Rating: 
Summary: Fantastic!
Review: Quentin Tarantino's debut film RESERVOIR DOGS broke new ground that many other directors and screen writers were afraid to tread upon. This amazingly well-written, directed, and acted film is about a jewel heist gone wrong and the consequences of each man's suspicions. Harvey Keitel is wonderful as tough but compassionate Mr. White(Each man is given an alias name, no one's real name is used), Michael Madsen is cool and psychotic as Mr. Blonde, Sean Penn delivers a strong performance as Nice-Guy Eddie, Lawrence Tierney is very intimidating as Joe, the crime boss, and Quentin Tarantino gives a great cameo performance as the short-lived Mr. Brown. The really great performances definitely go to Tim Roth and Steve Buscemi. For Roth(Mr. Orange), this was a breakthrough role in which he spends a good deal of the movie drenched in his own blood and in his screams of pain never once goes into an over-the-top performance. It's right on the money. Buscemi is dripping with attitude and gives one of his best performances until FARGO in RESERVOIR DOGS. From the moment he appears on screen, you know its gonna be a bumpy ride. A must-see for anyone who enjoys lotsa suspense, catchy dialogue and music, and some great action scenes.
Rating:
Summary: Stylized violence 90's style
Review: In the early to mid nineties Quentin Taratino was THE MAN. Cool as all get out. Cover of every magazine and movie reviewers and studio heads bowing and scraping. He had a forum for his worldview and talented actors were loyal to him. Not only was he able to share his sophmoric humor at the breakfast table with the likes of Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth and Steve Buscemi; he was able to film it as part of a movie which made him famous. He made two great movies and was the King of Hollywood. Alas, style and clever dialogue are no match for self-congratulation and avarice. Tarantino fell off the Hollywood throne a few years ago and not a moment too soon according to many insiders. Maybe he went too far too fast and couldn't keep up with himself. I don't feel sorry for him but I do wish he had made a few more quality movies before getting deposed. An extremely violent, profane and gory movie. The scene with the ear amputation will definite separate the squeamish from the hardy. Tim Roth must have been incredibly uncomfortable shooting scene after scene fully dressed and drenched in fake blood. A bunch of lowlife criminals scream at each other, shoot each other and cops and civilians, make rascist and anti-semitic comments and generally make a mess of things for two hours. They agree to a robbery which requires honor and loyalty. There is no honor among thieves and any thief who practices or expects honor is a fool. It's not an honorable profession. Want to be honorable to your coworkers? Work in a bookstore, a hospital or sell widgets. Of course, one of them is a undercover cop and everything goes to hell when the robbery is disrupted. Reservoir Dogs is well acted, well directed, well written and perfectly paced. Technically, an excellent film. Engrossing and satisfying on a primordial violence and profanity level.
Rating:
Summary: Top Of Line DigiFilm.
Review: This Film, which I rate in my top 20 favorites, has never looked better. Since it is only 100 minutes long, they placed widescreen on one side, and Pan and Scan on the other side. I use a regular TV set, so I need the P/S version. The soundtrack is wonderful, and you can now catch all the words. And those rotten 70's music soundtrack is perfect. The only thing missing are the usual DVD extras. An excellent buy!~Len Baas~Taylor, Michigan
Rating:
Summary: Sure, Tarantino's a smug, backstabbing nerd ...
Review: ... but he's made a few damn good movies. On the recommendation of one of the more interesting negative reviews a ways back, I checked out Jane Hamsher's book "Killer Instinct." It's an admittedly gossipy, but intelligent non-fiction account of the making of Natural Born Killers, the kind of thing you tear through easily in a night (as I admit I did.) This book, at least if one accepts its author's sincerity to some degree, does not do much for one's opinion of Quentin Tarantino as a person, celebrity, or writer. And it does cause one to pause and re-evaluate his work to some degree, from a new and more critical angle. Hamsher's account of things is a bit subjective, but definitely an entertaining and recommendable read for those interested in Tarantino, Oliver Stone, or moviemaking in general. But, although I now better understand many of the major criticisms of Tarantino himself and, by proxy, his work, I don't think anything can change the fact that Reservoir Dogs (as well as Pulp Fiction) work for me on a deeply fundamental aesthetic level. The dialogue and the characters who engage in it are stylized, as is the direction, but at heart, I can't help but feel they're movies powerfully and correctly made. I suppose one should expect as much from someone who spent half a lifetime absorbing all of the movies he could, milking and dissecting them for their most aesthetically favorable -- and commanding -- elements. A frequent criticism of Tarantino is that his characters have no depth (something Jackie Brown seemed eager to try to address), that it's just a bunch of neat-o dialogue. I've thought about this and watched his movies several times now. But I think the criticism is mis-aimed. I think his characters are strong, developed, and full of subtlety (even though the overall style is starkly bombastic.) But, unlike many other filmmakers, Tarantino's focus is not -- at least in the case of Reservoir Dogs -- on who the characters are and what they are each personally feeling at each given moment. It is on what is *happening.* And the situations that comprise that which is *happening* are in and of themselves very nuanced and complex. As for the characters, they are certainly once-removed creations -- they are, in a way, pawns interacting within a larger situation. But that doesn't mean they aren't well-crafted pawns (credit the actors or the director as you wish -- the performances in Tarantino's movies so far have been universally excellent.) The larger situation, and its aesthetics, are what Tarantino seems most concerned with. And since this is a fictional movie -- a creative product -- I simply feel no need to criticize the film on this note. Maybe that has to do with the fact that I myself tend to be more interested in the aesthetic aspects of the end product rather than how much the characters resemble "real" people. Real people are, frankly, dull. Another major criticism of Tarantino -- the more arbitrary and petty, as I see it -- is his willingness to employ graphic violence in a stylized way. I have never been able to grasp why anyone should have to defend this element of Tarantino's work. Because, A) It is no worse than the violence employed in any mainstream, R-rated action movie -- it is simply presented without slow-motion effects, super-human eye-popping stunts, and dramatic background orchestration. Consequently, it is more what violence would actually be like. Personally, I think this simply makes it a less pretentious and more decidedly commanding element. If it's sometimes disturbing, well good -- it probably should be. And reason B) It's a movie. It's not real. If there are really some idiots out there that think it'd be cool to mimic the behavior of these fictional characters, then they are accountable for their idiocy, not Tarantino. The majority of us are mature enough to be able to make the distinction between fantasy and reality. Movies are, to my mind, aesthetic creations. They are not educators, they are not moral guidance counselors, and they are not parent-substitutes. If you think that they should be, I would assume it's because you're a weak person who either can't make such decisions and distinctions for themselves, or can't stand the thought of other people being allowed to without their self-righteous say-so. Though perhaps less than thrilled with Tarantino himself, Reservoir Dogs remains a startling, confident, aesthetic, inventive, and impacting creation.
