Reservoir Dogs (includes trailer and opening scene)
June 28th 2010 14:36
“You gonna bark all day little doggy, or are you gonna bite?” ~ Mr. Blonde
Between nineteen eighty whatever till 1992, indie films were generally considered to be nothing more than ‘a slice of life’. A tale of virginity lost or a guys night out, never anything more. Between 'Bagdad Café' and 'Daughters Of The Dust', much of it was considered an ignorable bit of art house wind. I’m not saying this was true, there were some great American indie films during that period, from Rob Nilson’s emotionally startling Signal 7 to Todd Haynes’ bizarre and provocative Poison, this was just a misconception – or was it? It is interesting to note how many forgettable indie film’s there were after the flames of 70’s American film’s died down. For a while it seemed that indie films generally had all the edge of vanilla ice cream.
This might be why Reservoir Dogs made such an impact in 1992. It was a hard shot of whiskey for the boys who liked their old Lee Marvin films and tough guy dialogue all neat. Starring the marauding pack of animals, dogs in this case, that were Harvey Keitel (The Duellists, Taxi Driver, The Last Temptation Of Christ), Tim Roth (Little, Odessa, The Cook The Thief His Wife & Her Lover, Funny Games), Michael Madsen (Kill Bill, Pauly Shore Is Dead, Sin City), Chris Penn (The Funeral, True Romance, Short Cuts), Steve Buscemi (Ghost World, Fargo, The Big Lebowski) as well as the unhinged Lawrence Tierney (A Child Is Waiting, Prizzi’s Honour, Red). They make up the cast of Quentin Tarantino’s first feature that kicked a hole in the current indie ceiling and was possibly the first art film to be a pure and simple, no holds barred exercise in genre film making since 1960’s Blast Of Silence.
They were six strangers, assembled to pull off the perfect crime: Mr. White, a professional criminal; Mr. Orange, a young newcomer; Mr. Blonde, a trigger-happy killer; Mr. Pink, a paranoid neurotic; Mr. Brown; and Mr. Blue. Hired by mob boss Joe Cabot and given fake names so no one could identify the others, they thought there was no way their heist could have failed. But after a police ambush, killing Mr. Brown and seriously injuring Mr. Orange, the criminals return to their rendezvous point (a warehouse), and realize that one of them had to have been a police informant and it’s just a matter of time until they find out who. As it’s been said so often by now – Reservoir Dogs is a heist film, where you never actually see the heist.
“Some one’s putting a red hot poker up our asses and I want to know who’s name’s on the handle.” ~ Mr Pink
From the moment it begins, it’s pure macho, adrenaline bullshiting laces this highly explosive cocktail of crime suspense and character fuelled thrill. The’re basically no women to be found in the entire film as these ‘TUFF’-guys get in each others faces, create male bonds and let the threats fly until some one gets hurt. There’s plenty of blood and gas-bagging to be found. In Reservoir Dogs opening moments we sense that we’re about to see something different, a special brand of diesel fuelled, off the wall intensity, that gets it’s kicks from down town left of field.
It’s macho posturing and foul mouthed testosterone may begin to run tiresome at a certain point, but Reservoir Dogs is more interested in doing a dance and then exploding in your face when you aren’t expecting it, and ultimately lives to toy with you as it’s humour and violence are inextricably woven together. Most of the film takes place in a warehouse, which gives the film the distinct energy of low budget film making and the near stage-like quality of these warehouse scenes is packed with nervous uncertainty and danger, it feels like anything can happen at any time.
With energy to burn, the most dynamic quality about Reservoir Dogs and in the case of most of Quentin Tarantino’s writing and directing is you are seeing the stories of American cinema, designed with a cinematically French influence and executed with the visceral heat of Hong Kong cinema, taking aaaaall of THAT and turning it into THIS, which miraculously manages to still be in his own voice (this of course comes from the writing itself). We begin with the circling camera, moving around and around a cafe table, continuing, for several minutes as these seven salty looking dudes meet for a big breakfast. It’s an unusual move and it’s the style and sheer confidence that it’s pulled off with that makes it work. They talk about pop culture, splitting a bill and what was on the radio, then just as they leave the café, all in uniform cheap black suits and skinny ties, we tune in to their favourite radio station, the frequency of the films sound track plays tunes which so blatantly contradict what we’re seeing on screen that an ironic distanced tone emerges.
