User reviews

Darkly comedic action-based movie about two young marrieds--a clerk at a comic-book store and an ex-prostitute--on the run from police and from drug-lords after killing a coke-peddling pimp and making off with his valuable stash. Written by a pre-"Pulp Fiction" Quentin Tarantino, whose love of cinema and movie-lore is apparent right from the beginning (with an opening credits sequence that seems a direct riff on Terrence Malick's "Badlands"). Tony Scott directed, and though he's more attracted to sleaze than movie in-jokes, he keeps the action strong and hard-hitting. Unfortunately, after a promising start, the characters become stock figures in Scott's morass, a game of bad guys vs. worse guys. As a result, there's no emotion by the end, no exhilaration, just the feeling of having been batted around. Worth a look for "Pulp Fiction" fans and for some eccentric ideas and casting choices (such as Gary Oldman as the half-black pimp or Val Kilmer as the ghost of Elvis!). **1/2 from ****

I guess how you view this film depends on what kind of profanity and violence you can tolerate. If that stuff doesn't phase you at all and you like tough, rough characters, this crime movie is "your cup of tea."

I found this to be one of those films that became a little too sordid the more times I saw it and it went from a rating of "9" down to a "6" after three viewings, and then out of my collection. It was just too much in the way of language and unlikeable characters. There is not one person in this movie is has anything but a low-life. It's gets repulsive after awhile.

However, before that - to give the movie its due - there are a number of over-the-top performances and scenes I won't soon forget: for one, Dennis Hopper explaining in derogatory history of Sicilians to Scicilian hit man Christopher Walken. That was hilarious. Then there's Gary Oldman imitation of a black pimp, so outrageous one can't describe it. Then, of course, the wild shootout scene at the end.

Clarence Worley (Christian Slater) falls in love with call-girl Alabama (Patricia Arquette) and ends up getting married to her. When he hears of how brutally her pimp has treated her, Clarence has a violent showdown with him and Clarence takes from him what he believes to be Alabama's clothes (which turns out to be a suitcase full of cocaine). With the assistance of Clarence's estranged father, Clarence and Alabama flee with the cocaine with the intention of selling it to a major film producer. However stealing drugs carries major repercussions and Clarence and Alabama find themselves being pursued by both the owners of the drugs and the police.

Quentin Tarantino penned the screenplay for this film and what's most surprising here is that Tarantino merely serves up a fairly average script (one which lacks his usual creative flair). The story plays out as a sort of Bonnie and Clyde style road movie and pretty much every other drug related crime film in existence so there is very little in the way of originality here. Whilst the 'average' story is a weakness, thankfully it isn't a major one as the script is still interesting enough to make sure that one's attention never wanders.

One problem I did have with this film is that I felt that it wasn't quite as exciting as it could have been; the moment Christopher Walken's character showed up I expected him and his goons to terrorise Arquette and Slater more or less continuously, but aside from the one scene with Arquette and Gandolfini and the showdown at the end this is never really explored and it just meant that the film lacked that extra bit of intensity required to put it among the top tier of crime films.

Despite the above, part of the reason that this film does succeed is down to many well-known faces who command attention throughout; Walken is one of the highlights in this film and although his appearance is brief he makes damn sure it's a memorable one. The scene with Walken and Hopper was menacing and chilling (the two men are laughing at each other for a few minutes which was actually quite unnerving). This scene also contains some excellent 'Tarantinoesque' dialogue which is one thing that made Pulp Fiction both bizarre and fascinating. It's a shame that we're not treated to more of that here to be honest. Arquette is also excellent here and despite her being an accomplice of sorts she still shows a sort of vulnerability that endears us towards her. The rest of the supporting cast were OK, but I have to admit that Gary Oldman's performance here was a little embarrassing and for me no white man should try to be black. Oldman was fun here, but I suspect that this is a performance that he'd rather forget.

Tony Scott's direction is also very good and he certainly doesn't hold back in trying to bring some of Tarantino's vision to the big screen (the scene where Arquette and Gandolfini are fighting is shocking, brutal and realistic and is spoilt slightly towards the end of this scene by Scott allowing things to get silly and not knowing when to quit whilst he's ahead). The showdown at the end was silly, but at least it was fun.

For me, True Romance is a fairly average crime story but it's elevated by some magnificent performances, impressive direction, brutal style and a sense of fun that underlies all the menace. Worth watching for sure, but I definitely felt there was room for improvement.

