Reservoir Dogs

Hi,
I am currently writing a short essay on Reservoir Dogs, could someone please read it and help me.

Thanks.

Here it is:
This is without a doubt one of the best movies I've ever seen and definitely deserves its position on the Top 250. It's an acquired taste, but if you've been desensitised to violence (as i have), then you will want to watch this again from the minute it ends. Every single actor was perfectly fitted for its character. Steve Buscemi as the squirrelly Mr. Pink, Harvey Keitel as the veteran Mr. White, and of course, Michael Madsen as the psychotic Mr. Blonde. The list goes on and on.

Some people said that the violence was unnecessary and didn't move the plot forward as it did with Pulp Fiction. I agree, but the violence was used to develop the character's personalities. It showed their disregard for human life and that our Anti-heroes saw killing a cop as being as stepping on a cockroach.

I urge future viewers of this movie not to instantly compare it to Pulp Fiction and enjoy it as it's own film. An interesting thrill-ride crime drama from beginning to end, I give this film 10/10

Reply 1

Unregistered

Talk about its part in the development of the genre. This was one of the first Tarantino movies, and it was quite ground-breaking. Why was it so fresh and new? What did it bring to the genre (whichever genre it was) that made it so great?

I haven't seen it, but I do have Pulp Fiction, which i gather is quite similar.

Reply 2

Unregistered

How can 'Unregistered' the 'guest give his opinion? 'One of the first Tarantino movies'...!
It makes me so angry!
How can anyone be so stupid?
Your essay is fine, but I don't see how the violence doesn't move the plot forward. The 'infamous torture scene' is there so we can see just what kind of a person Mr. Blonde is, but, I dunno, I just can't see it. I mean, what about Mr. Orange being shot in the stomach? All the violence does also develop characters, but I think it is necessary, even in that respect. That's another good thing about the film; it is quite violent, but this can never been seen as gratutitous. Mr. White's reaction to Mr. Orange's wound, by the way, does not show a disregard for human life. As far as killing cops; I don't think Mr. White shares Mr. Pink's totally uncaring attitude. As he says, he would only kill if left no other option. I think Reservoir Dogs can be compared to Pulp Fiction, though it is not necessary. They are as good as each other, but also different. For the record, Reservoir Dogs is my favourite film. If you want me to help more with the essay, let me know. I do know a lot about this.

Reply 3

Unregistered

How about the almost unique way that Tarantino used contrapuntal sound during the torture scene (e.g. the upbeat music which contrasted with what you were seeing on the screen).

Reply 4

Unregistered

one of the best?

he only directed three.

Reply 5

Unregistered

Perhaps another angle might be: why on earth are people interested in such a boring film?

I started to watch it and tired of the dialogue which seemed to consist solely of a long series of foul oathes.

The scenery was pretty much non-existant and the plot was equally non-existant.

It looked and had the feel of being made on a shoestring budget, written by the people that performed and did the camera work and who appeared to have no imagination.

The only reason why it is a cult film seems to be because everybody keeps repeating the phrase "ooh it's a cult film". Being a "cult" film does not however mean anything. This film was ruthlessly marketed as an orgy of violence. That appealed to people in their teens and twenties hence it became popular. Perhaps the other thing that made it popular was that it was forbidden fruit. The BBFC held up classification on it for a long time - that added to its publicity and appeal.

the actual film itself is one I'd happily flush down the nearest loo.

R

Reply 6

Jacquie

Maybe it's because I'm nearly 40, but I've got both R.Dogs and Pulp Fiction on vid and I don't think either are as violent as Clockwork Orange!
If you try to watch the film in it's reality context, then I think you'll appreciate that it is 'of it's age'. The violent scenes are part of the lives it is trying to portray, and even when you see the macabre scene with the wonderful 'stuck in the middle' music, set against such unnecessary cruelty, doesn't it make you (the viewer) question today's society? I think this is what Tarrantino is trying to tell us. And you still see wonderful friendships evolving against the odds. I hope this is what Tarrantino is trying to show?.
There's nothing wrong with a 'cult' film, as long as people appreciate why and how it's become known as such. In my opinion, this is one of those - along with Pulp, Trainspotters, and The Usual Suspect.
Just to finish - why can someone who has only made a handful of films (he's made more than 3, by the way!), not be considered to have any acclaim? Not everyone is an Alfred Hitchcock and doesn't want to be (don't you DARE ask who HE is!).
Do yourself a favour, and watch the film again- at least twice, and then make a more informed debateable opinion.

Reply 7

Unregistered

Originally posted by Jacquie
Maybe it's because I'm nearly 40, but I've got both R.Dogs and Pulp Fiction on vid and I don't think either are as violent as Clockwork Orange!
If you try to watch the film in it's reality context, then I think you'll appreciate that it is 'of it's age'. The violent scenes are part of the lives it is trying to portray, and even when you see the macabre scene with the wonderful 'stuck in the middle' music, set against such unnecessary cruelty, doesn't it make you (the viewer) question today's society? I think this is what Tarrantino is trying to tell us. And you still see wonderful friendships evolving against the odds. I hope this is what Tarrantino is trying to show?.
There's nothing wrong with a 'cult' film, as long as people appreciate why and how it's become known as such. In my opinion, this is one of those - along with Pulp, Trainspotters, and The Usual Suspect.
Just to finish - why can someone who has only made a handful of films (he's made more than 3, by the way!), not be considered to have any acclaim? Not everyone is an Alfred Hitchcock and doesn't want to be (don't you DARE ask who HE is!).
Do yourself a favour, and watch the film again- at least twice, and then make a more informed debateable opinion.

Just because a film isn't as violent as another doesn't make violence used in place of a story and dialogue acceptible. I'm not going to start a debate on how TV violence has a negative impact on the viewer - even though he/she might not notice this because it'll probably start something completely off-topic.

I didn't find the film was at all realistic. Real-life gangsters can be violent etc but not as much as the film appeared to portray. I'm not going to make generalisations about real-life gangsters but I can honestly say that those I have met have been:
1. Very concerned about noise.
2. Very stupid.
3. More concerned with getting the job done quickly and getting away quickly than with anything else.
4. Real life gangsters are more likely to wave a gun around without any real idea of how to use it.

R

Reply 8

Unregistered

i enjoyed the essay especialy the aqquired taste what about here you could add info about the film i.e any part you think will show its an aqquired taste.

Reply 9

Unregistered

This is for the joker who calls himself 'Larry Dimmick'; what makes u so angry about the 'guest' stating that Reservoir Dogs was one of Tarantino's first films????? Do u know anything about Tarantino or his films???? This was the first script that he wrote that he himself turned into a film and directed, so what was so stupid about unregistered's comment?