Seems as though it were crafted by a real geek. Sorry, Quentin. TRUE ROMANCE (1993)
** 1/2 out of *****
Much of Tony Scott's "True Romance" seems as though it were crafted by a real geek. The film's hero, Clarence, is a quintessential loser -- every year on his birthday he goes to see a movie and all 364 other days are spent working at a comic book store. Mere coincidence, then, that its writer is Quentin Tarantino? (A man who used to work as a video store clerk and watch "three to four movies a day" before hitting the big time as a director with 1992's "Reservoir Dogs.")
Most of "True Romance" doesn't seem very real at all. It's a harsh movie, but that doesn't bother me at all. It's when the character -- a self-confessed geek -- picks up a gun and goes on a killing spree at a brothel in order to free his call girl wife that the film seems to exaggerate just a bit. (Travis Bickle? Yes. A geeky nerd? No.) It seems like the sort of dream that Quentin Tarantino may have had years ago. In the real world, this all just seems a bit odd.
But the characters aren't living in our world. They're in Quentin's. I originally read the script for "True Romance" and thought it was splendid -- but soon found that Tony Scott's direction betrayed the darkness of the screenplay, creating a sort of half-good/half-bad movie that leaves the audience wanting more. Sure, "True Romance" has its good parts, but the people who tell you it's the best film ever are part of the "True Romance" cult. It's nothing more than a good movie with a fine script and bad direction. Scott ("Top Gun") has made some fine movies, but in terms of actual direction, this is one of his lesser ones.
Why? Well, for starters, the story is rather dark and grimy and bleak. Scott forces his audience into liking these characters so much that he betrays the grim tone for a happy look. The problem? Well, the characters are rather corrupt and the story is rather dark and the outcome is potentially unmerited. Scott changed the ending to the film, making it happier, which Quentin Tarantino admits works for the story. But, as he says on the DVD commentary, had he filmed the movie, it would have been a lot different. And when Quentin says that, I think he means better.
Don't blame the cast. These are top-notch actors in Oscar-worthy roles. But somehow, given their characteristics, they never come across as anything more than caricatures -- exaggerated molds of real people. Clarence is played by Christian Slater, and he meets and falls in love with Alabama (Patricia Arquette), soon finding out she's a hooker. Their romance is something I would expect a soap opera writer to craft -- they meet, he falls for her, she falls for him (hooker with a heart of gold!), they sleep together (in a scene reminiscent of that criticized love sequence from "Top Gun"), and he risks everything to free her. In less than twenty-four hours. Is something a bit odd here? It's like a geek's wet dream.
The supporting cast is to die for: Dennis Hopper, Gary Oldman, Val Kilmer, Christopher Walken, Michael Rapaport, James Gandolfini, Chris Penn, Tom Sizemore and Brad Pitt. They all do well in their roles, but seem to be boasted on the posters for promotional value. Hopper and Oldman have the most scenes, but die early on. Kilmer's face is never seen, and his body only appears in two sequences. Walken is in a single scene during the entire film, and Gandolfini is introduced (and executed) quite late into the movie. Bummer. It's basically the adventures of Clarence and Alabama.
Nothing wrong with that, except that their story copies from everything in sight -- most notably, "Bonnie and Clyde." To be fair, I understand what Quentin meant to do with his tale, and his original ending (although depressing) was much more suitable given the content of the movie. Quentin tried to add a dark streak to the clichéd romance-on-the-run genre, and Scott mistakenly made yet another happy-go-lucky (although very violent) road romance with two very simplistic, innocent, fake characters overcoming obstacles to succeed in the end. This is the stuff Charlie Kaufman hates.
The whole way through the movie, I felt as though I were staring at comical shadows of potentially real people, waiting to break through their boundaries and convince us all that they are more than just clichés. This script was sold early on in Quentin's career so that he could film "Reservoir Dogs" with the income. He was reportedly never very happy with the outcome of "True Romance," a film he had hoped to direct, and I don't blame him. From the very opening credits, I could tell this film was taking the wrong path given its source material. Maybe I shouldn't have read the script first. Maybe I had preconceptions. But it's still not a very well made movie. Blame Scott.
