The Worst Movie I Have Ever Seen.

Rating: 2/10 (18 December 2000)

Plot Spoiler: This movie is terrible.
There is no doubt in my mind that the reason Tarantino didn't direct this himself is because he is smart enough to see how sophomoric it is. It has all the gore, noise, dirty characters, "hip" dialogue and star-studded cast of his other films except it is missing one key element... artistry.
Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs: I will defend forever the necessity of violence in those movies. I am a big fan of Tarantino's directing, storytelling and interesting characters; this film has none of it. Because it wasn't directed by Tarentino, it has no taste. The movie treats its characters with as much care and interest as an injured wolf gnawing its own leg off. The script and direction treat the characters as obstacles to the action sequences (which there aren't many of).
The violence usually associated with Tarantino (and his immediate influences like Peckinpah and Scorsese) appears for reasons unknown to Tony Scott. Violence is a way of life for the Wild Bunch or Nicky Santoro of Casino. The directors gracefully and lovingly examine the characters and foreshadow their downfall. We are not supposed to really like the characters, we are supposed to be entertained by them and enjoy their confusion amongst the terrible, dark situations they are thrown into. Here, Christian Slater plays the role as if it were Kuffs 2. He walks through the entire movie with a smirk on his face because he knows the ending of the movie and the size of his paycheck.
This is not a Tarantino movie. Tarantino sold the script to fund Reservoir Dogs. True Romance has the feel of a Tarantino rip-off, but instead it is basically a rip off of everything he ever saw in that famed movie store he worked at. It is interesting for true fans of Tarantino to watch this movie and see him evolve from 'wannabe-tough guy movie maker', like Tony Scott, to his unique style of film for which he is famous.
PLOT SPOILERS
The plot itself is completely unbelievable and so over the top that you want to take a shower in spring water and watch Beauty and the Beast. This movie is the epitome of "glorified violence." Everybody in the film has to be a bigger badass than they were five minutes before. Watch the scene between Oldman and Slater or Hopper and Walken. Both those scenes are such crap that you wish Scott hadn't even bothered with plot. Basically he wanted to show how cool his characters can be. Those two scenes ruin the movie, no I take that back, it's a terrible movie, those two scenes emphasize how terrible it is. It is based on glamor and attitude, like a Britney Sears video, and has no basis in character development at all.
The beauty of Tarantino's real films is the weakness of each of his characters (the gold watch, Jules' enlightenment, Mr. White's compassion, Mr. Blonde's sadism). The only character here that has any flaw is the character played by Bronson Pinchot. That character was created for comic relief, not out of an interest for his flaws and morals (or lack thereof). Not one action made by any character in the movie makes any sense. Alabama falling in love with Clarence after she is paid to have sex with him, Clarence deciding to go kill Drexl and his gang just because Drexl kicked one of Alabama's friends in the stomach, Clarence's dad suddenly becoming so badassed and hard-edged that he p***es off the one-dimensional Walken character... The only reason people think that scene is any good is because they recognize Hopper from his earlier roles in life, they obviously overlook how ludicrous it really is.
Every action scene has our two heroes living, despite the odds. The scene where Alabama is beaten in the bathroom quite possibly is the most pointless, mind-numbing five minutes of film ever, especially because she lives. Give me a break! If the scene illustrated how terrifyingly she was murdered then maybe I could stand to sit through it. Why does a comic book salesman think he can escort his new girlfriend through a drug deal? It's not interesting in the least. It's stupid! The whole movie revolves around the idiocy of the audience. It depends on the viewer to become stupider with each scene to understand the ending. How the hell do they survive? That's not interesting! It's stupid! Nothing about this movie is any good.
There is not much else to say, the movie is so unrealistic and so unbelievable that each scene makes less sense than the one before it and the audience quickly runs out of forgiveness.
I was going to give this movie a 1 but then I remembered Brad Pitt's cameo and decided to give it a 2 out of respect for THAT actor and the only role in this movie that was believable. I lost a lot of respect for Oldman, Hopper, and Walken.
*After reading the reviews to this film by users of IMDb.com I realized that nobody has seen any good movies. If I hear one more comment about the scene between Walken and Hopper I will buy the rights to this movie and burn every copy of it. Do yourselves a favor, rent a lot more Howard Hawk, John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, Martin Scorsese, and Sean Penn. They make great films. Tony Scott doesn't. Tarantino is not as original as you all think. I almost want to say I am not a Tarantino fan strictly on the basis of how simple-minded 90% of his viewers are.