|Page 9 of 96:||               |
|Index||953 reviews in total|
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.
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
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.
Reservoir Dogs is easily the best film Quentin Tarantino has directed. Much
better than Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown. RD is funny, entertaining,
intelligent and actually not so violent as some people say. Sure, lots of
blood, but not so much violence, according to me.
The acting... Steve Buscemi has never been better, Harvey Keitel is great, but the stand-out in this great cast is Tim Roth. He's brilliant. Great flick. (8/10)
Simply put, "Reservoir Dogs" is one of the greatest movies ever made.
This 1992 predecessor to 1994's "Pulp Fiction" is truly in a class by
itself. This film has been a blueprint for basically every other
wanna-be-like-Tarantino movie made in the last seven or so odd years. The
acting is truly superb. Every one of the main characters turn in top-notch
performances. Harvey Keitel's turn as the o'er-the-hill criminal MR WHITE
is perhaps his best ever. Micheal Madsen's take as the psychopathic MR
BLONDE is perhaps one of the most realistically frightening performances
I've ever seen. This was truly the role he was born to play.
Rounding out the cast, you have the always enjoyable Steve Buscemi (MR PINK), Tarantino favorite Tim Roth (MR ORANGE), Tarantino favorite Quentin Tarantino (MR BROWN), Chris Penn as NICE GUY EDDIE and finally.....(whew)....Lawrence Tierney as the cranky mob boss JOE CABOT. The cast is utterly superb.
One aspect of Tarantino's is his ability to say so much with so little. Though the scene involving MR BLONDE'S shooting spree is never actually seen in the film, it is all too easy to picture Micheal Madsen in his JoeKool shtick, blasting holes into anything moving with eerie unemotional detachment. Tarantino BUILDS his characters with amazing style. (see Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, etc...) MR WHITE'S compassionate struggle to protect and save the life of MR ORANGE is gutwrenchingly moving. True "honor among thieves" type stuff here.
All in all, this movie is a classic. Be cool.....man.
*** 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
"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).
When viewing information about different movies, and their respective reviews on this website, officials posted that this movie was likened to the film "Diner". At first, I found this to be a very peculiar comparison!! The minute I popped this movie into the DVD player, I realized the similarity to both movies, particularly with regards to the introductory dialog... I like this type of opening scene, the gist of it being whereby the incongruity of conversation effectively depicts the twisted character portrayals of the pivotal actors in the film !! The camera angles to the coffee shop pontifications, as illustrated in "Diner" and in "Resevoir Dogs", were extremely poignant!! As was the case with "Diner", "Resevoir Dogs" depicted an overtly energetic camaraderie with everyone conversing at the coffee shop table. The film, "Diner" provided a succinct illustration of kindred spirits which were precocious, with "Resevoir Dogs" the bonds were rather macabre!! Focusing now on "Resevoir Dogs", that guy who was adamant about not tipping the waitress struck an intensely sensitive nerve cord with me, as I used to be in the food and beverage industry. How did I feel about that guy? Put it this way, if he thinks his manner of killing someone is gruesome and sickening, once a bunch of bartenders get a hold of him, he ain't seen nothing yet... While I detest the term "ain't" as it is a colloquialism for the illiterate, it is seemingly appropriate in this case!! Speaking of colloquialisms, this movie was full of them. The F word was habitually used in the film "Resevoir Dogs", in fact it was the movie's favorite colloquialism!! The F word is basically an interjection, however, the usage of the F word demonstrates an amazing versatility which accommodates virtually every part of speech, it is very amenable when used a as a gerund as well!! Such an excessive use of this word in "Resevoir Dogs" bares a precarious resemblance to the movie "The Departed"... My G-Rated euphemisms are not displayed here because I am so delicate, rather, it is because I am aware of IMDb's comment guidelines!! This film was about a bunch of reprobates who were amused by their irrational conclusions, and delving into a complacently convoluted logic became their favorite hobby!! Why were all of the characters in this movie so thwarted? Come on!! I have to be at another appointment in about a half an hour!! When someone talks about seriously engaging in a first class felony, they get attention, once they totter with the idea of murder, people are all ears, at least they should be!! Such lamentations evoke a very lethal excoriation against the "establishment". Quentin Tarrantino directs this film, and, he is without a doubt, an unprecedented cannon of creativity!! His overall motif of blood and violence is his notoriously successful trademark, "Pulp Fiction" being his prize piece!! While compared to the movie "Diner" I may be one of the few who likes "Diner" better, of course, I am civilized!! Nevertheless, "Resevoir Dogs" is a remarkably well made movie which tries to use the recreation of murder as the ultimate and prevailing diatribe of circumstantial justification!! It ("Resevoir Dogs") has an innovative approach to larceny, and a criminal's code of ethics!! You watch "Resevoir Dogs", I will guarantee you that you will not be bored!! The acting, the directing, and the aggregate creation of this film, falls into the category of sensational entertainment... I give this film a perfect ten!! See it when you're angry!!
I heard so many good things about this movie before I finally saw it,
and I was misled. With a shorter running time, it seemed like there was
an attempt to pack in a vast amount of plot, but it ended up seeming
like more time was wasted because of it.
With such a fine cast, I was expecting some fine performances. I wasn't disappointed as far as that goes. I'll admit the variety of characters was interesting and fun to watch at times, most notably during the first scene. That's about all it has to offer though.
The basic concept of strangers getting together for a crime isn't a bad idea on paper, it just didn't work out at all for this script. I kept hoping the writing would get better as the movie went on, but after about a third of the way through, I knew what I was in for.
I really don't think there's anything groundbreaking here, even for 1992. Crime movies have been done, and been done better. This seemed more like a fantasy crime movie that would only be interesting to the person thinking about it in their own unique way.
There's also some torture scene put in, which I really thought didn't need to be. It didn't seem like it fit in, at least to the extent of what happened. So what's the bottom line here? Well, it's crime movie with a semi interesting plot, a lot of tough guy talk, and an overall letdown of what could have been. 4/10
I thought it was boring, rambling and way over rated - and I did watch it
three times to see whether I'd missed something as everyone was raving about
It wasn't THAT original. Was it?
The expectation of many people telling you to go and see was a bit too much for me, I think just maybe there must have been something deeply subliminal in the film, and my brain just doesn't have that part.
|Page 9 of 96:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|