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 9 of 90: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 893 reviews in total 

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:


Author: john smith from London
12 November 2001

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.

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.


Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

If you appreciate your time, just don't watch this

Author: Shawn Crahan from Argentina
17 February 2008

This movie is just nonsense. It goes nowhere, it's incredibly boring and the best thing that can happen to you is that you pray it's over. I just don't get why this is on the IMDb top! Seriously, if you like movies as much as I do, you shouldn't waste your time with this. Not even the 'best' parts are worth it.

If you don't trust me yet, watch the first five minutes of the movie and when you start asking yourself "When is this going to start?" maybe you'll get it. That's how the entire movie is. Completely BORING.

Some people say that one good thing about it is that it focuses on the story behind everything. Don't believe that! You'll find that there are 10-20 minutes scenes that are completely unnecessary (oh sorry... just like the entire film...).

I've seen lots of movies, and maybe I didn't like the 10% of them, because I usually try to see what's behind it, and if there's something, I appreciate it, but this is definitely the worse thing I've come upon.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

A Waste of Skill

Author: Mr. Film from Boston
19 May 1999

Many people believe "Reservoir Dogs" is a good film. It is not. Tarantino failed to make it into anything but violence and the combination of music and camera-work. The screenplay was poor, but the lines, or at least the way they were written, were convincing. This film has absolutely no redeeming qualities, and I use the word "redeeming" loosely about movies. Without a doubt, many movies are about nothing and are good. "Dogs" is about a group of men who messed up a bank robbery and went to a warehouse to talk about things and get very angry at each other.

Many find the movie hip, but at best the movie itself is not hip, the pitiful characters may seem to be, but really the only hip character is Mr. White, played by Harvey Keitel. Anyone that thinks supposed professionals who can't do their jobs right, swear a great deal over nothing, get very tense, and lose their cool on a dime work well for a movie centered around nothing in particular are wrong. A very weak film.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

not Tarantino's movie at all !!

Author: davidmurray17 from Ireland
13 August 2007

First off... it is clear that this movie is a rip-off. I couldn't believe when i first saw this movie what i was watching. It is a complete word for word Verbatim of Lung F fong wan ( city on fire ) , hong kong action movie starring Chow Yun Fat.. i don't know how he got away with remaking this movie which came out in 1987 by the way, and all the fame he has accumulated since , How Tarantino got any credit for this movie is unbelievable. watch City on Fire first before you start discrediting me please, they are all in it Mr. Blonde,pink,brown,white etc etc ... SHOCKED is what i was when i saw it and look at him now

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

This movie sucks

Author: peterbiserke from United States
1 May 2006

This movie is beyond terrible. I must say, I found it quite disappointing. I watched it with a (kinda) friend of mine, whom said that this was by far his favorite movie. Of course, I was interested, and asked why, and he responded that I just HAVE TO watch it. Well I must say, the story line was absolutely atrochious. The conversations were indeed hilarious, but yet very random. The openining scene talks about the various women that the men have been with, and what they have done. The first 5 minutes, I thought this would be a great movie. But then from then on, I just got bored. Too much repeated conversation. Then one of the heist members tortures a cop, which I found quite disturbing, watching the cops ear get hacked off, and then almost having a flame lit on him whilst there was gasoline doused all over him. Yes, I must say, this movie was boring... no significant characters, and just way too random. And, as I said before, I must say, this movie was by far below par, and competes for my worst movie ever, compariing with "Spirit" (G movie) From Walt Disney. Don't spend $5 to rent this, or $15 to buy it. This sucks.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

One of the worst movies ever made

Author: fubar-2 from Boston
23 October 1998

This repulsive, reprehensible trash for Quentin Tarantino has to rank as one of the worst movies ever made. When I wasn't bored to tears by interminable dialogue, I was repulsed by the glorification of sadism as an alternative life-style. The Marquis De Sade would have been proud. Tarantino should put his talents to suitable use and just make a real 'snuff' film. See 'Clockwork Orange' instead. That is a work of real genius.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Yet another worthless effort by Tarantino...

Author: leonardwatson212 from United States
22 June 2007

Unlike most of Tarantino's films this one I would not give a negative rating to. It shares all of the things that I hate about his other films (bouncing around in time & sequence, unnecessary blood & violence, no plot and no resolution) with the rest of his films, but for some reason this one does not make me want to sort my socks instead. I would still say that you should not waste your time watching this movie unless you really just want to waste time. The only redeeming quality of this film is that you can watch this one film and and you will have just seen every Quentin Tarantino movie ever made, because they are all the same. Just be sure that you can handle the violence and the blood because that is about all you are going to get from this film.

