Metascore
78 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 23 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 23
  2. Negative: 0 out of 23
  1. A brutal movie, brutal in all the right ways -- brutally stark, brutally funny, brutally brutal. [30 Oct 1992]
  2. 100
    Grabs you by the throat and digs its claws in deep. From the moment that the unwitting viewer tumbles into the realm of Lawrence Tierney's gang of eight, they are hopelessly trapped there until the final credits roll.
  3. Reservoir Dogs sizzles - it's dynamite on a short fuse, and you watch it with mesmerized fascination, simultaneously attracted and repelled by the explosion you know will come.
  4. Reviewed by: Jeff Dawson
    100
    The hippest crime flick this side of "Goodfellas," Reservoir Dogs has all the hallmarks of a modern classic.
  5. 100
    You may not like the terms Tarantino sets, but you have to admit he succeeds on them.
  6. Reviewed by: Hal Hinson
    100
    If Quentin Tarantino's gritty, bone-chilling, powerfully violent new film, Reservoir Dogs, doesn't pin your ears back, nothing ever will...[It's] as caustic as battery acid. It's brutal, it's funny and you won't forget it. Guaranteed.
  7. 100
    With the exception of the opening scene -- whose purpose is chiefly comic -- the movie is one, extended climax. Even with flashbacks and other time jumps, it never lets up. You have to go back to Henri-Georges Clouzot's 1952 "The Wages of Fear" to recall suspense this relentless.
  8. 90
    The truth is that for all the controversy there really isn’t that much violence in Reservoir Dogs. The reason people were so affected was because the film shows you the true impact of its violence.
  9. Though small in physical scope, Reservoir Dogs is immensely complicated in its structure, which for the most part works with breathtaking effect. [23 Oct 1992]
  10. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    90
    Most of the movie is Actors Acting: gifted guys (Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Steve Buscemi, Chris Penn) running nattering riffs on familiar lout themes. [16 Nov 1992]
  11. Reviewed by: Staff (Not Credited)
    90
    An intense, bloody, in-your-face crime drama about a botched robbery and its aftermath, colorfully written in vulgar gangster vernacular and well played by a terrific cast.
  12. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    88
    Too lingeringly creepy to ignore. [23 Oct 1992]
  13. Reviewed by: Staff (Not Credited)
    80
    The film's look and themes also recall those of Howard Hawks. Avoiding artful, fussy compositions, Tarantino constructs much of Reservoir Dogs from simple medium-shot long takes.
  14. Reviewed by: John Hartl
    80
    All of it is vital and involving, and some of it is hilarious...I've rarely seen a group of people in a darkened theater react as viscerally as they do to Reservoir Dogs.
  15. It's not the most violent picture ever; what film could aspire to that title? But it's so well made, the violence is so gratuitous, and the general reception has been so delighted, that attention must be paid. [23 Nov 1992]
  16. It's unclear whether this macho thriller does anything to improve the state of the world or our understanding of it, but it certainly sets off enough rockets to hold us and shake us for every one of its 99 minutes.
  17. 78
    Though its reach sometimes exceeds its grasp, Tarantino has created a movie with all the gritty punch of a .44 in the belly.
  18. Tarantino's palpable enthusiasm, his unapologietic passion for what he's created, reinvigorates this venerable plot and, mayhem aside, makes it involving for longer than you might suspect. [27 Oct 1992]
  19. 63
    The part that needs work didn't cost money. It's the screenplay. Having created the characters and fashioned the outline, Tarantino doesn't do much with his characters except to let them talk too much, especially when they should be unconscious from shock and loss of blood.
