The Doors once, and it was awhile ago.
And I'll agree with basically everything you guys said. I've never been the biggest Stone fan...absolutely hate some of his work...but do love Platoon, Wall Street, Salvador is very good as well, and JFK.
As for his continued "importance", most of it is just self-imposed. He says he's an important filmmaker, so some believe him. I think he once was, and still could be one, had his ego not gotten in the way. He's an interesting filmmaker to be sure....but interesting hardly equals good or important.
As for what to watch next, I'm a mega-huge Cronenberg fan...if his movies were drugs (and they almost are)...I'd shoot them straight into my eyeballs. But...considering Mulligan hasn't seen much of his filmography...I think Naked Lunch is the absolute worst place to start. It's his weirdest film (and that's saying a lot), and could potentially turn anyone off to his work completely...and that would be a crime.
I wasn't sure about Naked Lunch myself, but I'm a big fan of Cronenberg and this is one I hadn't seen yet. I tried to find something vastly different from what we had seen already. That said I will leave it to you Mulligan which one you want to see.
-Naked Lunch
-A Very Long Engagement
I would agree that from what I've seen Naked Lunch would be an awful choice to start your Cronenberg experience. A better choice would probably be Fly or Videodrome, and even Videodrome may not be a great choice. I'm conflicted here. I don't think Cronenberg is a director you gradually begin to like. You either get him or you don't.
Engagement is one I keep hearing is absolutely brilliant. Starring Audrey Tautou and directed by Jean Pierre Jeunet (both whom made the wonderful Amelie), it is supposedly one of the best war films ever (with the exception of Tae Guk Gi, which you must see Mulligan if you haven't).
Anyways just let us know so I know which one to get. I'll probably get both just to be sure.
As much as I love A History of Violence and enjoyed eXistenZ, I'm still gonna have to go A Very Long Engagement first. We'll get to Naked Lunch but I think I'd rather see The Fly before getting into it. My first experience with a David Lynch film was Lost Highway and I've still only seen 1 or 2 more of his films because that one was so off-putting. It's not that I don't like weird, I do, I'd just rather take it in as a part of the whole instead of taking the weirdest part first and working my way back to sanity (Eastern Promises looks, well, promising).
And outside of knowing that the team behind Amelie was responsible for it, the only other thing I know about A Very Long Engagement is Denis Leary went on Leno shortly after it's DVD release raving about how Jodie Foster flashes her chest at numerous points during the film...
...so thank you Mr. Leary for that positive recommendation.
Post a Comment