Was the above review useful to you?

I am amazed by the high rating.

Author: Jānis Locis from Latvia
26 August 2015

Looking at the high rating of 8,4 and knowing that this is considered one of Quentin Tarantino's best movies i thought i was about to see a great masterpiece.

I was absolutely shocked about how terribly boring this movie was. There is no progression in the plot at all, they didn't even show a second of the robbery the movie was about. For the first 50 minutes of the movie the viewer just sits through completely irrelevant and boring scenes, experiences next to no action and just gets bored, since nobody is presented with who is who in the first half of the film. It is impossible to be compassionate for the characters, since you don't even know who they are and all you see is just a bunch of useless drawn-out conversations, using a lot of useless sentences just to add to the screen time, which is only 99 minutes, by the way.

The movie uses a lot of excessively drawn-out conversations, it is not necessarily a bad thing, but here it didn't fit, since the screen time is so short, leading into a very boring plot and irrelevant actions. I don't get what people see in this movie, yea the acting is OK, but otherwise, it is just garbage. Is it only because it is Tarantino? Is that everything people need to hear to give a positive review? I get that many people see this movie as ''different'' just to show others they enjoyed it, it would be awesome if everybody wasn't afraid of expressing their opinion and sticking to it.

Overall a terrible movie, don't see that as a classic for sure, would not watch again nor recommend it to anybody else. Short, no action, zero plot progression, drawn-out irrelevant conversations, boring.

Was the above review useful to you?

A little overrated, but still entertaining and interesting.

Author: ConsultingHobbitExtractors
26 August 2015

I found this movie to be slightly overrated. I'd heard about Tarantino as an over-the-top director that had some really famous material, and this was definitely a unique movie, but not quite as praiseworthy as I'd been led to believe. That might be because Tarantino's style just doesn't appeal to me, but on the other hand, I enjoyed Django Unchained. Still, I can see how this would have caused people to be excited for the release of Pulp Fiction a few years later.

The way the story pans out is very different and unconventional. The actual diamond robbery is not actually shown, apart from a couple scenes of just before the heist and the escape from it. Gradually, the surviving crooks come back to their warehouse and try to figure out which of them is the cop that ratted the group out. Through their conversations, we can piece together the gist of what happened during the robbery. There are a few flashback scenes that show how the more important characters were recruited for the job by Joe Cabot. Fortunately, it's very easy to tell what is and isn't flashback, but they're timed so that it seems as though the character in question is wondering back to why they signed on to the job in the first place. It's not really an action movie, but can appeal to fans of that genre. The violence has a similar tone to a WW2 movie rather than something like the Matrix with cool and stylized fight scenes.

The characters are very memorable, partly because they are named by colors, partly because of the tipping/Madonna conversation at the beginning that has nothing to do with anything, and partly because they are written and acted well enough to be distinct. Blue and Brown are hardly shown at all since they both die during the robbery and are mentioned a couple times as the survivors discuss the events of the failed robbery. Joe Cabot is the hulking mastermind behind the whole job, and you get the sense that he's an incredibly ruthless man. His idea to use six strangers was smart since none of them would be compelled to save each other as a group of friends might. Unfortunately for Joe, he doesn't count on Mr. White's protective feelings for the younger Mr. Orange, which remain unshaken to the bitter end. Mr. Orange is injured for the majority of the movie, and his back story is probably the most interesting of the bunch. Mr. Blonde is violent and trigger- happy, shown by his iconic torture scene. Mr. Pink could be construed as the coward or the peacemaker of the group, depending on how you view it. It's hard to say whether he gets what he deserves since we don't really know what happens to him. Last is Nice Guy Eddie Cabot, who doesn't have any part in the robbery to speak of. You get the sense that he's been a privileged kid that's used to getting his way and doesn't have a lot of field experience as a thief.

The camera-work fits the aesthetic pretty well. The warehouse scenes have a lot of very long, wide shots that fit well with the long conversations they depict. This style might have gotten old, but the pacing really helped reduce that. The acting is good, but there isn't really opportunity for any hugely impressive performances. With the amount of dialogue involved, the script needed to be well crafted, and it was for the most part. I thought they could have restrained some of the swearing just because much of it felt out of realistic context.

