Writer-director Quentin Tarantino is one lethal storyteller. Reservoir Dogs, even for those of us with weak stomachs, is a masterful story setup, aided and abetted by all those colorful guys in on the thing.
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.
If this movie isn't proof we need a live action among us movie, I don't know what is. When the imposter is sussy pam pam pam pam pam pam pam, pararam. Dun dun.
Definitely up there with Pulp Fiction as Tarantino's best. Reservoir Dogs is simply brilliant in all aspects. It is very brash, abrasive and unrelenting, but works tremendously with that sort of tone. The cinematography is very good I think, and the soundtrack is very appropriate and fitting. The story is wonderfully compelling, while the dialogue is very hard-boiled and attitude-laced with plenty of pop culture references, and references to TV shows and hip movies. Tarantino's direction is excellent, and so is the acting. Both Harvey Keitel and Tim Roth give performances that are among their best, while Michael Madson and Steve Buschemi are outstanding. Overall, I think it is a must. Maybe not for all, but I loved it and consider it one of Tarantino's best. 10/10 Bethany Cox
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]
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.
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.
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)]
Tarantino's most predictable movie but still a very good one mainly because of the clever storyline and the extended violence which isn't as humorous as is in his rest filmography
I heard a lot of praise about this movie, but just can't understand why it's so well received. The movie is long, drawn out, and almost intentionally low budget. Simply stated, the ending was just terrible. Like I wasted my time watching it. Nothing about this movie kept me wanting to watch it, and there's nothing that hasn't been done better in another film. Take another robbery movie, like "Heat," for example. Better soundtrack, better cast, a better tension building story without anything important left out due to low budget constraints, (Tarantino couldn't even afford an actual robbery scene in this movie) better character development and presentation, better action, memorable dialogue that fit into the story very well, and had purpose. Scenes that were necessary for the plot and understanding the characters better and what drives the characters aside from "I want money and I'm angry/mentally ill."