User reviews

I do not see why this film is so popular. It's kind of disappointing that many people believe this movie is comparable to Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. The cast is admirable, the acting is good, however the story itself had no appeal to me, at least as it was portrayed by Tony Scott. Christian Slater plays a silly, unbelievable character with a cocky smile on his face throughout the movie. However, good one-scene performances come from Gary Oldman and Dennis Hopper.

4/10 - A good cast and acting can't make up for poor directing and content.

I enjoyed this movies in my early twenties, when it first came out. I found it stylistic and edgy. Now that I've grown up, or in other words, that I'm not a pretentious 20 something, I found it empty and lacking in substance.

Watching it again, hoping to relive that experience of enjoying a great film from the past, I realized this one doesn't travel well. The story is silly, the dialog is, often gratingly, cliche, and though the production is decent, the style of the film feels like a rip off of several other movies.

Both Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette offer some of their most derivative and unimpressive acting in this film. The rest of the all-star cast doesn't help either, as the script doesn't give any of them good material to work with. In fact, every character feels like a 12-year-old's fantasy of an action/crime movie character.

In 1993, True Romance was an interesting film, with an edgy flare, but it needs to go back to 1993 because in 2023, it just doesn't hold up.

Only redeeming qualities for me were Walken and Slater's performances. Otherwise, a very messy story line with weak characters and plot. Tarantino's work is truly overrated.

True Romance...where to start.

I did NOT like this movie. After about an hour and a half, my interest waned and I turned back to writing up my chemistry lab report.

Straightaway, I disliked the dialogue when Slater was talking about Elvis to the girl in the bar...for several minutes. And it continued to turn me off: the lines were too stylized, expected, and long winded, with little fluff/point to them. And they were often incredibly vulgar. I can handle swearing no problem, but the sheer amount of f-bombs and vulgarity was entirely unneeded.

However vulgar the lines, a stellar performance by the actors can make it tolerable...I mean, Boondock Saint's was an incredible movie! But Boondock Saints also had incredible acting. Not a single one of the characters in True Romance held any sway over my emotions. I felt zero empathy; who cares if Alabama gets the crap beat out of her? Who cares if Slater gets shot in the head? Not me. The actors just did not seem to exude any feeling while delivering their lines, leaving me in a state of complete boredom and apathy.

The storyline wasn't too bad, though it seemed a bit forced along and strung together by the aforementioned bad acting and weak dialogue. I think the only thing that provoked me to rate this with a 3 is the cinematography. The fight scenes, explosions etc, were excellent, touched with Tarantino's talent of creating that funky mood through the use of cameras that we love so very much.

I would not, however, recommend this to anyone. No matter how pretty it looks. 3/10 is the best this can get.

The movie could had been great, had it been directed by Qt himself,the most unique of all the directors Qt,sure inglorious basterds, Kill Bill ,Pulp Fiction were great scripts, but what made them special was Qt direction, his choice of music, imagine if you didn't watch kill bill,and you comes to know about it's story for some parts you would say "it's unrealistic" but what made it realistic what made it superb was his direction,had he directed this too I m pretty movie would had very different magic, it's still a good movie because of Tony Scott but but it's just that you can't see it with Tarantino's eyes.

"True Romance" is definitely for fans of "Wild at Heart" - the title gives you no warning and the quality cast would surely convince that this was worth the rent. Bloody, violent, gruesome, improbable to the point of surreal, one has to ask if there is a lesson hidden somewhere in this. Maybe it's just to be thankful you weren't in it. The most wonderful actors were nearly reduced to walk-ons and some never showed their faces or lasted less than 30 seconds. Perhaps there's so much blood and violence to divert the viewer from the lack of content. The main characters seem to know this because whenever there's a break in bloodshed they start making out. If causing discomfort is the aim of this story, then it's right up there - I would be really curious about the kinds of people who have this on their favorites list! Yuck!

