Question: is this a great film or one of the biggest missed opportunities in movie history? Having heard both sides of the argument in recent days, it's little wonder that it has taken me the best part of a week after viewing to reach this conclusion (if you can call it that). Given that it has possibly one of the best casts ever assembled, a typically brash and brilliant script from Quentin Tarantino and a veteran of countless action movies at the helm, this really should have been one of the best films ever made and perhaps, if Tarantino had kept his hands on it, it might have been. Instead, we have an incredibly slick and entertaining crime film that I felt needed a bit more pace and consistency to become a true classic.
In arguably his best film, Christian Slater plays Clarence who is an odd-beat loser working in a run-down comic shop in Detroit with an unhealthy interest in Elvis. After meeting the beautiful call-girl Alabama (Patricia Arquette), they both fall hopelessly in love and the newly-motivated Clarence decides to free Alabama from the grip of her pimp Drexel (Gary Oldman). But stumbling across a suitcase full of cocaine, Clarence decides to take the drugs to Hollywood and fund their new lives together. But unfortunately, the Mob are hot on their heels and soon discover what our lovestruck heroes have planned...
This really is classic Tarantino territory - a contemporary crime thriller with tonnes of funky dialogue, more big-name actors than the entire "Oceans" trilogy and oodles of retro charm. And yet, "True Romance" certainly doesn't feel like a Tarantino film - the pace is all wrong (it feels much slower than "Pulp Fiction", despite being shorter in length) and dare I say it, I found myself losing interest. But just when I was about to give up, somebody new steps into shot and delivers another faultless performance. I have rarely seen acting of such quality from so many individuals, despite the fact that most are only in for a couple of scenes at best. Personally, I found James Gandolfini's portrayal of a Mob hit-man utterly convincing and it certainly ensured he'd be typecast for the rest of his career. Hell, even Val Kilmer doesn't suck! But all the time, I found myself wondering how truly brilliant this film might have been if Tarantino had never sold it. I understand his reasons why - I'd forgive almost anything for giving us "Pulp Fiction" - but I feel Tony Scott didn't quite know what to do with it. Exhibit A - the ill-judged and misplaced scene on the roller-coaster.
It's not that "True Romance" is a bad film because it isn't and I'd happily watch it again sometime. But I just feel that Scott wasn't the right director, although he has worked miracles with the cast who are all supremely good. PBs for Kilmer, Slater and Arquette while Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper share one of the all-time great scenes like two giant beasts tearing each other to shreds. But "True Romance" isn't the bone-fide classic some people think it is. It's too slow and the ending is far too predictable, ruining what should have been an absolute stonker of a movie. And it should have be - all the ingredients were in place with the exception of the director. So is this a great crime film or a wasted chance? Personally, I think greatness has slipped through our fingers.
In arguably his best film, Christian Slater plays Clarence who is an odd-beat loser working in a run-down comic shop in Detroit with an unhealthy interest in Elvis. After meeting the beautiful call-girl Alabama (Patricia Arquette), they both fall hopelessly in love and the newly-motivated Clarence decides to free Alabama from the grip of her pimp Drexel (Gary Oldman). But stumbling across a suitcase full of cocaine, Clarence decides to take the drugs to Hollywood and fund their new lives together. But unfortunately, the Mob are hot on their heels and soon discover what our lovestruck heroes have planned...
This really is classic Tarantino territory - a contemporary crime thriller with tonnes of funky dialogue, more big-name actors than the entire "Oceans" trilogy and oodles of retro charm. And yet, "True Romance" certainly doesn't feel like a Tarantino film - the pace is all wrong (it feels much slower than "Pulp Fiction", despite being shorter in length) and dare I say it, I found myself losing interest. But just when I was about to give up, somebody new steps into shot and delivers another faultless performance. I have rarely seen acting of such quality from so many individuals, despite the fact that most are only in for a couple of scenes at best. Personally, I found James Gandolfini's portrayal of a Mob hit-man utterly convincing and it certainly ensured he'd be typecast for the rest of his career. Hell, even Val Kilmer doesn't suck! But all the time, I found myself wondering how truly brilliant this film might have been if Tarantino had never sold it. I understand his reasons why - I'd forgive almost anything for giving us "Pulp Fiction" - but I feel Tony Scott didn't quite know what to do with it. Exhibit A - the ill-judged and misplaced scene on the roller-coaster.
It's not that "True Romance" is a bad film because it isn't and I'd happily watch it again sometime. But I just feel that Scott wasn't the right director, although he has worked miracles with the cast who are all supremely good. PBs for Kilmer, Slater and Arquette while Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper share one of the all-time great scenes like two giant beasts tearing each other to shreds. But "True Romance" isn't the bone-fide classic some people think it is. It's too slow and the ending is far too predictable, ruining what should have been an absolute stonker of a movie. And it should have be - all the ingredients were in place with the exception of the director. So is this a great crime film or a wasted chance? Personally, I think greatness has slipped through our fingers.