IMDb > Reservoir Dogs (1992) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Reservoir Dogs
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Reservoir Dogs More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 7 of 87: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [Next]
Index 867 reviews in total 

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Brilliant movie.

Author: bubbathom from United States
27 August 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The plot of this movie just blew me away...It was just awesome. Then the acting was great for a non-all star cast, and Tarantino executed it very well. My impression on the movie changed, because I heard it had banned in other countries for violence, but there wasn't that much. I thought it was going to have a ton of action and stuff, but it was really just a cool movie with some pretty awesome scenes in it. I thought some parts were funny, some parts were smart, some parts were sad, and some parts were just cool. That's why I like Tarantino, most of his films blend so much stuff into them, this is one of those. Also, the ending of Reservoir Dogs has to be one of the best endings to a movie I have ever seen. Overall, great movie.9/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Tarantino's debut is still his masterpiece

Author: DarthVoorhees from United States
13 August 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have all ways liked Quentin Tarantino's work but I have to put an empathizes on the word 'liked' not loved. He certainly has changed the way movies are made and perceived but I have to disagree with a lot of people who consider him to be one of the greatest director's of all time. I don't want to anger his fans because they are plentiful and are all ways very passionate about their hero but I think Reservoir Dogs is actually superior to the much more loved Pulp Fiction.

Reservoir Dogs is simplicity it's self, it's a robbery and crime film where we don't see any robberies or crimes being committed. I actually kind of liked this, because it highlights Tarantino's terrific dialouge and the stellar performances by the cast. Since we don't get to see this diamond heist, the movie becomes more thrilling psychologically because the viewer is forced to imply much in his head. Don't get me wrong, the film is still gruesome but the thrills come from the aftershocks not the actions like in Tarantino's other flicks. In many ways this helps the character development because it is easy for a criminal to act tough but when they are at hell's door we see the people they really are. The emotions and real personalities under the tough guy attitude are what these characters are. In only one instance does the character not go through a massive change and that character is Mr.Blonde. Blonde is a psychopath down to the bone and this is demonstrated by the infamous ear scene("You'll never be able to listen to the oldies station the same way again").

Much is made of the fact that the lead gangster,Joe Cabot, gives every member of his team an alias. Each man ceases to be a man and instead becomes a color. Cabot says that it will help if they are caught so no one can be double crossed, which is really a smart plan but it backfires when it becomes apparent that one of the men is a police informant who tipped off the LAPD before the robbery could be completed. There's a traitor in the mix and these men need some sort of unity if they are to make it out alive.

Reservoir Dogs is one of the best told stories captured on film. Tarantino succeeds at taking something so familiar and turning it on its head until it becomes new and exciting again.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Funny, cool, vulgar, violent... Tarantino's best!

Author: mo-mack-daddy from Canada
24 June 2008

Now don't think I'm being biased on my opinion because Quentin Tarantino is my favorite writer/director hands down, but you've gotta admit, this is one awesome movie. Another thing that makes this so special is that this is the first movie I've ever seen. But enough about that. This movie is down right amazing. The performances (especially by Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, and Michael Madsen, who plays a convincing psychopath) we're incredible. Also great and original, was the plot (about a bunch of criminals who team up to commit a diamond heist, but turning on each other when it goes haywire), but most of all, the script was the glue that held the movie together. It was funny, cool, pop cultered, and vulgar. The only thing that let me down was the short length (compared to other Quentin Tarantino epics), and the ending, but overall, it was a fantastic movie experience and one of the best movies ever made! Watch it!

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Very Overrated

Author: moviewizguy from United States
3 February 2007

A gang of thieves carry out an armed robbery on a Diamond warehouse. The police are after them so quickly that they suspect they have a rat in their company. This film starts right after the robbery, with flashbacks to before the robbery, and to the planning of the crime.

After reading this plot, you know this is not your average crime film. In fact, I thought this film was about the whole diamond heist and that there will be a twist ending on who's the rat. It's absolutely nothing like that.

Although an original way to make this film, this film is mostly boring, with an exception on the prologue of the film which I found entertaining for some reason. This film is very violent and bloody with shooting here and there and yelling about this and that. That's about it with the film.

