Reservoir Dogs

Reservoir Dogs is a testament to the idea that "less is more." This doesn't apply to the violence, the film is extremely violent from beginning to end, but the details of the botched diamond heist, which the entire film is based on, are conveyed only in the dialogue, except for one scene where Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) recalls his escape. The whole film takes place after the failed robbery is over, and the mystery that unfolds among the criminal participants is amazing to watch.

This is not a normal crime film. The thing that really sets Reservoir Dogs apart from all of the others is that it is PURE. When you look at the screen, you're looking at reality. There are no Hollywood actors, there's no make-up to make them look pretty, there's little to no comic relief, and most important of all, there's no goofy romantic subplot clumsily thrown in, a detrimental trademark of so many action films, as well as virtually all Jerry Bruckheimer films. Instead of all of that garbage, Tarantino decided to just present the film as simply and straightforwardly as possible, and by doing that he makes it seem that you're really looking at a bunch of criminals trying to figure out what to do after a suspiciously failed robbery.

Even though most of the actors were known at the time this film was made, the film was delivered in such a way that you don't see the actors at all, you only see the brutal characters that they portray. It is genuinely frightening to imagine being in the same room with any of them, and this is a quality that is rarely achieved in any kind of film.

Make no mistake, Reservoir Dogs is among the most violent films ever made, and some scenes are really painful to watch, but the way that reality is captured is something that justifies the violent excesses in this film. The violence is never glorified, nor is the criminal lifestyle. When films are overly violent, they usually get branded as such, but despite the extreme violence, Reservoir Dogs still manages to deliver an important overall message about the consequences of your actions. It remains high on the growing list of Tarantino's classic films, and it will not be soon forgotten.

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

Crime boss Joe Cabot brings together a group of criminals to perform a big one-off job. To protect each other, they all use colour coded names. However on the day of the job, the police ambush the gang and each makes their own getaway. As the gang comes together at their warehouse meeting point they realise that someone within the gang must have tipped the police or be an undercover. The accusations and suspicions escalate into violence in the confines of the warehouse.

When this film came out in the UK it caused an absolute firestorm of controversy over it's violence, even to the point that it was banned in the UK for a while. I still find this absurd and am very glad we have moved to a more tolerant society where generally the BBFC protect vulnerable groups but let adults decide for themselves. Looking at the media's adoring welcome for the ultra violent Kill Bill one can't help but marvel at how things have changed. Looking at Reservoir Dogs now (or even then!) it simply isn't THAT violent. However what it is is very sudden and all the more powerful for it.

Tarantino directs the film and writes the film in such a way that it was impossible to ignore him even if the film was only a cult hit. The dialogue is both witty at points but, more importantly, very tough and loaded with testosterone. It is the writing that makes us like these coffee shop jokers at the start before shocking us by suddenly throwing us into a backseat bloodbath. The entire job happens off camera, and only occasionally do we actually see the immediate effect of violence - usually we get the aftermath. It is incredibly tight and very tense throughout, I was about 16 when my father took me to see this film - it has stayed with me since and I still considered it to be one of the best `job gone wrong' films of my generation. It may not be original (there's a thin line between a homage and a rip off) but it is certainly effectively done.

The cast are excellent and turn the hardboiled dialogue into convincing scenes. Keitel is wonderful. His character is a father figure of sorts and he is wildly out of control at times and balanced at others. Likewise Buscemi is wide-eyed and freaking out for much of the film, but he does it well. Roth is more balanced but is still good for it; it is his job to carry the emotional weight of the film and he does it well, despite a wandering American accent at times. Madsen is great, maybe not the best character but wildly out of control. Tierney was a great piece of casting, as was Bunker. Penn is good but not the best of the cast.

Tarantino mercifully has little acting to do, but it is his film as writer and director. The flashbacks during the film was a brave way to do it but it really works well - mixing stories with flashbacks and so on. No matter what the time of the scene, it all keeps moving tensely towards the climax. It may be a homage and not as original as some films but so what - it is tight and tense, macho, violent, funny and very enjoyable.

... 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.