The opening scene of Reservoir Dogs
The next biggie here is the non-chronological story structure, simply doing what it wants, like Scorsese’s GoodFellas, we have a rough and tumble film that is going to do what the hell it wants, and not be dictated by conventions, it’s pure attitude. We’ve begun with a set up that happens right before a the heist, the opening credits roll out and we witness the aftermath of a disastrously bungled robbery, we accept its unique structure and want to be taken back and forth to try to put this puzzle together how everything went wrong. The film examines each of it’s main characters, where they’ve been and what they do. It’s all just another juicy piece of the puzzle told in gloriously stylish, lengthened takes.
Then we have the very strong writing, the sizzle of the piece which seems to take the spotlight more often than it should. Of course Tarantino would become famous for his dialogue, but what I prefer so much about the writing in Reservoir Dogs is that there remains a course ugliness to what we hear and also see in the characters, that makes their gutter poetry seem all the more fresh when ever they spout profane profundity. The characters in Reservoir Dog’s have to bump up against each other and really get their hands dirty. There’s all kinds of consequence to their action, including even emotional ones which Tarantino’s next film, Pulp Fiction, would be completely void of. These emotional chalk marks that are left all over the character’s would be revisited in Jackie Brown, my other favourite Tarantino film, but JB wouldn’t have the electric jolt of Reservoir Dogs. There’s a rawness to the film and to it’s entire cast of equally fantastic actors, especially Tim Roth and Harvey Keitel, that when mixed into it’s other elements of visual style and to smart for it’s own good direction, creates a fresh and bloody thrilling whole that narrowly dodges some of the traits in later Tarantino films that would annoy me.
Reservoir Dogs is an especially exciting mix of violent exploitation and European cool. It constantly flirts with racism, homophobia, sexism and general politically incorrectness as it mixes literary wit with lurid smugness. It’s a cinematic shot of caffeine that remains invigorating. What seemed so innovative about Reservoir Dogs at the time, has since become copied constantly and taken for granted, but you can still play the film and get almost as much out of it as you once did. It’s ‘modern classic’ reputation still holds up and evidently hasn’t lost any of it’s impact. Reservoir Dogs still has one of the biggest pairs of balls in the tough guy character driven-crime genre.
Here’s the trailer for Reservoir Dogs.
Reservoir Dogs by Quentin Tarantino
Between nineteen eighty whatever till 1992, indie films were generally considered to be nothing more than ‘a slice of life’. A tale of virginity lost or a guys night out, never anything more. Between 'Bagdad Café' and 'Daughters Of The Dust', much of it was considered an ignorable bit of art house wind. I’m not saying this was true, there were some great American indie films during that period, from Rob Nilson’s emotionally startling Signal 7 to Todd Haynes’ bizarre and provocative Poison, this was just a misconception – or was it? It is interesting to note how many forgettable indie film’s there were after the flames of 70’s American film’s died down. For a while it seemed that indie films generally had all the edge of vanilla ice cream.
This might be why Reservoir Dogs made such an impact in 1992. It was a hard shot of whiskey for the boys who liked their old Lee Marvin films and tough guy dialogue all neat. Starring the marauding pack of animals, dogs in this case, that were Harvey Keitel (The Duellists, Taxi Driver, The Last Temptation Of Christ), Tim Roth (Little, Odessa, The Cook The Thief His Wife & Her Lover, Funny Games), Michael Madsen (Kill Bill, Pauly Shore Is Dead, Sin City), Chris Penn (The Funeral, True Romance, Short Cuts), Steve Buscemi (Ghost World, Fargo, The Big Lebowski) as well as the unhinged Lawrence Tierney (A Child Is Waiting, Prizzi’s Honour, Red). They make up the cast of Quentin Tarantino’s first feature that kicked a hole in the current indie ceiling and was possibly the first art film to be a pure and simple, no holds barred exercise in genre film making since 1960’s Blast Of Silence.
