Reservoir Dogs

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

A great creative insight is to take things that we think of as separate and contained (like 'art', 'genius', or 'ideas') and realize how they are fluid and inter-dependent, conditioned by factors. This is not to expose anything as little, deconstruction for its sake; it's to show them to be doable, that a road leads up to them. (It's also one of the three main areas of Buddhist practice)

One obvious way to do this would be to take this and note the many influences. This has been done to death already, every bit that Tarantino hoped to keep packed or wanted us to find out has been laid out in the open. But this just gives us someone, genius or not, who stole from the right places.

Another way would be to see that it doesn't work the same way as it did when new because it has all been made ordinary by slavish followers, gobbled up by familiarity. The moments of simple banter away from plot, the fooling round with edges of story without showing the main center-piece, bleeding on a floor, following Mr. Blonde outside to pick up a can of gasoline; Tarantino was probably proud that he was being "real", making a radical break from Bruckheimer's Hollywood.

It's bits and pieces of Godard, Cassavetes, Altman, and others. To see it now shows how theatric it is, not "real" at all. (The least theatric acting is by the bound cop. Roth is just woeful.) It's The Killers, with the violence and gum pop visuals as typical to see as The Killers was typical without them in its own time.

Me, I'd like to settle for something else that brings us to real influence of a more elusive kind.

Everything you see here is coming from a young guy who was at the best possible time in his life, lifted from obscurity and everything was beginning to click into place beyond expectation. Can you imagine how giddy he must have been to hear yes from Keitel and here's a check?

It's Tarantino coming in from the outside as someone young and eager to make a dream come true; it's bursting with energy but disciplined, kept in check by not having everything at your disposal, being the new kid on set. It would be nothing without this energy.

And it's Tarantino being rooted in his own world as he brings the dream alive, suburban LA. None of the story has any outlet into real lives, it's all bounced around movie cutouts. Gangsters showing up before a heist for breakfast in tuxedos? But it's the video clerk's imagination cruising through his own world. He has guys exchange banter about a stripper from Palos Verdes, Roth improvise a story about buying weed the summer of '86.

So this is the most vibrant sense I get; someone making it, not having to prove himself because he's there, making a movie with name actors around town, relaxed and fired up at the same time. See if you can feel this off his screen presence (and what a stark difference from his surly presence now).

His next one would be the apogee of this path. It can also be traced to the 30 year old who had flown himself to Amsterdam to write away from home like a Hemingway, living the dream.

... because the first time around I was somewhat disappointed. This was actually a commercial hit for Tarantino , and that usually means something that is appreciated on the first view.

It is great nonlinear storytelling. You first meet these guys in a diner having breakfast. And you learn lots about their characters just from this very mundane setting and some arguing about the philosophy of tipping. And you wonder why they are wearing suits and thin lapels with white shirts and skinny ties, like they borrowed the Beatles' 1964 wardrobe. It is never explained. And there is all of this 70s music, again, never explained.

Storywise it has been done a hundred times, maybe more. A heist gone wrong. But the gimmick is, you never SEE the heist. Most of the time I like for movie makers to show me not tell me, but this works brilliantly. You see this gang of people who do not know each other talk about the heist beforehand. You see the aftermath of the heist. You see the descriptions of the heist between this band of criminals not exactly matching up. And all of the scenes are mixed up chronologically. Where it shines is the crazy dialogue that happens between these hooligans. Their banter is ludicrous, villainous, and totally engaging. It's like Diner meets Dillinger.

And speaking of Dillinger, a really great touch is having Lawrence Tierney in a supporting role as Joe, mastermind of the heist. Tierney was an actual star of film noirs in the 1940s, and he lost that career because in real life he was somebody who would probably have been quite at home with the characters in this film. He got into lots of bar fights and altercations with the police to the point that no studio wanted to deal with him anymore.

I'd highly recommend this one, but you must pay attention to get the most out of it.

From the opening moments of "Reservoir Dogs" you sense that you are watching a different kind of crime drama. The style and dialog of this picture bestows a level of intelligence upon it's characters that defies the reality of their chosen profession. Having said that,this movie is absolutely riveting in it's movements from the ordinary, to the grim, to the horrific aspects of a career criminal. Quintin Tarantino has written a tale of an almost corporate order to constructing a crime gang. The delight is in meeting these characters one by one. The particular crime is no more crucial to the film than a 7-11 stick-up. The crux of the movie is the portrayal of the rainbow of characters who find themselves involved in a life of crime. Much has been made of the violence in the movie, but it only serves to point out that all men are different......even the crooked. The director has included a number of very memorable scenes. This is not a linear film. The movie works more as a series of set pieces that weave together a story that is not as important as the individual parts that you have the pleasure of observing. This movie may take more than one viewing to truly appreciate.

It's hard to get your head around the fact that 'Reservoir Dogs' has been around for ten years. It's almost difficult to remember a time before Tarantino made such an enormous impact (good and bad) on movies, but I saw this movie first time round before the hype. All I knew was that, like another "dog" movie from the same era that I saw, 'Man Bites Dog', that it was supposed to be violent, funny and disturbing, and that it starred a long time favourite of mine Harvey Keitel, and Tim Roth, who I mainly knew from Greenaway's 'The Cook The Thief His Wife & Her Lover'. Okay, I hope it's good I thought as I waited in the cinema listening to some half remembered 70s A.M. pop and a strange conversation about Madonna's sex life (the cinema was playing the soundtrack album before the main feature, but what did we know). Then the movie itself, electrifying and fascinating from the word go. It's impossible to describe the impact of seeing this for the first time without knowing what to expect! Still one of my greatest movie memories. Ten years later I've seen it countless times so the surprise has obviously worn off, but it is still a brilliant movie because beneath the violence and wise-cracks of Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi - 'In The Soup'), Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen - 'Thelma & Louise'), and Nice Guy Eddie (Chris Penn - 'At Close Range'), there is a lot of depth, that being the very human relationship between Mr. White (Keitel) and Mr.Orange (Roth). To me that is one of the things that elevates this above the many lame and unoriginal "Tarantinoesque" movies we've had to endure since 'Pulp Fiction'. His imitators just simply don't have a clue!

Simply brilliant cinema, and a modern classic. This is absolutely essential viewing!