Almost many people including critics (probably critics's favorite) agree that True Romance is the best Tony Scott film, a masterpiece. However, the problem is what is so great about the movie? Direction? Sorry, but we are not talking about Enemy of the State here. Acting? I don't think so, no Oscar worthy performance here. The cinematography? Nothing special. Story? A guy and a girl meet and get troubled. That's the story. This is not a great road movie or lovers on the run movie, there is nothing impressive or even artistic like Quentin Tarantino movies itself. There is not any remarkable scene to mention with enthusiasm. I don't know this adulation is because Tarantino wrote the script or not, but this is the case. It was like one of the TV movies with a dreamy cast. Years years before I bought it from a newsstand, because saw the list of the cast on the cover and saw Tony Scott. However, not only it was only a huge disappointment, but also I did not enjoy at all. Some people say look! they watch a fighting movie in the film, a reference for martial art movies. That's funny, because I love martial art movies and I would prefer to watch any martial art movie instead of watching this again. True Romance has a dreamy cast probably you will never see once again in another movie. I could not pull myself together for a long time, after had seen the cast as mentioned, but it does not save the day. By the way, honestly, I couldn't see some of them, for example I couldn't see Brad Pitt against my full attention. Thus, this is not a 'cast driven' movie at all. Tony Scott's style (I mean Tony Scott in his early days like Top Gun or Enemy of the State) is missing in this movie. True Romance is not a stylish movie, it is just ordinary in terms of direction. And as I see, especially critics don't like Top Gun, but love True Romance. True Romance recalls One Night at McCool's in the final part. That part was a little bit sloppy, but at least entertaining. Tony Scott shot such a scene? Hard to believe. Later, I exchanged the movie with another one after watching. I know that it sounds intolerable for the fans of the movie, but it sounds intolerable for me either, when reading that they watch the movie again and again with great pleasure.

Prior watching this movie I took a look at IMDb to see if there's any risk of facing a crap by choosing this title. Score 7 I saw here, was indicating that there's lower chance of such situation (however I've already faced a few movies high ranked here that I simply consider pure waste of time. Matter of taste). So I picked up the movie, hoping that if it become a mess I at least enjoy watching Patricia Arquette.

And I was unfortunately right. The movie is simply a crap. Starting from the silly story, non-convincing acting and stupidity of the main characters - all this makes the movie a disaster. I was watching it, hoping "it will start to make sense on next scene". But it did not. I don't know why ratings are so high here - it says "Tarantino" in the credits, so maybe people think, "Oh, it can't be crap. I just missed the point. It's my fault". And they rate it then - 8, 9, 10(!) for no real reason.

I rated it 4 stars (and I think 3 would be still fair enough): 1 star for Gary Oldman's scene in the club, 2nd star for stoned Pitt scene and last 2 stars for Arquette (but the credits here goes rather for Mother Nature, not for the her "acting" I am afraid).

To summarize: if you love B/C class movies - give it a try (but don't expect the Godzilla in it anyway). Otherwise stay away.

Another glimpse into the tawdry mind of Quentin Tarantino, True Romance begins as a love story. The girl is a cute little hooker. Her beau is a nerd.

Their story soon involves criminals, drugs, violence, murder and the promise of easy money. Some people get giddy at the performance of Gary Oldman as the pimp. I don't know why. He looks like a pirate albeit minus the peg leg and a parrot.

It develops into a road movie as the pair flee to California with a stolen suitcase full of hard drugs. Dennis Hopper appears briefly, and in good form. He makes a speech about Sicilians which is typically racist.

It is probably better for keeping Tarantino at arm's length.

Some judge that the values the movie transmit are more conservative than counter-cultural or alternative,and that this doesn't prevent it from being a typical Hollywood movie.I think on the contrary that True Romance is quintessentially a Hollywood movie because the values it tries to transmit (the supreme value of the individual against all forms of authority(the police and crime,and on a lighter level,family and traditional moral),life seen as a roller-coaster...)go directly against the traditional American ones.It only serves Hollywood's almost subversive aims to use the pattern of the American Dream,to couple it with the notion of the Hero,and to lend it a woman's voice.