They were six strangers, assembled to pull off the perfect crime: Mr. White, a professional criminal; Mr. Orange, a young newcomer; Mr. Blonde, a trigger-happy killer; Mr. Pink, a paranoid neurotic; Mr. Brown; and Mr. Blue. Hired by mob boss Joe Cabot and given fake names so no one could identify the others, they thought there was no way their heist could have failed. But after a police ambush, killing Mr. Brown and seriously injuring Mr. Orange, the criminals return to their rendezvous point (a warehouse), and realize that one of them had to have been a police informant and it’s just a matter of time until they find out who. As it’s been said so often by now – Reservoir Dogs is a heist film, where you never actually see the heist.
“Some one’s putting a red hot poker up our asses and I want to know who’s name’s on the handle.” ~ Mr Pink
From the moment it begins, it’s pure macho, adrenaline bullshiting laces this highly explosive cocktail of crime suspense and character fuelled thrill. The’re basically no women to be found in the entire film as these ‘TUFF’-guys get in each others faces, create male bonds and let the threats fly until some one gets hurt. There’s plenty of blood and gas-bagging to be found. In Reservoir Dogs opening moments we sense that we’re about to see something different, a special brand of diesel fuelled, off the wall intensity, that gets it’s kicks from down town left of field.
It’s macho posturing and foul mouthed testosterone may begin to run tiresome at a certain point, but Reservoir Dogs is more interested in doing a dance and then exploding in your face when you aren’t expecting it, and ultimately lives to toy with you as it’s humour and violence are inextricably woven together. Most of the film takes place in a warehouse, which gives the film the distinct energy of low budget film making and the near stage-like quality of these warehouse scenes is packed with nervous uncertainty and danger, it feels like anything can happen at any time.
With energy to burn, the most dynamic quality about Reservoir Dogs and in the case of most of Quentin Tarantino’s writing and directing is you are seeing the stories of American cinema, designed with a cinematically French influence and executed with the visceral heat of Hong Kong cinema, taking aaaaall of THAT and turning it into THIS, which miraculously manages to still be in his own voice (this of course comes from the writing itself). We begin with the circling camera, moving around and around a cafe table, continuing, for several minutes as these seven salty looking dudes meet for a big breakfast. It’s an unusual move and it’s the style and sheer confidence that it’s pulled off with that makes it work. They talk about pop culture, splitting a bill and what was on the radio, then just as they leave the café, all in uniform cheap black suits and skinny ties, we tune in to their favourite radio station, the frequency of the films sound track plays tunes which so blatantly contradict what we’re seeing on screen that an ironic distanced tone emerges.
The opening scene of Reservoir Dogs
The next biggie here is the non-chronological story structure, simply doing what it wants, like Scorsese’s GoodFellas, we have a rough and tumble film that is going to do what the hell it wants, and not be dictated by conventions, it’s pure attitude. We’ve begun with a set up that happens right before a the heist, the opening credits roll out and we witness the aftermath of a disastrously bungled robbery, we accept its unique structure and want to be taken back and forth to try to put this puzzle together how everything went wrong. The film examines each of it’s main characters, where they’ve been and what they do. It’s all just another juicy piece of the puzzle told in gloriously stylish, lengthened takes.