Directed by Tony Scott, written by Quentin Tarantino, and one scene typifies the entire movie: mob lawyer Coccotti (Christopher Walken) and a handful of thugs visit Cliff Worley (Dennis Hopper) to get info about his son Clarence (Christian Slater). It's a fairly long scene with caustic insults flying, culminating in a racist affront that terminates the interview. Cliff did not Fink on his son-- but then one of the thugs finds Clarence's new address posted on the refrigerator. In other words: the entire brutal sequence was utterly pointless except for the shock value of Hopper's sensationally racist reply, which tells us that QT's dependence on shock would continue beyond "Reservoir Dogs." Well beyond.

We meet Clarence on his birthday, enjoying one of his gifts: Alabama Whitman, a whore with a heart of gold (Patricia Arquette). They fall head over heels and, in the first bloody scene, he liberates her from her pimp (Gary Oldman, holding nothing back) and absconds with a suitcase very conveniently stuffed with cocaine worth $2 million. Then, after saying good-bye to papa Hopper-- and naively leaving a forwarding address-- they head for Hollywood. In L. A., Clarence suddenly becomes a savvy negotiator trying to sell the coke to a film producer (Saul Rubinek) and his lackey (Bronson Pinchot, who manages to actually limn a character).

There are amusing scenes and violent scenes (Arquette vs Gandolfini is a whopper), and it all adds up to an entertainment that has seduced thousands of fans, mostly men, who treat Tarantino like the contents of the pimp's suitcase. Don't get me wrong-- Tarantino is a serious talent, but he often settles for being cinema's answer to Howard Stern.

In his best film, Django Unchained, Tarantino combined a weighty subject with disciplined film-making. Usually he just piles on more of everything, more dialog, more violence, more sensationalism. He's got a loyal following based on that approach, but his talents are such that I wish I'd aim higher more often.

Yes, Tarantino's writing was good. Yes Oldman and Gandolfini were amazing. But overall, the story just didnt seem grounded in reality. While the dialogue was great at times, other aspects simply wouldnt have been accurate. Definitely a ton of talent in this, a shocking amount. But I feel if Tarantino would have directed this, it would have won an Oscar. Oh, and the music absolutely sucks in this movie.

A lonesome comic store geek in Detroit (Christian Slater) meets the woman of his dreams (Patricia Arquette) and suddenly has the gonads to be a bad dude. But the mob tracks the couple down in Los Angeles with all guns blazing. The peripheral cast includes the likes of Gary Oldman, Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, Samuel L. Jackson, Val Kilmer, Brad Pitt, Bronson Pinchotand and Saul Rubinek.

"True Romance" (1993) is a crime drama/thriller/romance and black comedy directed by Tony Scott (younger brother of Ridley) and written by Quentin Tarantino. The latter sold the script to fund his first movie "Reservoir Dogs" (1992). It contains the ultra-violence/gore that Tarantino is known for, along with his satirical, comic book style that makes it more amusing than shocking.

While the all-star cast is incredible and there are several great scenes, something keeps "True Romance" from the top tier of "Pulp Fiction" (1994) and "Jackie Brown" (1997). I suppose it doesn't help that the protagonist's sudden transformation isn't convincing, not to mention that what he does is unnecessary and perilous (i.e. stupid), which turns him into a bit of a creepy nutzoid. But that's just me.

Imagine being blown away by the greatest album by a band and then purchasing their previous album, which is good, but not in the same league. You like it, but you're also a little letdown. That's how "True Romance" comes across after viewing "Pulp Fiction." Nevertheless, it's still worthwhile if you don't mind this genre.

The script was originally written in a nonlinear structure, which Tarantino is known for, but Tony Scott changed the story to chronological, as well as altered the ending, which made for a morally confused message. Quentin's original version would've worked better, preferably directed by him.

The film runs 1 hour, 59 minutes, and was shot in Detroit and the Los Angeles area.

