Top critical review
3 stars -- or 5 stars, if this is your kind of thing.
on 3 February 2016
I don't like movies that make me feel, half-an-hour in, that I might like this -- if I were a different kind of person. I was muttering that after seeing "True Romance" recently, and a Tarantino fan overheard me. This is what followed:
TF: What d'you mean "different'? How "different"?
ME: Um . . . younger?
TF: Oh, you mean like "immature"?
ME: Your word, not mine.
TF: And what's with that 3-star OR 5-star rating? You can't do that, dude! It's like . . . messin' with Amazon's head.
ME: All I meant was that I think the movie is exactly what Tarantino and Tony Scott set out to make. On its own terms, it totally works, man. Kinetic, frenetic -- but I just don't like its terms?
TF: Why the [heck] not!!
ME: These were cartoon characters! I like human beings in my movies -- and Tarantino can write them if he wants to. Look at "Jackie Brown."
TF: Dude, that's so NOT a real Tarantino movie.
ME: If you say so. Quentin might disagree.
TF: Was there nothin' that you LIKED about it?
ME: There were some things. The best scene was the Dennis Hopper-Christopher Walken conversation -- people actually talking to one another, and it made a nice change of pace. Also, two old pros (though not too old in 1993) obviously having fun. And two briefer things -- Brad Pitt's turn as Floyd, the stoner room-mate, and the very brief scene of Michael Rapaport's audition for a small part in "T. J. Hooker." And it was touching, though irrelevant to the movie, to see James Gandolfini looking fit and good. Tarantino's writing in "Jackie Brown" was superb, but here, apart from the Walken-Hopper scene, the emphasis was on pace and visual glitz, not on dialogue. And it didn't help that I saw "Pather Panchali" last night.
TF: You're weirdin' me out, man!
ME: Gettin' old.