True Romance is a not really good. It wallows in every possible seedy contrivance of American crime/action cinema. It is absolutely shameless in its exploitation of excessive violence, over-acting, melodrama, lurid sex, and rampant drug use...I love it. Quentin Tarantino, as I'm sure everyone knows, wrote the story, but it is the in execution that this film pays off. The cast, oh the cast: The lynchpins are Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette. They both give solid performances, which prevents the film from flying off the tracks; they serve as the pilot light. The supporting roles are the gas. The Walken/Hopper show down has been oft sighted as the film's best aspect, and this is, arguably, true. Just watch this scene and then watch it again. Sparks actually shoot out of the screen and burn people about the head and shoulders. OK, you've got Val Kilmer as the ghost of Elvis, Brad Pitt as a disgruntled pot-smoking loser, Tom Sizemore & Chris Penn as cops, James Gandolfini (pre-Sopranos) as a reflective hit-man, and you've even got Bronson Pinchot (from TV's PERFECT STRANGERS) for God's sake. Did I forget Gary Oldman? Do yourself a favor and rent every single Gary Oldman related project (they're not all good films, but...). Why is Gary Oldman not in every film ever made? Why? I ask you why? He has got to be the best actor working today, hands down. As Drexel Spivey, Oldman chews the scenery, digests it, and then expels it from every orifice. Keep in mind that he is an English actor with a normal speaking voice at home in the Royal Shakespeare Company. His performance here is second only to his turn in LEON in blatant over-the-top insanity. Tony Scott, who along with his brother Ridley, has been known to over-direct a film or two, here chooses wisely to basically set up the camera and run. The score by Hans Zimmer adds a bouncy xylophone driven theme to the film and finds the right balance. This a well made, balls-to-the-wall, popcorn throwing, cult classic. In a market dominated with stereotypical characters, this movie avoids that trap by letting the stereotypes flourish with all the grotesque absurdity it can muster. 9/10

Some of this film is very good, some is very bad.

The opening 10-15 minutes are awful with Slater being annoying and talk of Elvis being boring. There are a few more awful bits throughout, mostly those where just Slater and Arquette are on the screen with no one else to distract us from their awful dialogue.

The action scenes are stylish and well done, the acting is excellent as you would expect from such a top notch cast.

This is less of a film and more a collection of scenes some of which are good, some of which are bad, some are violent and some are funny. The problem is that the bad scenes are really bad with awful dialogue making you cringe and that is too big a handicap for the good scenes to overcome.

Tarantino must have said: "Sprinkle up-and-coming actors, violence, misogynistic swooning, and caricatures of 80s crime dramas and we have an unforgettable action romance". It felt like a fever/wet dream from an 80s hipster.

What could have been a classic somehow has an enormous hole punched through its middle. limp directing and unfortunate casting of the male lead make the overall film a major disappointment.

Nonetheless one of the best scenes of movie history takes place between Walken and Hopper, so sitting through the rest of the dreck becomes somehow worthwhile.

I try to use the term "overrated," sparingly. But occasionally their are movies that cannot be described in any other way. True Romance is one of the most inane, and pointless films to ever be called great, that I personally have seen. It was written by Tarantino, and posseses his violent stamp, and typical, over the top ending. The violence I confess I found off putting at times. Particularily the motel room scene, involving Gandolfini and Arquette. Though it's violence is not why I have given it 3/10 . Otherwise I would be giving it a 2/10. Among the lauded performances, Oldhams is good, but not as good as some have made it out to be. Walken is menacing and interesting, but has little to do. Hopper is Hopper and nothing special. Gandolfini does a good job at being scary, while Pitt sleepwalks through his role. But folks, this is a genuinely crappy film, and I would advise potential viewers to go and watch something else instead.