GRADE: B-

"True Romance" is a peculiar movie. While it caters to all the action-kinda-romance-kinda-comedy-kinda-immature movie clichées, it still manages to put on an entertaining, and in many ways original, show. This movie is a boy's dream (of a boy, let's say, between 13 and 25) since the lead character ("Clarence") gets to have a job which seems to amount to reading comic books all day long, gets to meet, and win, a knockout girl who just happens to have the same interests as he (i.e. comic books, kung-fu movies, Elvis, etc), gets to drive all the way from Detroit to Los Angeles with a case full of coke (which they "innocently" plan to have transformed into a case full of money), all the time outsmarting criminals and policemen alike just like in....that's right!: the movies. It's clearly evident that this screenplay has been written by "the one and only" (you can interpret that expression in any way you like) Quentin Tarantino as the characters discuss things like Elvis's good looks and bad TV shows with the same intensity as if their lives depended on it. Almost in spite of itself, though, this movie feels original. For example, the relationship of Clarence and Alabama feels quite original, genuine and even sexy. And then there is, of course, that outstanding "interrogation scene" with Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken. Clarence's father, played by Hopper, knows for sure that his last moment has come when he is captured and interrogated by the Mafia guys. He knows for certain that they are never going to let him walk. He knows that he's going to die, so he decides to keep his honor and integrity to the very last minute and tells Christopher Walken "the story about Sicilians' ancestry" which, of course, amounts to his very own death penalty. This scene is great, played by two great actors.

True love sometimes travels on a gravel road. It is not enough to just fall in love, but get mixed up with pimps, whores and drug dealers. Christian Slater and Patrica Arquette make up the foolish couple in love. They are going to be together at any and all cost. They more than pay the price. Very violent film and you can see that Slater is a fan of Elvis Presley and Jack Nicholson. The all-star cast alone would make you want to see this messy and action filled story. Great performances from Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken. Very fine acting from Samuel L. Jackson, Brad Pitt, Val Kilmer and Gary Oldman. Fast and hard; this movie is no less than a kick in the ass. From the mind of Quentin Tarantino. Don't miss!!!!

The everyday dialogue laced with humour coming from Tarantino-involved films is the best part of them for me and True Romance is a great hi-energy movie with plenty of snappy lines. But (and this is now looking at it from 2022) the reason it scores 6 for me is that problematic Christopher Walken/Dennis Hopper scene. The dialogue there is so full on that it breaks through the screen and have you thinking about whether you should be enjoying watching the movie, or taking more from it, or analysing the issues stemming from the dialogue. I suspect it wasn't intended to do that, but the impact of it for me is that it detracts from a great movie by making you think too much.

True Romance failed to interest me enough. I didn't really care about anyone or anything. It was interesting watching one of Tarantino's very first screenplays come to life, and it was actually pretty good, however it was nowhere near as creative as the other films he wrote. This isn't exactly what Tony Scott does best. While The Last Boy Scout and Beverly Hills Cop II were directed with skill, he fails to fully satisfy with True Romance. I've always wondered how this movie would turn out if Tarantino had directed it instead. He could probably have done it better. But ultimately, the plot is so poor that even if Tarantino would direct it, it would still be a sinking ship.

Christian Slater and Juliette Lewis are pretty good though, but what really saves True Romance is the exceptionally great supporting cast, notably Gary Oldman and Christopher Walken, who deliver top-notch performances. They are, without a doubt, the best thing about this movie, despite their screen time is no longer than 10 minutes combined. Another supporting role worth mentioning is Brad Pitt in a two-minute role. His character is a major influence on stoner comedies later on, and it is this small role that, in my opinion, was the first to define how good his acting abilities actually is.

Overall, True Romance is worth the price of admission, because of the great supporting cast and Tarantino's (occassionally) good writing. - Moose finds this film worthy of an 8.

As much as I love Quentin Tarantino (well...love his movies), he does get pretty pretentious at times. One prime example was Kill Bill: Volume Two, where he thinks his dialogue is so good that he forgets that it's only good dialogue in a Tarantino fashion if it's funny, also. The same thing happened to True Romance. Often, Tarantino's writing is memorable, making his movies memorable and immortal. Although I'm behind on reviews, so I saw this movie a few weeks ago, I remember almost nothing from this film. There are some speeches characters give that could go down next to the "Royale with Cheese" sequence from Pulp Fiction, but, alas, they don't for a variety of reasons.

Clarence (Christian Slater) is a typical loser. His boss hires prostitute Alabama (Patricia Arquette) to have sex with him on his birthday, and before they know it, they're married. Clarence kills her pimp (Gary Oldman), steals cocaine from him, and goes to Hollywood looking to sell it. The pimp's men go out to chase them. What an exciting story.

I'm not going to blame it all on Tarantino. Much of the problem should be directed to director Tony Scott. You may remember him as being the one who took a possibility for a great movie called Man on Fire, chewed it up, spit it back out, and turned it into total crap. He shows more restraint here, making True Romance bearable and, at times, exciting. But nothing in it is memorable-the shootoff in Reservoir Dogs (which wasn't memorable per se) was more memorable. The characters weren't memorable, the scenes and speeches weren't memorable, and most of the movie wasn't memorable. I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm making True Romance out to be this awful movie. It really isn't.