It's a very male film both in cast and genre. There's lot of blood at some parts if you like or dislike that, but it's not put in a context where it makes you sympathize with the character like in say 127 Hours. The Mr. Blonde torture scene is also something to be conscious of if you think you're considering watching it. You need to be willing to pay attention your first time around, but it can be more of a fun movie if your with a bunch of friends who have all seen it before. If you're disgusted by the opening scene, I would recommend that you give it another twenty minutes to decide whether you want to watch the rest. Overall Rating: 8.1/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

The birth of a new genre: Tarantino

Author: jd3795 from Oxford, England
24 August 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've written about Tarantino a lot of times, which is allowed because he's one of the most famous directors in the world. And with the release of the trailer for his 8th (rumoured to be his last) movie, Hateful Eight, it seems fair to wax lyrical over his first, breakout film, Reservoir Dogs. One of those films that needs to be watched twice, Reservoir Dogs gained Tarantino a lot of attention in Hollywood, for all the reasons that Tarantino has since become globally renowned. Plenty of blood which keeps your eyes fixed on the screen, plenty of swearing which makes it difficult to zone out, and a plot that doesn't go very far but develops the story and characters subtly. The reason I say it needs to be watched twice isn't due to subtle clues alluding to the finale that can only be noticed once you've already watched it, like Fight Club or Usual Suspects, but simply that Reservoir Dogs is a bad movie the first time through. OK not a bad movie, but as I mentioned previously, the actual time line of the film only lasts about an hour, so it stands to reason that it would be difficult to fit much action or drama into that short a space of time. The film is about a diamond robbery, and at no point in the 99 minute run time do we see any form of robbery occurring. People anticipating a movie with plenty of fighting and action will be disappointed, and those who can't stand a movie which refuses to move from a single location will be in tears. But those people who can focus on every detail, and every piece of dialogue, will be rewarded with one of the greatest movies they will ever see. The movie begins with a bunch of gangsters sitting in a coffee shop, discussing Like a Virgin by Madonna, and tipping. Innocuous conversation between apparent life-long friends, before walking off into the sunset to the sound of Little Green Bag. The credits roll, and you wonder if you're watching the right movie. Then, as if on cue, the screen is filled with blood, a screaming man, and instant tension. It's impossible to look away, as the viewer must find out what went so horribly wrong with whatever it was these well- dressed men were up to. All is explained surely enough, and this is another of the films strengths. The gang of gangsters have conducted a diamond theft, which went wrong when one of the gangsters started shooting people he shouldn't. The police arrive, all hell breaks loose, and the gang must return to a secret warehouse to regroup (the warehouse being the main set for the majority of the movie). Once here, they work out one by one that they have been set up by a mole in the group, an undercover cop. It is at this point that the audience is assuming the rest of the movie will be trying to work out who the cop is. What's unexpected though at this stage is that the mole is revealed, and dramatic irony is flowing through, as the audience knows the cop, but no one else does. This leaves the story wide open, but it is clear that a climax is imminent, and there must one last twist in this tale to leave us feeling stunned. There is no twist, but the ending is no less shocking, over the top, inevitable, but no less perfectly crafted. One of the factors causing this is the cast. The gangsters include names which have since been involved in most other Tarantino films. Michael Madsen, Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth and Chris Penn all give excellent performances, but the standout was Steve Buscemi. He plays Mr Pink, and is the one guy you're designed to hate the whole way through. He complains about tipping waitresses at the beginning of the movie, which was unheard of in the USA in the 90's, as tipping your waitress was as important as paying for the meal itself. He seems to coward his way out of dangerous situations, and just seems like the one guy in the group that, despite them all being long-term criminals, you just wouldn't want to spend any time with. What's truly excellent, and I'm sure its intentional, is that Buscemi's character is styled and acted in such a way as to look as much like a rodent as possible, with the pencil moustache and slicked back hair. And when the finale comes in and guns are fired, Mr Pink manages to slink away unscathed. The definition of a rat, in the gangster community, is that it will do everything in its power to survive, typified by Buscemi's character. It's this sort of attention to detail, among other things, that makes this movie so re-watchable, that while there is very little visual action, the movie itself is a work of art. The soundtrack is understandably legendary, the dialogue is engrossing, and the ending catches you out every single time.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 9 of 90: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [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