How some people love this movie is still beyond me.
** 1/2 out of *****
Much of Tony Scott's "True Romance" seems as though it were crafted by a real geek. The film's hero, Clarence, is a quintessential loser -- every year on his birthday he goes to see a movie and all 364 other days are spent working at a comic book store. Mere coincidence, then, that its writer is Quentin Tarantino? (A man who used to work as a video store clerk and watch "three to four movies a day" before hitting the big time as a director with 1992's "Reservoir Dogs.")
Most of "True Romance" doesn't seem very real at all. It's a harsh movie, but that doesn't bother me at all. It's when the character -- a self-confessed geek -- picks up a gun and goes on a killing spree at a brothel in order to free his call girl wife that the film seems to exaggerate just a bit. (Travis Bickle? Yes. A geeky nerd? No.) It seems like the sort of dream that Quentin Tarantino may have had years ago. In the real world, this all just seems a bit odd.
But the characters aren't living in our world. They're in Quentin's. I originally read the script for "True Romance" and thought it was splendid -- but soon found that Tony Scott's direction betrayed the darkness of the screenplay, creating a sort of half-good/half-bad movie that leaves the audience wanting more. Sure, "True Romance" has its good parts, but the people who tell you it's the best film ever are part of the "True Romance" cult. It's nothing more than a good movie with a fine script and bad direction. Scott ("Top Gun") has made some fine movies, but in terms of actual direction, this is one of his lesser ones.
Why? Well, for starters, the story is rather dark and grimy and bleak. Scott forces his audience into liking these characters so much that he betrays the grim tone for a happy look. The problem? Well, the characters are rather corrupt and the story is rather dark and the outcome is potentially unmerited. Scott changed the ending to the film, making it happier, which Quentin Tarantino admits works for the story. But, as he says on the DVD commentary, had he filmed the movie, it would have been a lot different. And when Quentin says that, I think he means better.
Don't blame the cast. These are top-notch actors in Oscar-worthy roles. But somehow, given their characteristics, they never come across as anything more than caricatures -- exaggerated molds of real people. Clarence is played by Christian Slater, and he meets and falls in love with Alabama (Patricia Arquette), soon finding out she's a hooker. Their romance is something I would expect a soap opera writer to craft -- they meet, he falls for her, she falls for him (hooker with a heart of gold!), they sleep together (in a scene reminiscent of that criticized love sequence from "Top Gun"), and he risks everything to free her. In less than twenty-four hours. Is something a bit odd here? It's like a geek's wet dream.
The supporting cast is to die for: Dennis Hopper, Gary Oldman, Val Kilmer, Christopher Walken, Michael Rapaport, James Gandolfini, Chris Penn, Tom Sizemore and Brad Pitt. They all do well in their roles, but seem to be boasted on the posters for promotional value. Hopper and Oldman have the most scenes, but die early on. Kilmer's face is never seen, and his body only appears in two sequences. Walken is in a single scene during the entire film, and Gandolfini is introduced (and executed) quite late into the movie. Bummer. It's basically the adventures of Clarence and Alabama.
Nothing wrong with that, except that their story copies from everything in sight -- most notably, "Bonnie and Clyde." To be fair, I understand what Quentin meant to do with his tale, and his original ending (although depressing) was much more suitable given the content of the movie. Quentin tried to add a dark streak to the clichéd romance-on-the-run genre, and Scott mistakenly made yet another happy-go-lucky (although very violent) road romance with two very simplistic, innocent, fake characters overcoming obstacles to succeed in the end. This is the stuff Charlie Kaufman hates.
The whole way through the movie, I felt as though I were staring at comical shadows of potentially real people, waiting to break through their boundaries and convince us all that they are more than just clichés. This script was sold early on in Quentin's career so that he could film "Reservoir Dogs" with the income. He was reportedly never very happy with the outcome of "True Romance," a film he had hoped to direct, and I don't blame him. From the very opening credits, I could tell this film was taking the wrong path given its source material. Maybe I shouldn't have read the script first. Maybe I had preconceptions. But it's still not a very well made movie. Blame Scott.
How some people love this movie is still beyond me.