Some of the movie was interesting (for then), and there's a great scene between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken. It doesn't resonate with me now, but as I was watching the movie, I was thinking how cool it was. While the characters weren't really defined much, they were acted well throughout. Samuel L. Jackson could have done more, though. Then again, Sam Jackson eating cottage cheese is exciting for me. But I digress. True Romance is nowhere near the potential Tarantino has, but if you watch it, you'll probably enjoy it. But don't think about it afterwards or you'll not like it as much.

My rating: 6/10

Rated R for violence, language, and drug use.

I enjoyed this film despite the fact that it was written by someone who apparently never met a prostitute or experienced being the subject of a felony arrest. The ending left me with one question; How did Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette produce a mulatto child?

If you compare this to another Tarantino flick (let's go with "Pulp Fiction"), "True Romance" offers a load of memorable bits; the Sicilians conversation; Brad Pitt's classic stoner; Bronson Pinchot; Gandolfini's merciless beating; the absurd shootout at the Ambassador. This movie's full of funny dialogue - and with that, some pretty gruesome violence. For me, it's not very cohesive, and once we leave Detroit for California sunshine (when it goes overboard with the cigarette smoke and filtered light) it loses something. The first act is where the sweetness between Slater and Arquette really shines; once they get the drug deal rolling, we lose Walken and that cute couple and it's a standard Tony Scott movie. We get back to the romance at the end, but by then, I really did miss Walken (and Gary Oldman - man, that guy's nuts).

It's the loud and in-your-face style that I wasn't really onboard with. Some Scott movies work pretty well. Some really don't. This was somewhere in the middle. And don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to violence; far from it. But here, it takes control.

6/10

'True Romance' is instantly recognisable as a Tarantino film, although it is directed by Tony Scott, with the writing credits attributed to Tarantino. The cast is promising, and the opening credits intrigued me with the promise of performances by Dennis Hopper, Brad Pitt, Christopher Walken, James Gandolfini and a host of other acclaimed actors. The lead roles are played by Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette, as a couple of cinema-goers who stumble upon one another and inadvertently fall in love. The plot soon acquires an action- thriller narrative as drugs, pimps and gangsters infringe on the couple's peace. Arquette handles her role well and plays some scenes excellently, but I'm not so sure about the casting of Slater: I think there was substantially better talent on-hand for 'True Romance', and I have to say that I didn't enjoy Slater's performance very much at all. One of the most talked about scenes of Scott's film seems to be the one between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken, perhaps the two most distinguished actors in the film (at this point). The scene is certainly decent, but doesn't really seem integral to the wider story. Many of the other scenes take a very Tarantino-esque approach: heated arguments are made between characters, followed by a bloody shootout. I think that this is milked somewhat in 'True Romance', and I thought that a lot more restraint could have been shown. The whole film seems like a proto-'Pulp Fiction', but with less interesting characters and developments. I also noticed that by the 45-minute mark, every character in Scott's film annoyed me for a different reason. The whole production is as inexplicable as 'No Country for Old Men' and as desperate as '25th Hour', but lacks the strong characters and narratives that defined both of these superior drugs-themed films.

It was great to see the humble beginnings of Quentin Tarantino. True Romance was the first script he sold. He wanted to direct it himself but no one was willing to give him the chance so Tony Scott got the job. I haven't heard much about Tony Scott but I think with Tarantino directing it would have been a better movie. It lacks that goofy feel that pervades through Tarantino's movies. The love for movies and just plain fun that is so integral to a Tarantino movie is missing in True Romance. Still, True Romance is a good movie. Stylistically influenced by Terence Malick's 1973 film Badlands it also stands as a movie in its own right. Who knew Tarantino was such a sap and could right halfway decent romantic dialogue? The voice-over narration and the background score is where it heavily borrows from Badlands and of course the serial killers on the run. But Alabama and Clarence aren't serial killers on the run. They are just people wanting to start over and try to live a better life, a happier life. But Tarantino will not let them do it easily. There are gangsters, Hollywood movie producers, old friends, drugs, policeman and guys with wires. More often than not Tarantino's movies have a variety of different plot that collide and all hell breaks loose. We witness this again and have a Mexican standoff. I guess that is where the problem lies. Tony Scott just directed the movie and I guess he didn't care so much about the characters and the Mexican standoff became very predictable in the last half hour of the movie and the action scenes were a little too cheesy.