Then we have the very strong writing, the sizzle of the piece which seems to take the spotlight more often than it should. Of course Tarantino would become famous for his dialogue, but what I prefer so much about the writing in Reservoir Dogs is that there remains a course ugliness to what we hear and also see in the characters, that makes their gutter poetry seem all the more fresh when ever they spout profane profundity. The characters in Reservoir Dog’s have to bump up against each other and really get their hands dirty. There’s all kinds of consequence to their action, including even emotional ones which Tarantino’s next film, Pulp Fiction, would be completely void of. These emotional chalk marks that are left all over the character’s would be revisited in Jackie Brown, my other favourite Tarantino film, but JB wouldn’t have the electric jolt of Reservoir Dogs. There’s a rawness to the film and to it’s entire cast of equally fantastic actors, especially Tim Roth and Harvey Keitel, that when mixed into it’s other elements of visual style and to smart for it’s own good direction, creates a fresh and bloody thrilling whole that narrowly dodges some of the traits in later Tarantino films that would annoy me.
Reservoir Dogs is an especially exciting mix of violent exploitation and European cool. It constantly flirts with racism, homophobia, sexism and general politically incorrectness as it mixes literary wit with lurid smugness. It’s a cinematic shot of caffeine that remains invigorating. What seemed so innovative about Reservoir Dogs at the time, has since become copied constantly and taken for granted, but you can still play the film and get almost as much out of it as you once did. It’s ‘modern classic’ reputation still holds up and evidently hasn’t lost any of it’s impact. Reservoir Dogs still has one of the biggest pairs of balls in the tough guy character driven-crime genre.
Here’s the trailer for Reservoir Dogs.
| 172 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
It's also the film that made me NOT want to make a movie for a decade because it accomplished everything cinematic I wanted to do in that time of my life. ....
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
The logic behind your bottom statement is hilarious - hope things have changed
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
JD, you're such a cinema nerd.
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
Thanks for reading. Regarding the comments - I sometimes get us much as ten comments but it wasnt always that way. I see you have a far higher abundance of readers than me, I recommend leaving regular comments on other blogs and you'll probably find that this gets reciprocated from bloggers writing in the same category as you. Dont worry, we all know what it's like to write our little hearts out and feel like no one even was compelled to comment.
Bryn - I agree on both of your statements - although I do think that Inglorious was pretty up there, despite my initial dislike for it.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
At the time I was an idealistic young lad who craved to contribute something original, reinvent the wheel and dazzle audiences.
Stupidly I assumed that post Reservoir Dogs any film that had gangsters or witty banter would immediately be compared to Tarantino.. considered a rip off and given a handicap just by design...I felt vindicated for a while when masterworks came out like The Usual Suspects and despite all the flair suffered from the very comparison I feared.
Now of course i appreciate that its all in the telling. Even when inventive stuff like In Bruges is described as Tarantinoesque it can now be seen as a compliment
Comment by Andy Tope
Bagman's Gazette
Nice review. I'm going to have to revisit this one.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
Ah Bryn - the great debate begins.
I'd say it's taking all of that and turning into his voice specifically, that is intune to his personality and sensibilites and of course an unnerving mixture of humorous violence.
Of course Tarantino has gone and made mainstream audiences completely oblivious to the subtleties of crime cinema, something can be called tarantino-esque and it can be considerably different also.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Pulp Fiction perhaps, but that was co-written with Roger Avary.
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
I think the most original thing he's done has been Inglorious Basterds
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
Inglorious Basterds has a few traces of influence in it like German cinema of the 30's, Sergio Leone, Nick Fury And His Howling Commandos, Brian G. Hutton (who directed Where Eagles Dare and Kellys Heroes, only to give up directing in the 80's so he could become a plumber), but the influences are all quite innocent and are more nods than any thing else. for the most part, I believe I.B. to be his first truly original film.
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
Screen Trek
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
Sorry Shaun, but I actually left a detailed response which, unless you removed it for some reason, it has mysteriously disappeared...
My take is this; when I first saw Reservoir Dogs, I was impressed by its powerful raw realism, portraying career criminals as they are, mean bad and indifferent to the rights of others, (actually, an awful lot of people in certain government agencies would also fit that bill! tee hee!).
Anyway, when I saw it at its release, it was a step up above anything that I had seen previously, hard, mean and unapologetic, and put to rest the years of glorifying criminals in Hollywood pictures.
