Oliver Stone's The Doors

The movie is... well... nothing special, really. I’ve actually shared my thoughts on Oliver Stone's filmography elsewhere, but Val Kilmer is just phenomenal here. It’s easily his best performance; I’d give him an Oscar for it.

Oh, come on, how hard can it actually be for some Hollywood actor to play a messy, broken frontman?
I’m telling you, he only landed the role because he looks the part, and honestly, that's the only reason he seems even remotely convincing. That's it.

This movie is phenomenal 👍 Look, I'm a huge fan of The Doors, so anything involving them isn't going to suck in my book... the music? Off the charts. Val Kilmer? Honestly, who else could have played Jim better? The resemblance is insane 😲. And Meg Ryan playing Pamela... it’s just perfect. Then there's that ending, where the camera wanders through Pere Lachaise among the graves of legends like Wilde, Bernhardt, and Chopin while Morrison's lyrics play, finally settling on his bust 😢... you probably know that bust was created by some American sculptor, I can't recall the name 🤔

An American painter? Try to remember the name.

An American painter? Try to remember the name.

Mladen Mikulin and his work
location #4 in terms of popularity in Paris Jim Morrison's grave
Interesting article (in English) about

Gerald Barrett25 said:Mladen Mikulin and his work
location #4 in terms of popularity in Paris, the Jim Morrison grave
Interesting article (in English) about

👍

It totally slipped my mind, even though he was all over the news and TV talking about that one famous piece... barely anyone realizes the guy behind it is actually a total legend from back home...

swiftstag66 said:If you ask me, this is one of the most pointless psychedelic flicks ever made... and pairing that with "golden velvet"... I mean, that’s just a knockout combo right there..🙄

🙂 Personally, I dig both of them.
And when it comes to Val Kilmer, this is honestly the only role where he doesn't come off as totally greasy to me. He absolutely nailed the Jim Morrison vibe. *hats off to him*

Val Kilmer is great, but I’ve never been a fan of those whole "Indian" mysticism tropes—it feels pretty unoriginal, almost pseudo-spiritual. Honestly, I’m not much of a Doors fan either, and I don't have any love for the hippie era. They act like they're so special just because they let their hair grow long and spend all their time getting high or drinking, when in reality, that lifestyle just contributed to the decline of social morals. But hey, that's a much bigger conversation.

Edward Cooper11 said:Val Kilmer is absolutely killer, but I’m just not feeling those whole Indian shaman vibes—it doesn't feel particularly original to me, more like some kind of quasi-mystical cliché.

Ugh... tell me about it... I was actually just venting to a friend earlier today about how the movie leaned way too hard into that whole shamanism thing and all that nonsense about using it to trigger an ecstatic state... but honestly, even back then, shamanism was already pretty much on its way out... it’s all just acting, you know?
But whatever... that's a whole other rabbit hole...

The movie is just mediocre. I’ll watch it if it happens to be on TV, but honestly, it's only for the soundtrack...
Stone really butchered the portrayal of Morrison. Look, everyone knows Jim struggled with drinking, but depicting him as being totally destroyed from age zero to twenty-four is just ridiculous. He didn't show a single redeeming quality about Jim; instead, he painted him as this greasy, sick, selfish person. Sure, Jim craved the spotlight at times, but that doesn't make him an egoist—he was just a human being. Ray Manzarek even mentioned how disappointed he was with the characterization. They just showed us "Jimbo" (that nickname Manzarek used whenever Jim was getting wasted), but they failed to show us the real Jim... the good, witty, intelligent man...
I mean, that scene where he sets fire to the closet where Pamela is? Absolutely absurd...
The film isn't exactly realistic. They threw in a few dramatized scenes for effect, but some of them cross the line into pure disrespect toward one of the greatest legends in rock history, if not the absolute greatest.
Val Kilmer is alright, though his facial expressions when he's acting drunk are incredibly irritating. And yeah, someone wrote that Val sang everything himself—that's just not true. He probably handled some songs, but he definitely didn't do "Back Door Man" 100%

Movie rating: 5.5/10

I blasted The Doors through my headphones like a total punk throughout high school, and I’ve always maintained that in this film, Val Kilmer wasn't just playing Jim—he actually *was* Jim.🤣

wiredraven82 said:I blasted The Doors through my headphones all through high school, and I always maintained that in this flick, Val Kilmer wasn't just playing Jim... he actually *was* Jim. 🤣

Well, yeah, because you were a kid back then... 😁

Ethan Rivera53 said:Yeah, well, when you're playing a part like that, you have to lean into it. 😁

Oh, come on... look, he did a good job portraying Jim Morrison; honestly, how else could he have played him? For practically his entire life, Jim Morrison's stage presence was essentially just like this movie—purely psychedelic.