  20. 63
    Tarantino's debut directing job acknowledges the sloppiness and silences that are typically squeezed out of most crime films, but we get the point early on and the remainder is macho posturing. [23 Oct 1992]
  21. I must report that Reservoir Dogs has little of intelligence to say - except for a few implicit comments on the nature of loyalty and betrayal - and that it's violent to the ponit of sadism. [5 Oct 1992]
  22. Reviewed by: Terrence Rafferty
    50
    Less than the sum of its outrageous gags and inventive bits of business. The story is impressively bloody, but the blood is thin, and it keeps leaking out; Tarantino has all he can do to maintain the movie's pulse. Mostly, he tries to get by on film-school cleverness – a homemade pharmaceutical cocktail of allusions, pop music, and visual jolts. [19 Oct 1992]
  23. The only thing Mr. Tarantino spells out is the violence. I have seen much more blood spilled, yet I felt sickened by the coldness of this picture's visual cruelty. [29 Oct 1992, p.A11(E)]
User Score

Universal acclaim- based on 130 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 47 out of 50
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 50
  3. Negative: 3 out of 50
  1. Man, I really liked Quentin Tarantino before he became a retard, directing movies like "Kill Bill". His Sundance movie "Reservoir Dogs" was a great example why; it had everything a crime thriller doesn't need, from great, unexpected directions to a solid cast (mainly Harvey Keitel doing the job). It was a controversial blast that had powerful, appealing force, and that's why I admired it. Full Review »
  2. Tarantino's debut is still arguably his most powerful. "Reservoir Dogs" shows a rathe timid Tarantino in the beginning of his career, but that doesn't mean it's lesser than his later films. "Reservoir Dogs" packs a mean punch full of violence, obscenities, and hilarity all into very fast crime thriller that is sure to get your adrenaline pumping. "Reservoir Dogs" does lack what makes Tarantino's later films somewhat better; a brilliant screenplay. I would love to see Tarantino redo "Reservoir Dogs" now that his confidence in directing and writing has grown considerably. However, this is a fantastic cult film that should be watched by every lover of the cinema. Full Review »
  3. 10
    Sorry for the translation. The year was 1992 - In the cinematic landscape is a new director and a new movie. The director named Quentin Tarantino, the film Reservoir Dogs. Synopsis: Robbery, fleeing in a warehouse, debates, quarrels, emotional consequences, death stars. (Except one, perhaps). Who is Quentin Tarantino: A brilliant storyteller. (S.m. skillful storyteller) About Reservoir Dogs: A film against intellectual arrogance. When you're seriously pissed use the tools that are familiar to make you feel better. What are the symptoms (nervousness): A brilliant storyteller and surprises you when he talks about topics such as handling, race, music, religion, violence. So his characters before the cameras never lose vitality even in extreme situations. Everything is structured around the conversations that are always stimulating. Tarantino shakes you from stupor. As you can: through the camera, leaving no escape. You're down there shooting, anyway. What is comparable to the work of Tarantino: The most famous artist Mamontow toy. The Russian dolls. In that sense: The Russian doll is a collection of dolls, Russian wood of different sizes, nicely colored. Each piece can be inserted into another and is divided into two parts. The pieces in them are not full, but empty. Only the latter, the smallest, which is called "seed" is full. The largest piece is called "mother". The Russian doll, the figure represents a peasant mother and generous as it may be the land. The creative mind of Tarantino is generous as it is a Russian doll. Got a message for Mr. Tarantino? Yes, welcome in Italy. Venice is beautiful. A partnership with Carlo Verdone would an Oscar in Italy. An example of imaginative narration (narration). Ok. Un giorno, un non vedente era seduto sul gradino di un marciapiede con un cappello ai suoi piedi e un pezzo di cartone con su scritto: «Sono cieco, aiutatemi per favore!» "One day a blind man was sitting on the slope of a sidewalk with a cap at his feet and a piece of cardboard with this written on it: “I am blind. Help me please.” Un pubblicitario che passava di lì si fermò e notò che vi erano solo alcuni centesimi nel cappello. "An advertising professional who was passing by stopped and noted that there were only a few cents in the hat." Si chinò e versò della moneta, poi, senza chiedere il permesso al cieco, prese il cartone, lo girò e vi scrisse sopra un'altra frase. "He bent and put in some money, then without asking the blind man’s permission took the cardboard, turned it, and wrote another phrase." Al pomeriggio, il pubblicitario ripassò dal cieco e notò che il suo cappello era pieno di monete e di banconote. "In the afternoon, the ad man passed by the blind man again and noted that his cap was full of coins and paper money." Il non vedente riconobbe il passo dell'uomo e gli domandò se era stato lui che aveva scritto sul suo pezzo di cartone e soprattutto che cosa vi avesse annotato. "The blind man recognized the step of the man and asked him if he was the one who had written on the piece of cardboard and, above all, what he had written." Il pubblicitario rispose: Nulla che non sia vero, ho solamente riscritto la tua frase in un altro modo. "The ad man replied: Nothing that isn’t true. I simply rewrote your phrase in another way." Sorrise e se ne andò. Il non vedente non seppe mai che sul suo pezzo di cartone vi era scritto: «Oggi è primavera e io non posso vederla». "He smiled and left. The blind man never knew that on the piece of cardboard was written: “Today is spring, and I can not see it.”" Morale: Cambia la tua strategia quando le cose non vanno molto bene e vedrai che poi andrà meglio. "Moral: Change your strategy when things aren’t going very well, and you will see that they then will go better." Good Ciak! Full Review »