However, when I saw it again, recently, my opinion had changed, I respected all that I saw in it originally, but I hated the sadistic psychopath torturing the poor hapless cop, I couldn't stand it.
However, on the other debate here, Inglorious Basterds, I had mixed feelings;
it came across as a Saturday matinee flick, albeit made brilliantly, but, I loathe it when history isn't just embroidered but completely distorted, as there are many out there who will think this utter fantasy is based on fact, okay, I'm talking about US citizens in the middle states maybe...
However, it made me wonder about Tarantino's original motivation to make such a distortion of history, putting the vicitim people, the Jews, into the role of mercenary executioners, displaying the same lack of morality and psychopathy that the nazi torturers persecuted so many Jews, gays, and Romanie people with.
And that is not just my view, many Jews hated the film because of the inferences, maybe some extreme right wing people loved it, but, this is a hugely important area of our collective human history that must never be screwed with, even if it is being used as a fillip, or a device, to assuage the guilty feelings of some persecutors of today.
cheers
fog
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
Now - look, I think that Tarantino is a hugely over rated film maker, yes , he's good at what he does, very good, but what he does isn't of any real significance. He's like the Roger Corman of today. He makes films that are easily digestible, bite sized films that are easy to swallow, his bits of shock value please films critics in search of fake orgasms and his ability to wonderfully pull it all off appeals to the arthouse crowd - thus his huge appeal. The shocks and humor work to simplify everything in the story and in his characters. His cool and knowing, ironic characters make it so there is no emotional investment required and he's simply, at the end of the day a movie nut who gets his rocks off by making the kinds of films he likes.
He just happens to be damn good at it. Yeah, its all style done for it's own sake but he does it so well that movie fans cant help but be seduced by and dribble all over the show at his work. It's good. I dont think, aside from Jackie Brown, he will ever make a mature film, but you can always count on him to provide a good time.
As for the cop being tortured thats just him doing his thing and any reaction will be subjective.
As for Inglourious Basterds, I agree, there are some damn dumb people out there who will think they are getting a history lesson and maybe there are certain things in history that shouldnt be tampered with, some Jewish audiences liked the film and some were offended by it, I think for Tarantino it's all exploitation and the reaction just feeds the hype. I personally really liked it after I eventually got my head around the whole thing. I like the conceit of the film. I myself wasnt offended by it and thats straight from the horses mouth too.
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
My comment above was actually meant to be facetious.
I was saying that what I feared the most happened. It was ridiculous that a film like In Bruges or The Usual Suspects were compared to Tarantino when the similarities are only on the surface. Worse still it is derogatory to compare them with Q.T's work because it under sells how successfully they toyed with convention.
Comparing other films to Tarantino or calling it Tarantinoesque is lazy. Sure a few sub standard filmmakers in the genre looked to emulate the master of pulp dialogue, but many more are going beyond the restrictions of his style and don't receive a fair assessment because of tainted and limited vision on the audiences part.
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Don't get me wrong though, I love a lot of what Tarantino has brought to the Hollywood table. Perhaps I'm just in a contentious mood.
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
perhaps that is the case, but if you read my review for Pulp Fiction that I just put up now, you'll see that I have a gripe with him which I've managed to keep down in my reviews. Too many people think he re-invented the wheel, so if you think what he's doing lacks originality I will never stand in your way as I am the first person to complain about how over rated he is.
I still think though, that I.B. is his most original work compared to his other films.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
Like I was saying over at your Pulp Fiction review, this is my favourite Tarantino film by some margin. It walks a fine line, but is so well realised and emotionally resonant, and if for nothing else gets the nod for Lawrence Tierney making an appearance - hell yeah!
Comment by ShaunK
Screen Adventure
Loved it when Tierney played Elain's dad in Seinfeld.
QT also wanted one of my favourite actors to initially play Joe Cabot, Timothy Carey (East Of Eden, The Killing, Snake Charmer) but Tarantino was actually frightened by him when they finally met. Carey has some notorious stories attached to him and what he got up to on set.