User Score
8.6

Universal acclaim- based on 378 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 9 out of 378

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jan 29, 2011
    2
    This review contains spoilers. It had no real point to it. Just another movie about a job gone wrong where everybody dies. The dialogue was one of the least impressive things about it... It was awkward and unconvincing, despite being acted by decent actors. I couldn't see the film as an unfolding story, I could only see it as Tarantino's writing. I think that seeing dudes screaming and covered in blood was supposed to cloud people's judgement with shock. The fact that the actors were good made everybody assume that the rest of the movie was good. I am an empathetic person who doesn't like violence, but even I couldn't see this as "brutal". All I saw were actors with red crap on them making hurting noises. I didn't buy it.

    I loved Pulp Fiction, and I had high hopes for this movie, and I was very disapointed. Upon seeing the credits roll, I said one thing out loud:
    "That was retarded."

    Maybe I'm not 'getting' the movie, maybe I need to see it again, but for the time being I'm giving it a thumbs down.
    Collapse
Metascore
78

Generally favorable reviews - based on 23 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 23
  2. Negative: 0 out of 23
  1. 100
    You may not like the terms Tarantino sets, but you have to admit he succeeds on them.
  2. 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.
  3. 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]