Feels fresh even after almost three decades.

Rating: 9/10 (26 December 2019)

RESERVOIR DOGS (09/03/1992):
CAST:
Harvey Keitel as Mr. White/Larry Dimmick
Tim Roth as Mr. Orange/Freddy Newandyke
Michael Madsen as Mr. Blonde/Vic Vega
Chris Penn as "Nice Guy" Eddie Cabot
Steve Buscemi as Mr. Pink
Lawrence Tierney as Joe Cabot
Randy Brooks as Holdaway
Kirk Baltz as Marvin Nash
Edward Bunker as Mr. Blue
Quentin Tarantino as Mr. Brown
REVIEW:
Six criminals who are completely stranger to each other are hired by Joe Cabot to carry out a Diamond Robbery. Right at the beginning, they were given some false names so that they don't get too attached to each other and focus only on their assigned job. 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 But the plan starts to fall apart when the alarm is tripped and the cops show up within moments. Of the group of men, all of whom are identified by colours, only four survive with one being seriously wounded. It is suspected that there is a police informant in the group, but no one is sure who it is.
This was certainly cutting edge for its time and I believe the editing and sequencing of the film is still used in our time. The narrative structure of movies has undergone radical change in modern film, and I'm not sure if this film is chiefly responsible, but it's certainly there in the grammar of modern film. It's quite ingenious how it's put together, and how it's explained, this film of crooks and hoods planning a jewellery robbery that is hamstrung from the get-go. Hamstrung because one of the hoods/crooks is actually a cop that has infiltrated the group. It appears to be a random film, but it is only random in the sense that the order of the narrative is shuffled around. The narrative itself isn't or we'd probably be entering the world of the nonsensical.
So, there's plenty of brain power behind this, and there's humour here too, but the aftershocks of the violent acts are quite disturbing. Tarantino dwells on blood and the physical and emotional aftermath of acts of violence to an extent that it could almost be a poster call (Tarantino's poster call) for anti-violence in the movies. It is quite hard to look at without turning away because he plays on acts of violence and their aftermath for such extended lengths of time. That's one of my personal arguments against this particular Tarantino film. Another would be his extensive and prolific use of obscenity which hits the registers as his violence does. He overdoes it. And he does make you feel it in ways you don't want to feel it. He gives violence and obscenity a bad name not because he uses it, but because he dwells on it extensively and purposefully. A third negative for me is that I found it hard to picture Tarantino as one of the hoods/crooks picked for the jewellery heist. Him sitting around the dinner table with the other hoods/crooks clasping coffee mug with both hands looked strangely out of place with the other hoods/crooks. He's certainly got some imaginative ideas about making film though - his editing, his story idea of a jewellery robbery given a modern make-over, his crook/hoods pointing their guns at one another, his choice of popular music soundtrack, his opening credits of the hoods/crooks walking in their dark suits in slow-motion, his actors which are all quite capable and sometimes funny. Hence four stars. This is something new. New and fairly raw.
Well this movie has adapted a new and very unique technique of storytelling in its time, which feels fresh till today, even after almost 3 decades of the film being released. And if we look back in time it can be called a tribute to Tarantino by himself as the film is characterised by nonlinear storylines, satirical subject matter, aestheticisation of violence, extended scenes of dialogue, ensemble casts, references to popular culture and a wide variety of other films, soundtracks primarily containing songs and score pieces from the 1960s to the 1980s, alternate history, and features of neo-noir film. It had almost all the "TARRANTINO EFFECTS"
It is a must watch for all the movie lovers out there and the screenplay which should be studied by all aspiring directors and Screenplay writers. I have read the screenplay and I personally think that a seldom a 90 minutes screenplay has so detailed narration. the screenplay is full of witty and quotable dialogue ("Mr. Brown? That sounds too much like Mr. S**t.")