The supporting cast features some of the biggest stars of today. Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini to name a few. Back then I guess they were just starting out. It is great fun to see a young James Gandolfini a couple of years before he played Tony Soprano doing what he does best. It's surprising how Michael Rappaport frequently plays the old friend of the lead character. He plays the same character in Beautiful Girls and some Schwarzenegger movie. I guess this was the movie that made him typecast in that role. The cast is decent. I never really like Christian Slater that much. His voice always irritates me but he's done a decent job in the film. The female decent is quite good actually. She is very pretty and plays her role with aplomb. True Romance is about well a True Romance. How two people meet and realize they are perfect for each other. It is about innocence and losing, grabbing chances and trying to struggle for something better. A better future. Because mostly things go wrong. But sometimes they go the other way too . . . . . . The other way too . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nothing in True Romance is especially mature, but that doesn't stop it from being quite the little blast of cine-literate pulp nonsense. Some of it's funny, some of it's actually quite disturbing; most of it has a lot to do with drugs and pimps, and lowlifes killing other lowlifes to an omnipresent rock-'em-sock-'em aesthetic; it's put together in this manner that has it creep along the line of what's acceptable and what isn't, but it works in the long run if for the time you're sitting there watching it. To state that it's one of the best films a certain Tony Scott ever made speaks volumes; to say the likes of those such as Brad Pitt went on to play roles much more interesting in films that were a lot better speaks even greater volumes. Most of the film is good value; very little of it is especially grown-up; it's tone and content, which will sway wildly from stoner comedy to one of the two leads receiving a beating from a mobster in a nasty little scene, just about holds together with this dumb, infectious energy constantly ticking it over in the engine room.

Christian Slater plays Clarence Worley, a store clerk in his twenties; a sensitive and kind, although schizophrenic, man who craves a female presence in his life and talks with great enthusiasm about things that are dear to him, namely comic books; Elvis Presley tracks and import kung-fu films of the 1970s. When I think of a "Clarence", I think of a deliberately dorky looking character in a Gary Larson sketch. He sits at a bar, during the opening scene, and talks to a sex worker about these things, but he's out of his depth - as if he's too nice-a guy to be in this zone speaking to this calibre of person, but so starved of anything remotely of Clarence's ilk is the zone within which he's based, that he must resort to such places and people. She is disinterested, but then again of course she is.

Cut to an establishing shot of where we are: a grim looking Detroit with a grey cloud over it and a generally gloomy atmosphere. Fate appears to deliver an amiable blow when another young sex worker, Patricia Arquette's Alabama, enters the cinema within which Clarence is watching a kung-fu film and sits next to him. They bond, appear to get along and before True Romance's second act can even stretch its legs in preparation to enter the fray, they are married. Clarence is happy he's quashed his desire for someone female and with the apparent interest in what he likes and Alabama's search for some sort of consistency in this, her trek up from far and away Florida, has led her to young Clarence.

Where Slater's character lived for the adventure in his movies, and could only feel passion and love for certain comic books in that he's very protective of certain rare varieties of them, he is now able to direct unto Alabama this enthusiasm to keep something that needs protecting as pristine as possible as well as experience the adventure and dangers abound in his films and comic books. This is born out of what lies within the threatening circles within which Alabama operated prior to knowing Clarence: specifically, her pimp Drexl (Oldman) and the fact he takes issue with this newly formed matrimony. The point of no return is crossed; this first barrier the "new" Clarence must hurdle if he is to live out his fantasies and maintain what it is he's found after years of searching accomplished in his killing of Drexl. Once carried out, the pair of them head for Los Angeles out of the fact somewhat skewered twist of fate that saw Clarence grab a case of cocaine upon leaving Drexl's abode, with the mobsters (the true owners of the drugs) out looking for it too.

