User reviews

Even though he didn't direct it (but he did write the script), True Romance had Quentin Tarantino's trademark stink smeared all over it.

Predictably fortified by one gory, Rambo-style killing after another (like, would you really have bothered to watch this film if this wasn't the case?), True Romance (a mighty grim, grimy, bleak tale of crime that's as old as bones) was your typical Tarantino trash.

Filled to over-flowing with endless Tarantino-type dialog (generously punctuated, for good measure, by the all-mighty F-word), True Romance's endless array of quirky characters (that even included a trailer-trash slut with a heart of gold) babble a blue streak, but, typically end up saying nothing in the least bit worthwhile.

I mean, for all of the jabber that goes on, True Romance doesn't contain one single quotable or memorable line in its entire 2-hour running time.

From Detroit to L.A., our delusional hero, Clarence (who justifies murder because Elvis Presley told him to do it) and his blushing bride, the flaky floozy, Alabama, are on the lam and being hotly pursued by cops and criminals, alike. It's the suitcase full of cocaine that everyone's after and, like, who gives a bloody damn how many people have to die for somebody, anybody, to get their greedy mitts on this jackpot.

Some people tend to put the blame for True Romance's considerable shortcomings squarely onto the shoulders of its director, Tony Scott (Ridley's bro'). But, personally, I think that Scott (who has clearly proved his competent directorial abilities, time and again) could only do what he could do, considering the dismal source of the inferior script that he was expected to work with in order to make something entertaining out of it.

In 1993 this piece of cinema surfaced as an absolute delight, however now well into the 2020s it has tarnished into veritable functional obsolescence.

The cast? Can't beat it.

And some of the exchanges and dialogue too, yes.

But the premise? A comic book store / kung fu film nerd magically falls for the one and done short lived life of a prostitute while seeking to parlay illegal stolen goods - - - what!?

The script stinks, Arquette's paperthin arc flounders implausibly, and Slater just slaters.

In short, if you'd like a succinct survey in what the 90s glorified then sit through this, but don't say you weren't warned.

This film feels like it was written by teenager with serious mental problems. I can imagine Tarantino and his ugly mug rapidly yapping away with great excitement over the script as he always does.

The only good things this film has is its cinematography and Gary Oldman. The screenplay is pure garbage and as for the overall plot the less said the better. The two lead characters are just unlikable, the situation that they bring upon themselves is just stupid.

I pity the mental state of the souls who think this is a decent film and with a rating of 7.9 there's many.

The film lacks deeply a important message, a reflection to be made from us viewers. I didn't empathise with the characters and its honestly one of the worst films I've seen.

This is one of those films that you shouldn't watch with your family: it's full of violent scenes, foul dialogue full of profanity, several sex scenes, among other heavy features. The story isn't exactly nice either: during his birthday, a seemingly ordinary man meets a seductive woman and the two get very involved. We learn that she is a prostitute, and was hired to be with him that night. They decide to escape, but are forced to kill her pimp and take with them a suitcase full of pure cocaine.

For me, the film's biggest problem wasn't the violence (Tarantino uses it regularly and is considered brilliant), but rather the implausibility of the story: I wouldn't believe in love at first sight with a prostitute, I find the idea implausible, and the same can be said about the idea of a frail boy, with a perfectly ordinary life, becoming in a few hours a brutal murderer and potential drug dealer. These are things that don't fit, but that the film takes advantage of to create a kind of "Romeo and Juliet Bang Bang".

There are several well-known names in the cast. For me, the best performance came from Gary Oldman, who is extraordinarily good in the role of a violent pimp. I wish that his participation was not so brief. Patricia Arquette is sexy when she's almost naked, and that was put to full use. As an actress, she did what she could, but she was given such bad material and such an unbelievable character that she couldn't do much. In turn, Christian Slater is not a good actor. At least, I think that he lost itself a lot after "Name of the Rose". Here, he keeps the same persona he presented in "Heathers", but without such an intelligent script to base it on. The actor did the job that was possible with bad material and a very bad character. Chris Walken is good in the role of the big villain: he knows how to be cold and appear threatening. Val Kilmer and Brad Pitt make brief appearances, but I doubt they want to remember this work, where they were very far from the shape we are used to.

Technically, the film stands out for the avalanche of good special effects it used in the action and shooting scenes, which are deeply crafted and stylized. Fans of action films will definitely enjoy this, and the climactic scene is worthy of an anthology. The rest ends up not really interesting and not having much relevance.