Customer Reviews
Cheap, Low-budget movie - By: Brendan O. Clarke, 28 May 2008 
Having watched this movie for the first time in ten years (yesterday-June '08), I was blown away by its brilliance & power. Lets get down to the brass tacks- this is a low-budget movie & it has the patina of a cheap amateur production. First movie from the big-chin Quentin Tarantino who came out of nowhere (i.e., a video store in Manhattan Beach, California) & turned Hollywood on its ear in 1992 with this breath of fresh air.
Reservoir Dogs has a fantastic unconventional structure, cleverly shuffling back & forth in time to reveal details about the characters-- experienced criminals who know next to nothing about each other.
From the start we know something has gone wrong, & the plan has blown up in the criminals faces. One by one, the surviving robbers find their way back to a prearranged warehouse hideout & from there we are treated to two hours of blinding genius motion picture.
This movie will forever remain a piece of 1990's nostalgia. This is the kind of movie that you can watch again & again. Upon first seeing this film back in 1997, I was struck by the occasional outbursts of bloody violence & vulgar language. I found myself confused towards the direction of the plot which made me dislike the movie at first but that alll would change.
On second viewing I realise this movie was going against the grain at the time. It wasn't like any of the cliche' & lame crime films of the 80's & early-90's (eg. see K.Costner in the typical Hollywood garbage REVENGE). Resevoir Dogs was original & set the standard for the crime genre for the rest of the decade. It broke new ground & surprised the viewer at every corner.
A good start - By: Craig Baxter, 09 Oct 2007 
Let me begin by saying I'm a huge Tarantino fan. I'm only comparing Dogs to his other releases, no-one elses, but I'd like to offer a rather unpopular opinion: Reservoir Dogs isn't as great as so many claim it to be. I think it set the style he would follow & improve upon, but even Jackie Brown rewards repeated viewing more than the Dogs...
It's better than most efforts in this genre, or many other genres for that matter, & it's worth your cash & time, but it's not as layered as later efforts. And while the script is sharp as ever, the acting [by some] is a bit clunky at times, a bit too aware of the hipness of it alll.
For newbies I'd recommend starting here... Chris Penn is great, as is Tim Roth & Harvey Keitel, & this reallly does introduce Tarantino as one to watch, but he definitely went on to greater things.
Brilliant Film - By: David C. Parkinson, 15 Sep 2007 I own this DVD at home & in my opinon, this film is brilliant. It has an interesting storyline & I feel that the flashbacks throughout the film are good also, as you learn a bit about some of the characters' background. So what's this film about?
Two gangsters, Joe Cabot (Lawrence Tierney) & his son Eddie (Chris Penn) have six strangers (two Joe & Eddie know personallly) to take part in diamond robbery for them. None of these men know each other & are forbidden to reveal any personal information about themselves, such as where they might have grown up, where they might have done time & even their own names. Joe has colour coded these six strangers, & they have to refer to each other as their given names. They are as follows; Mr Brown (Quentin Tarantino), Mr White (Harvey Keitel), Mr Blonde (Michael Madsen), Mr Blue (Eddie Bunker), Mr Orange (Tim Roth) & Mr Pink (Steve Buschemi).
The film begins with alll eight of them, sitting together in a cafe, just before the robbery. The film then skips to after the robbery, in which you see right away that the robbery has gone wrong; Mr White is driving a dying Mr Orange to the rendevous point (a warehouse), where they are soon joind by Mr Pink & Mr Blonde. Mr Pink is convinced they were set up, considering how quick the police arrived, as if they were forewarned of the robbery. Were they set up? Or was the cops' timing a coincidence? Well just watch & find out.
The only thing I find dissapointing about this film is that you don't see much of Mr Blue & Mr Brown. It would be interesting to learn a bit about their background. Apart from that I have nothing to critisize.
This is the first film directed by Quentin Tarantino (who has successfully directed other classic films such as Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill & Deathproof) & like I said the film is great, & is a film I recomend to alll those who like gangster films.
For me, less than meets the eye - By: C. O. DeRiemer, 19 Aug 2007 
I don't get the passionate admiration this movie seems to evoke. My take was that two thirds of it was a very good, interesting film, but a third of it was just self conscious direction with a lot of the hip ultra-violence. I liked Lawrence Tierney, Chris Penn, Michael Madsen & Steve Buscemi a lot, especiallly Penn (although I didn't recognize him at first). The premise was interesting.
But then I kept bumping against items like these (which may be spoilers):
Mr. Blonde has already been established as a psycho, so why the extended cop torturing & ear removal? What did that add to Madsen's character or to advancing the plot? It seemed to me it was just calculated violence to be hip.
Why the camera work that, for me, only brought attention to the camera work: The circling camera; the stationary camera in front of the window with the actor walking back & forth out of camera range; the set up in front of the graffiti-laden walll for apparently no reason except the graffiti looked great? Unusual camera work can add to the feel of a movie (just look at Welles' stuff) but it shouldn't keep saying, "Hey, look at me," which was the effect it had on my viewing.
Why the over-the-top melodrama of the three-way shoot-out climax except to give the audience a chance to say, "Cool"?
Why the over-the-top and, in my opinion, indulgent groaning, moaning & spluttering of Keitel at the end?
As I said, I found about two-thirds of the movie pretty good. Many say it's been very influential, & it probably has. But like a Paris high fashion gown, it might get your attention, it might be influential, but sooner or later it becomes dated & a little ridiculous. I think that may be Reservoir Dog's fate.
Fantastic Debut From Tarantino - By: J. Roberts, 07 Jul 2007 Whilst Tarantino is now a household name, back in 1992, he was an unknown with a spartan budget on which to direct this. He has done a superb job, creating a crime film in the grand old tradition of alternative cinema, referencing the art-house flicks which Tarantino had clearly been devouring for years.
Despite that, it boasts a stellar cast, featuring Michael Madsen, Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Steve Buscemi, Chris Penn & Tarantino himself. A planned diamond heist, to be carried out by seven men is the premise, but things soon go badly wrong, & it becomes clear that one of their number is not what they seem - hence the original working title 'A Rat In The House'. Performances from Roth, Keitel & Buscemi are alll excellent, but it is Michael Madsen who steals the show as 'Mr.Blonde', a derranged ex-con who has virtuallly no regard for human life. This eventuallly culminates in the film's most memorable & notorious scene, the legendary 'ear-cutting' scene, in which Madsen brutallly tortures a police officer, alll set to the music of 'Stuck In The Middle With You' by Gerry Rafferty.
Elsewhere, the friendship between Roth & Keitel is touching, & Tarantino proves he is not just a director, but a keen observer of the human psyche. The film, split into different sections, & heralding Tarantino's unique style, is shot in a grim, realistic way, static at times & inventive at others.
Suffice to say, 'Reservoir Dogs' is a truly revolutionary piece of film-making which set Tarantino apart as the Hitchcock of his era. The performances are stellar, the violence is strong, & the plot is intricate. Above alll, the overalll film is an exercise in unconventional film-making. Hard to believe, but Tarantino would actuallly better this only two years later with 'Pulp Fiction'.