It's no secret the film loses a lot of its energy and verve upon its arrival in California; primarily out of the fact they get there too quickly and the early poking around under this cloud of gloom and apparent despair as a young guy and a young girl fall in love and try to work around this psychotic pimp is quite good. I've never been fond of crime films set in sunny, bright nor indeed welcoming locales, but what's lacking here is much for Clarence and Alabama to actually get up to. We do not, to the film's ultimate detriment, have the leads' journey to L.A. depicted; a passage of time rife with the potential for dramatic ingredients and the opportunity for a stone-wall antagonist to establish themselves so that it might provide these two leads something to do. There is the potential for this sort of material, in that Christopher Walken plays the boss of a group of these mobsters looking for their cocaine, whose verbal standoff with Clarence's father as he strives to find where they've gone calls to mind the best of what True Romance writer Tarantino can do: think the opening scene of Inglourious Basterds or the final scenes of Pulp Fiction. Alas, he disappears after this one sequence. Credit must go to Christian Slater, who does well in his depiction of someone going from being this weak clerk to a hardened guy having to punch well above his weight, but the film lacks any sort of backbone. Its persistency to use Malick's overture from Badlands serves only to remind us how good that film was, whereas with hindsight, one is able to point out how Tarantino forged an early forte out of depicting partnerships, or couples, dodging bullets and doing crime as apparent in Natural Born Killers; From Dusk 'til Dawn or strands of Pulp Fiction. This is the lesser of the four, and not particularly brilliant as a standalone film either.

Everybody was great in the film except two of the main character, Slater and Arquette was good at theirself but not as a couple, i didn't engaged with their relationship, i didn't feel their relationship, and i didn't care about their relationship, everything is going too fast for them, i just not feeling it, it's a great action packed, it's an interesting crime story, but not a True Romance.

Quentin Tarantino wrote "True Romance", with some help from an uncredited Roger Avary, but Tony Scott was the director which might account for why, at times, it's a sickeningly violent, exploitative mess of a movie redeemed by the brilliance of Tarantino's dialogue and its terrific cast.

Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette are the young lovers on the lam with $500,000 worth of cocaine stolen from the Mob while Christopher Walken, brilliant as always in his one-scene cameo, and James Gandolfini are among those on their trail. Movie references abound, of course, but it needs a firmer hand on the helm. There's fun to be hand here but it's also really rather unpleasant.

The British school of direction. I suppose few of you out there go for Director's Commentaries, so few of you would know about The Persuader employed by Tony Scott. Before I continue, the man is dead, I'm hesitant to throw stones at somebody who is no longer with us, but I only found that out a little while ago. But as for what Tony fondly refers to as the British school of direction, smacking his leading lady through the face to get her to sufficiently emote for two scenes in this movie (the romantic 'billboard' scene where Clarence finds her softly weeping outside on the roof, and the one where she thinks Clarence is dead)... Isn't it just too damn much that the movie that is notorious for its violence against women (the James Ganfolfini Virgil beating up Alabama scene is surely the cinematographic zenith of just exactly this, and IF THERE IS SOMETHING OUTDOING THIS, KINDLY DON'T BRING IT TO MY ATTENTION, I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT) had a director that slapped an (in basically his own words) innocent kid with a child-like quality through the face? To get her all teary- eyed after a grueling shooting schedule when she wasn't able to project herself as the script required... Believe me, I do understand. I just find it absolutely appalling. Hell, is this what they did on PARTY OF FIVE? Imagine if that was what they did on weepy old PARTY OT FIVE!

As for the movie, I find it overrated. Everybody's so damn pleased, it is such a beloved classic. To me it seems that as long as you satisfy people's need for on-screen violence (which this one does in spades!), it is just hunky-dory, everybody is so peachy- keen on it, nobody's complaining, the reviews are favorable EVEN THOUGH THE EFFING THING FAILS TO MAKE ANY EFFING SENSE! I could point out that I find obnoxious Virgil's comment re the first time you kill, how difficult that is, to be what-I-accept-to-be the truth. Yet killing doesn't affect Clarence, he takes to it like a duck to water, he is therefore a natural born killer (ha! No pun intended) yet he is supposed to be a sweet comic book store Average Joe, Oh For Crying Out Loud I Rest My Case, I won't go on this any further (my tea is getting cold), the script is torn between a madman genius's schizophrenic bipolar conflicted mind's disparate working.

From the start, especially there in the movie theater, Patricia reminded me of Christina Applegate (Kelly Bundy in MARRIED WITH CHILDREN) and I'm pretty sure the two are interchangeable :)

Man and hooker fall in love after one night of watching Kung Fu movies and get married and then he goes off to kill her pimp. The beginning is stupid and amateurish. Then the mob gets involved and it gets better, thanks to the infusion of humor and the presence of the likes of Hopper, Walken, Gandolfini, and Pitt. However, Slater and Arquette are unappealing and annoying as the leads and their characters are clichés. The violence is gratuitous and revolting. Why do directors think watching people get cut is entertaining or artistic? Scott so overuses the closeup that it loses its purpose; he should get a few pointers from his brother, Ridley, about the fine art of directing.