There's nothing interesting with the "boring" characters and "bad" story. The actings were relatively decent and this film is nowhere near one of the best films ever, although many people said it was, which lead me to buy the film on DVD, which I found a complete waste of money. One good thing about this film is that it's unpredictable and has funny jokes, which in real life would be just the opposite.

This film is decent but not a very good film. It has some originality and clever humor but all squished with a boring plot and uninteresting characters. This is just my opinion but I should say for those who want to see this film should rent it first before buying.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

WARNING - Reading this review may cause you to achieve maturity.

Author: TC Raymond from England
11 July 2002

I coughed up good money to see this revolting waste of celluloid at a late-night grindhouse showing back in '94. As I queued outside the cinema in the freezing cold, I was surrounded by excruciatingly nerdy teenagers who quoted the dialogue ad-nauseum, urban 'sophisticates' giggling like naughty schoolkids at the thought of the "controversial" film they were about to see, and curious students who, in retrospect, were obviously willing to accept whatever sadistic, would-be 'blackly comic' crap was doing the rounds before TRAINSPOTTING came along and gave them what they deserved. Finally, we got into the cinema, and as the film began with a long, tedious and desperately unfunny conversation about guys with big dicks, the lyrics of old pop songs and the validity of tipping waitresses, several people in front of me got up and left. A couple of the comments I overheard were "This film sucks arse!" and "What a waste of f***ing money". I wanted to join them, but I thought as I'd paid to see the film, I might as well stay until the end. By the end, I was bored, resentful, fidgety, nauseated and thoroughly let down. Who decided this was a CLASSIC? Almost two hours of lumpenly racist, misogynistic, thick-witted 'bad guys' dressed up like Jake and Elwood Blues, waving guns around, bellowing obscenities, bleeding, hacking, slashing, punching and torturing their way through one of the most banal, cliche-ridden and hackneyed scripts in cinema history does NOT amount to a classic. Yet all around me there was awed silence, gasps of "brilliant" and people falling over themselves to praise Tarantino's homoerotic gangster fantasy in ever-more lavish terms. It seemed that everyone in the cinema seemed intent on endlessly reappraising a huge, stinking turd until they'd convinced themselves that it really WASN'T a turd. And, depressingly, so do many of the reviewers here.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Pure Useless

Author: Gregory from Ireland
6 May 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Easily one of the worst films I have ever seen. I don't know how some people love it. Seriously overrated. Basically set in the one scene. One scene of gory violence which is hard to watch. A few pathetic attempts at humor. People who say its one of the best films of all time probably haven't watched much films. I don't think it's a proper gangster film like good fellas or Casino Which are classics. I also don't like how some characters try to come across as tough. Complete Waste Of Time ... Watch a real film like casino Twasnt worth the money I paid to watch it . I have to stretch this out to fill in ten lines of text

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

avoid like the plague

Author: herr_chagall from split, croatia
28 December 2011

"reservoir dogs" is the perfect example of a movie that continues to receive praise albeit it deserves none of it.

it is a weak rip-off of ringo lam's "city on fire" -- a bit of cinematographic education goes a long way and i recommend watching the original instead of this over-hyped puke.

Tarantino has made two good movies during his career, "pulp fiction" and "jackie brown" ... other than that, he has proved to be a one-trick pony that recycles the same pattern over and over again.

it is intriguing that people give this flick such high ratings, which leads to the conclusion that most of them are based on the lack of knowledge as to its history (of plagiarism).

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

This is the classic indie film

Author: dave_wlogan from New Zealand
21 July 2008

Tarantino's first film is perhaps the best. The dialogue is just people talking about normal stuff like music, TV, movies and random stories. The action has a realistic brutality to it which causes audiences to cringe and it has the best soundtrack a film has ever had. The cast is the stuff of indie film legend. Keitel, Madsen, Buscemi and Roth. Madsen shines above all these others due to his performance and the actions of his character. This film has been called overly violent but I didn't find it shocking to watch, entertaining but I grew up on Braveheart, Terminator and Pulp Fiction, three films I saw before I saw 'Reservoir Dogs'. This film is truly great, an instant classic and a must see film.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

A true classic on its own right...

