Six criminals, who are strangers to each other, are hired by a crime boss, Joe Cabot, to carry out a diamond robbery. Right at the outset, they are given false names with the intention that they won't get too close and will concentrate on the job instead. They are completely sure that the robbery is going to be a success. But, when the police show up right at the time and the site of the robbery, panic spreads amongst the group members, and two of them are killed in the subsequent shootout, along with a few policemen and civilians. When the remaining people assemble at the premeditated rendezvous point (a warehouse), they begin to suspect that one of them is an undercover cop.Written by
Wes Craven famously walked out of a screening of Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs in 1992; and Tarantino famously said, "I can't believe the guy who directed Last House on The Left walked out of Reservoir Dogs". Craven responded "Last House was about the evils and horrors of violence, it did not mean to glorify it. This movie (Reservoir Dogs) glorifies it." See more »
(at around 55 mins) Stealers Wheel's "Stuck in the Middle With You" was released and hit the charts in April of 1973, not April of 1974 as the radio DJ says. See more »
Let me tell you what 'Like a Virgin' is about. It's all about a girl who digs a guy with a big dick. The entire song. It's a metaphor for big dicks.
No, no. It's about a girl who is very vulnerable. She's been fucked over a few times. Then she meets some guy who's really sensitive...
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa... Time out Greenbay. Tell that fucking bullshit to the tourists.
Toby... Who the fuck is Toby? Toby...
'Like a Virgin' is not about this sensitive girl who meets a nice fella....
[...] See more »
The opening credits leave out Writing and Directing credits. They are then shown first during the end credits. See more »
Reportedly, in the Italian version the main titles sequence where the guys walk down the street outside the diner is not shown in slow motion. See more »
A stylish and excellent example of expert story-telling.
After watching this half a dozen times with a biased, anti-Tarantino, "what the heck is so great about this guy, anyway" view(which, as most anyone watching any film with that view and a fair bit of self-knowledge will tell you, is a rather fruitless practice in pointlessness... if you've decided you're not going to like it, there's very little reason to think that you will, no matter how good it is; you need an open mind), I finally decided to give it a fair hearing... and I saw it for what it is. An unusual film, at least for its time. A stylish film full of cool dialog, cinematography, editing and music. The whole thing comes together perfectly and is very short of creating a sublime film experience. The plot is excellently written and told. The pace is perfect. I wasn't bored for a second, nor did I ever really want it to move faster or slower. The cinematography is magnificent, and incredibly well-integrated. Pans, dolly trips and, lest we forget, the stationary shots... all perfectly used. Very stylized. The acting is top-notch all-round. With most of the cast being name actors, this is no surprise, but they really do shine. Madsen, Buscemi, Keitel, Roth... all incredible. The one role that had less than good... well, let's be honest, it had rather awful acting. I'm speaking, of course, of Tarantino's character. Now, don't get me wrong; in From Dusk Till Dawn, this man did great. But just about any other time I've seen him act, he just doesn't seem to have the first clue. Being a film-maker myself(albeit on somewhat of a smaller scale than Quentin), I can relate to wanting to cast yourself in a role... but sometimes, you just need to face up to the facts, and admit it if you can't act. Still, that is a minor complaint. Another one might be that there are at least two fairly big characters that seem completely and entirely expendable... they had no real role in the action and could very, very easily have been cut with no real loss to the overall product. I won't name them here, but anyone who's seen the film will know who I'm talking about. All the characters, however, are well-written and their actions credible. Tarantino knows his stuff when it comes to writing... something that also shows in the dialog, which, although somewhat drawn-out at times, is exceptional. Well-delivered, too. When it comes to direction, he shows how talented he is, as well. The film is very well put together. The editing is great, with the non-linear time-line telling the story far better than a "regular" film ever could. One of the many Tarantino-fans, in fact, the very person who originally talked me into watching this film, once told me that he had heard of someone editing films with such time-lines - this, Pulp Fiction, Memento, etc. - so that their time-lines were perfectly linear. I'm sorry, I entirely respect their right to do such a thing... and I won't claim that their doing so has less artistic value than the original films in any way... but I refuse to watch that. A big part of this being so well-told lies in the time-line. Also, I'm a firm believer of watching something the way the makers intended it. Don't edit, don't censor, don't make your own version and pass it off as anything but just that... your own version, and not the original. Sorry, rant over. Finally, I just need to comment on the music... the soundtrack of this is just great. Tarantino collected so many amazing 70's tunes for this film and used them great. All in all, just a really, really good film. Very little keeps this from being a perfect ten, most of which I've covered here. I recommend this to anyone who can stomach the violence and who likes their films with a side of style. 8/10
124 of 177 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this