As both you and I know (judging by your avatar), The Doors aren't like your typical rock bands—and I listen to plenty of others—but The Doors are "like opera" in the sense that you either love them or you don't; there is absolutely no middle ground.

I'm not saying this movie couldn't have been better, but regarding Val Kilmer's actual portrayal of Morrison, I personally don't see any flaws in his performance.

wiredraven82 said:Give me a break... look, he played Jim well enough. I mean, how else was he supposed to portray him? Pretty much Jim Morrison's entire life and stage presence was just like this movie—purely psychedelic.

Since we both know (I can tell by your avatar), The Doors aren't like your typical rock bands (and I listen to plenty of others), they are "like opera." It’s one or the other; you either love them or you don't. There is no middle ground.

I'm not saying the movie couldn't have been better, but regarding Val Kilmer's portrayal of Morrison specifically, I don't see any flaws in his performance.

Like I said before, the music is good. The concert scenes are pretty solid, despite a few flaws, but still... that concert in Miami where he's dancing with ghosts and then with the crowd is a great addition to the film. Even if it didn't happen exactly like that, it's the director's "artistic touch." But Morrison outside of those concerts? In the movie, he's a total wreck. In reality, he wasn't quite that bad. There are plenty of interviews and videos showing he was a normal guy—maybe a little eccentric, sure, but not some complete maniac. But in this film... he is.

wiredraven82 said:Come on... I mean, he did a good job portraying Jim. How else was he supposed to play him? Pretty much Jim Morrison's entire life and stage presence was just like this movie—total psychedelic chaos.

Since we both know (I can tell by your avatar), The Doors aren't like your run-of-the-mill rock bands (and trust me, I listen to plenty of others). The Doors are "like opera" in the sense that you either love them or you hate them; there’s no middle ground.

I'm not saying the movie couldn't have been better, but looking strictly at how Val Kilmer handled the portrayal of Morrison, I don't see any flaws in his performance.

There you go, for me they're mid-tier 😁

The Beatles are the peak.

The movie is good, Val is good, everything is just alright. Since I've actually read and watched a ton of stuff about The Doors and Morrison—I've even read Aldous Huxley (does anyone actually know why 😁?)—it feels like it doesn't quite hit the mark. Actually, it's pretty far from it.

Ethan Rivera53 said:Like I said before, the music is good. The concerts are put together quite solidly—aside from a few flaws—but honestly, that concert scene in Miami where he’s dancing with ghosts and then with the crowd is a great addition to the film. Even if it didn't actually happen that way, it's the director's "artistic touch." But Morrison outside of a concert setting was terrible, and he really wasn't that bad; there are plenty of interviews and videos out there showing he was just a normal guy—maybe a bit eccentric, sure, but hardly some kind of maniac. Yet in this movie, he is...

I'll give you the Miami thing, but there's a massive difference between how someone carries themselves in a formal interview versus how they act at wild parties or in their private life. Most of what the film focuses on are those exact parties and debaucheries...

The actual guy—the real Jim—was chasing something otherworldly. He was looking for a different sphere of perception, which he tried to find through drugs and various intoxicants. His songs were more like poetry he wrote to process his various perceptions of life. Personally, I'd say his songs were perfect for when I just wanted to unwind while driving; I mean, is there anything better than cruising through the city with L.A. Woman playing? 😁 On the other hand, when I want to get pumped up with rock, I'll put on Led Zeppelin, the Stones, or even AC/DC if I'm feeling it.

Rock stars have always been strange creatures—just like most great artists—but Morrison was a particularly odd specimen. He remained that way until the end, and that’s exactly why this film feels so weird.

Robert Rodriguez11 said:Well, there it is. For me, they're just middle-of-the-road. 😁

The Beatles are the peak.

The movie is good, Val Kilmer is good—everything is just fine. Since I've read and watched so much about The Doors and Morrison, and even read Aldous Huxley (does anyone know why 😁?), it feels to me like the film isn't quite hitting the mark; in fact, it's actually quite far from the truth.