Author: José Luis Rivera Mendoza (jluis1984) from Mexico
8 September 2006

It seems that it was only yesterday when in 1992 the then unknown director Quentin Tarantino screened his debut film, "Reservoir Dogs", at Sundance with great success suddenly becoming the new star of independent cinema and an the most promising director of that "class of 1992". Of course, later came "Pulp Fiction" and what started as a phenomenon within the indie scene became a worldwide success starting a trend of imitators and making Tarantino a powerful figure in Hollywood. But despite the rights and wrongs of Tarantino's career, the groundbreaking "Reservoir Dogs" is a fine example of excellent cinema and a classic of the 90s on its own right.

The plot begins with two criminals, codenamed Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) and Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), arriving to an abandoned mortuary. Orange is badly hurt, and soon we discover that they are members of a group of criminals hired to make a robbery, and that the crime went wrong when the police showed up ending in a shootout where the two of them barely escaped alive. After another survivor, Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi), arrives, the group realizes that they were set up by an infiltrated agent, but since only their boss knows the details about them (including the real names), anybody in the room could be the traitor. Finally, the arrival of another member, Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen), complicates the plot, as the other three are sure that he is the one who betrayed them.

Without a doubt, "Reservoir Dogs"' greatest strength is in the remarkably well-written script by Tarantino himself. The four main characters are fleshed out in a way that makes them very real, very human; each of them with a distinct series of personal traits that one can't help to feel that you know really them (something ironic, considering they are supposed not to know each other). The whole situation, built as a heist film where the heist is never seen (only told via flashbacks), makes these four personalities collide and actually the relationships between them become the point of the film itself. It's not about the crime itself, but about the criminals who committed it.

Tarantino's skill as a director is nowhere near his skill as a writer, but still he creates a very stylish film letting all his influences flourish, particularly the french new wave and classic noir heist films. Although it's safe to say that here they don't become as blatant as in this later "genre tribute" movies "Jackie Brown" and "Kill Bill". With very simple, but effective camera-work and a great use of incidental music as a soundtrack, Tarantino crafts a superb film despite its budgetary limitations shows a very promising talent with huge potential as a filmmaker.

The four main characters are wonderfully played by a very effective cast of actors. Harvey Keitel (who also produced the film) shows off his talent as the experienced Mr. White, who becomes some kind of paternal figure to the newbie Mr. Orange, in another of Tim Roth's excellent performances. Steve Buscemi gives his usual high quality work and the cast is completed by a Michael Madsen with tremendous presence and total control of the screen. Supporting characters are played by the very effective Chris Penn and Lawrence Tierney. Convict-turned-author Eddie Bunker and Tarantino himself appear in small roles with mixed-up results (Tarantino is not really a good actor).

The film is remarkably well-done for its budget, and despite being set almost entirely in a single room, it never feels tiresome or boring. Tarantino's violent crime drama has hold up well and personally, it rivals his follow-up, "Pulp Fiction", and at times it surpasses it. Some minor flaws include Tarantino's own lack of acting skills and an use of violence (not graphic, but somehow disturbing) that may be excessive to some people (although it fits perfectly within the movie's theme and atmosphere). Almost a flawless film.

Wheter one loves or hates Tarantino becomes meaningless at judging this film, its qualities makes it speak for itself as one of the best movies about crime ever made. It's hard to dismiss its raw power and creative craftsmanship. Maybe not a perfect film, but definitely the closest Tarantino has been to make one. 9/10

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

I don't mind the language, it's the beating I don't need

Author: ian_harris from London, England
2 July 2003

I know that this film is highly regarded and that my adverse view is a minority one, but I found Reservoir Dogs unsubtle and uninteresting.

I don't really like violent movies, but I liked Pulp Fiction, which I found clever and compelling. Reservoir Dogs shows some signs of similar flair, but only the odd flicker of it.

The strong language I was promised was not particularly ripe - I learned no new ways of saying "f*** you" having experienced the entire canon in Glengarry Glen Ross. Indeed, Mamet does foul language better. The introduction of the prefix "mother" in Pulp Fiction took the language genre much further. Mostly this film is distinguished only by the gratuitousness of its violence, which is disturbing at times, especially Mr Blonde's frenzy.

What little plot there is (and boy, is there little) didn't quite stack up for me, nor did it bring out any real complexity in the characters.

I enjoyed the opening scene in the diner, haggling over the morality of tipping, but it was downhill from there for me.

Good performances by Tim Roth and Harvey Keitel in particular.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 7 of 87: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history