Rating: 
Summary: When you look up "overrated", you see this film...
Review: I thought that Pulp Fiction had some interesting and innovative elements, but was vastly overrated. Now I have seen this, his earlier film, and it is even more overrated - because it is not particularly interesting or innovative. I grew up in the inner city, and so a Day in the Life of a group of criminals is not of any interest whatsoever. I already knew that they were stupid (if they were smart, they would be politicians instead) and cowardly at heart. As Ebert says, "...Having created the characters and fashioned the outline, Tarantino doesn't do much with his characters...". To read a very good review of this film and its fans, scroll down to "Tarantino & this movie are soooooooo overrated, November 16, 2000 Reviewer: Jon from Nowhere Land". I think customer reviews are a wonderful idea - but they have one, perhaps minor, flaw, which is that most of the people who post reviews are fans of the product - they are the ones who surf to the product's page, in order to buy it. So, the ratings are somewhat skewed...
Rating:
Summary: quentin tarantino at his best
Review: Reservoir Dogs is one of QT's first films before his success with the Academy Award winner Pulp Fiction. He uses classic out of sequence story-telling to tell the story of five gangsters that knock off a jewelry store. Using secret identities the five entangle themselves in a caper that starts at end and ends at the beginning. With star performances by Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Steve Buscemi, and Quentin Tarantino himself, the suspense doesn't stop until the credits roll. Reservoir Dogs is a must see for all QT fans and action enthusiasts.
Rating:
Summary: All the Hallmarks of a Modern Classic.
Review: The first thing to be said about Reservoir Dogs is that it is nowhere near as ultra-violent as its reputation. It was, in fact, initially banned in my country for its alleged graphic nature. And, whereas I wouldn't dream of claiming there is no on-screen violence at all, it is true to say that Tarantino hints at more than he shows. There are certainly many more graphic films that caused none of the fuss. It is the pervading *atmosphere* of violence that makes the film work. And the juxtaposition of this violence with moments of sublime comedy is what makes the film work. It is a hip movie. Zeitgeist defining if you will. And when it exploded onto the screens in 1992 it took everyone by surprise. Not perhaps as slick as Tarantino's follow-up Pulp Fiction, it nevertheless has more edginess than that second film. The structure is intriguing, the dialogue is endlessly quotable, the soundtrack is superbly well-chosen and really enhances the action. In short, it has all the hallmarks of a modern classic. Essential viewing.
Rating: 
Summary: forget pulp fiction,this is the original tarantino
Review: this is such a strong funny joyous celebration of violence and male comraderie.this makes pulp fiction seem wooden and all superficial hype,but here taratino had style and class.He believed in the vision of men as wolf,of bad guys knowing that life isn't really made for suckers.you know what i just don't like pulp fiction,jackie brown was much better even.
Rating:
Summary: :)
Review: Blonde heard Stealer's Wheels Then chopped off the poor cop's ear So he won't hear it
Rating:
Summary: Excellent filmmaking
Review: The plot in the movie is pretty basic...this movie is all about style, acting, and dialogue. All three are excellent. Style...the way the plot is told in a non-linear fashion is very effective. The violence is very realistic, not being either too tame (as in most action movies) or too excessive (as in most horror movies). Acting...great. Harvey Keitel and Tim Roth are great in sympathetic roles; Steve Buscemi takes his usual comic turn with great results, and Michael Madsen is chilling as psychotic Mr. Blonde. Supporting cast members Lawrence Tierney and Chris Penn also do excellent jobs. Dialogue...very witty. Some scenes stick in your mind for days...the conversation about "Like a Virgin," or Penn/Madsen's conversation in Tierney's office, for example. Shows that a movie need not have an involved plot to have artistic merit...although the plot works just fine (some reviews state it was stolen from another film).
|