Well, it's because he named the band after the title of his book... besides, "The Doors" refers to that second perception of reality that Morrison spent his entire life striving for through his lyrics—and, unfortunately, through drugs. 🙂

Stop spreading misinformation. Sure, people always bring up Huxley's 'Doors of Perception,' but anyone who actually read the book (which definitely influenced Morrison, the rest of the band, and mid-to-late sixties culture) knows it's actually a reference to one of William Blake's most famous quotes from his collection 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell' (1790):

'This I shall do, by printing in the infernal method, by corrosives, which in Hell are salutary and medicinal, melting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid.
If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is: infinite. (MHH 14).' > link
(Huxley uses this exact passage in his essays and philosophical work, but it's widely accepted that he took the title of his book directly from this quote).

As for the movie, I guess I agree with everyone saying it's only worth watching for the music. Honestly, maybe you shouldn't even watch it—just listen to the soundtrack. Stone basically made a movie about everything except The Doors, and especially not about Jim:

'Oliver Stone is the anti-Doors. Oliver Stone’s movie makes Jim out to be an alcoholic, drunk weirdo; a strange poet totally out of control and you never see the intellectual side of Jim Morrison. You never see the wit, the charm, the elegance. You never get a sense of the real poet. You see a crazed Jim Morrison. Don’t forget the next movie Oliver Stone made, what movie did he make after The Doors?' > link

Morrison was an intelligent guy, a creative, a filmmaker, and a poet—not some brainless drunk or junkie like this movie portrays him. Besides the fact that the script is loaded with fake info, I think the movie is ruined by Val Kilmer's forced acting and constant facial posing. One of the biggest issues is the desperate attempt to hide how little Kilmer actually looks like one of the most beautiful faces in music history (he's even mentioned in Umberto Eco's 'History of Beauty'). They try to fix it with lighting and makeup, but the actor's constant, annoying lip-biting and unnatural expressions just make it worse.

Jim and The Doors didn't deserve this, but maybe at least that kid had a strong motivation to set the record straight with his film 'When You're Strange' 🙂

Lisa Davis46 As stated by:
Let’s stop spreading misinformation. People constantly bring up Aldous Huxley’s "Doors of Perception," but anyone who has actually sat down and read that book—which undeniably left its mark not just on Jim Morrison, but on the rest of the band and the entire counterculture of the late sixties—knows exactly what happened here. This isn't some new concept; it is actually a reference to one of the most famous quotes by the poet William Blake from his collection *The Marriage of Heaven and Hell* (1790).

I intend to accomplish this through a process of corrosive etching—a method that, much like certain harsh treatments used in medicine, serves a curative purpose by stripping away the superficial layers. By dissolving those obvious, surface-level facades, I can finally reveal the infinite truth that has been hidden beneath.
If we could somehow strip away the grime from the doors of perception, everything would finally reveal itself to us exactly as it truly is: infinite. (MHH 14).' > [Link]
It’s the same passage that Huxley constantly references in his essays and his broader philosophical outlook—though most people only realize the book's title was actually lifted directly from that specific quote.

Regarding the film itself—I’m in total agreement with anyone saying it’s only worth sitting through for the music. Honestly, you might not even need to watch the movie at all; just listen to the soundtrack and call it a day. Stone essentially crafted a film about everything except The Doors, and certainly nothing about Jim Morrison:

Oliver Stone is essentially the antithesis of everything The Doors stood for. His portrayal of Jim Morrison reduces him to nothing more than a booze-soaked, erratic wreck—just some unstable poet who couldn't keep his act together. You completely miss the intellectual depth that defined him. Where was the wit? Where was the charm, the sophistication, the sheer elegance? Instead of getting a glimpse of the true poet, you're just stuck watching a manic, spiraling version of Jim Morrison. And honestly, looking at his filmography, you have to ask: what movie did Oliver Stone make after The Doors? It says everything you need to know about his direction. [link]

Jim Morrison was a brilliant mind—a true creative, a cinematic visionary, and a poet—not some mindless drunk or a junkie like this movie tries to paint him. Beyond the fact that the script is riddled with blatant misinformation, the film is absolutely sabotaged by Val Kilmer’s forced performance and his desperate attempt at "mimicking" a face that isn't his. One of the most glaring issues here is the failed attempt to mask the total lack of physical resemblance between Kilmer and one of the most iconic faces in music history—a man actually featured in Umberto Eco's "History of Beauty." They didn't just fail through lighting and makeup; they failed through Kilmer's constant, agonizingly awkward lip-pursing and that unnatural, strained expression he maintains throughout the entire thing.

Jim Morrison and The Doors didn't exactly deserve how things went down, but at least Tom DiCillo had a serious motive to try and set the record straight through his filmmaking.When you’re operating on that different frequency—that "strange" wavelength—everything shifts. It isn't just about being eccentric; it's about seeing the architecture of reality while everyone else is just staring at the wallpaper. There’s a specific kind of isolation that comes with it—a quiet, heavy sort of solitude—but there's also a certain power in refusing to sync up with the mundane rhythm of the crowd. Most people spend their entire lives trying to blend in, terrified of a single jagged edge, whereas true outsiders know that the edges are exactly where the light gets in. 🙂

That’s a pretty solid breakdown of how everything regarding The Doors was captured in *When You're Strange*, but I have to take issue with the idea that the film paints Morrison as nothing more than a drunk and a washout. Sure, someone could interpret it that way—I get it—but let's be real: wasn't the actual Jim Morrison, the true Morrison, perceived by the majority of the American public for over thirty years? Yes, he was. But that isn't really the point here. The real crux of the matter lies in what he actually intended to create and how he is ultimately understood by those who truly listen to his work.

Nothing in that film was depicted with any level of exaggeration that wasn't already a core part of Jim's reality—and if anyone wants to jump in here to argue that it painted him as just some drunk or a junkie, well, let me tell you something: I’d bet my life that if Morrison were still around to sit down and watch that movie, he wouldn't have given a damn. To take offense at that would be to take offense at everything he poured into his music. To me, he will always be the ultimate artist, the top-tier intellectual, and a world-class musician; all that other chaos—the stuff people love to point fingers at—was simply the fuel that made him who he was. JIM. 🙂

Look, I’m not here to get into a debate about The Stones or Guns N' Roses—that’s not the point. It’s just frustrating to think about how people view Morrison. Honestly, I have zero interest in sugarcoating things for those who watched The Doors movie and walked away thinking he was nothing more than some cliché drunk or a junkie; frankly, they aren't even worth the breath it takes to explain it to them.

Lisa Davis46 said:Please, let's not spread misinformation. It's true, people most often bring up Huxley's 'Doors of Perception,' but anyone who has actually read the book itself (which undoubtedly influenced not just Jim Morrison, but the rest of the band and the entire culture of the late sixties) knows that it's actually based on one of the most famous quotes from the poet William Blake, from his collection 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell' (1790):

'This I shall do, by printing in the infernal method, by corrosives, which in Hell are salutary and medicinal, melting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid.
If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is: infinite. (MHH 14).' > link
(It's the same passage Huxley 'quotes' in his essays and philosophical approach, though it's widely accepted that he took the title of the book directly from this specific quote).

Regarding the movie, I agree with everyone saying it's only worth watching for the music. Honestly, maybe you shouldn't even watch it—maybe just listen to the soundtrack. Because Stone made a film about everything except The Doors, and specifically, everything except Jim:

'Oliver Stone is the anti-Doors. Oliver Stone’s movie makes Jim Morrison out to be an alcoholic, drunk weirdo; a strange poet totally out of control and you never see the intellectual side of Jim Morrison. You never see the wit, the charm, the elegance. You never get a sense of the real poet. You see a crazed Jim Morrison. Don’t forget the next movie Oliver Stone made, what movie did he make after The Doors?' > link

Morrison was an intelligent man, a creative, a cinematic auteur, and a poet—not some brainless drunk or addict like this film portrays him. Besides the fact that the script is riddled with false information, in my opinion, the film is ruined by Val Kilmer's forced acting and his constant 'mimicking' of a face. One of the biggest issues is the failed attempt to camouflage how little physical resemblance Val Kilmer actually has to one of the most beautiful faces in music history (he was even included in Umberto Eco's 'History of Beauty'). They try to fix it not just with lighting and makeup, but with constant, incredibly annoying lip-biting and unnatural facial expressions from the actor.

Jim and The Doors didn't deserve this, but at least that guy had a strong motivation to set the record straight with the film 'When You're Strange' 🙂

👍
I respect Stone as a director, but I hate him for this movie.

I think the movie is awesome, easily one of Val Kilmer's best performances. IMO, Stone really hit the nail on the head with this one.