Somewhat Irrelevant

Rating: 5/10 (6 January 2010)

Well, it was a good start.
Actually, let's begin before the start. Way back in the day, I wrote for The College Voice at Glendale Community College. I even had a column named "Reeves Reviews" and had long hair in my mug shot. (A little after the mug shot was taken, I had cut that mullet I had, but the boys in the newsroom loved it, make that mocked it, so much, they made sure it stayed in my column.) One enormously unpopular review I wrote was for Reservoir Dogs. It probably would've been criticized elsewhere, but namely it was trashed on a "college" campus. I gave it 1/5 stars and named it "irrelevant." (Reprinted article follows this review.) Since this was not only Quentin Tarantino's debut film, neither me, nor the movie watching audience had any scope of what Tarantino was capable of. After watching his future directed projects, such as his enormously improved second outing, Pulp Fiction, I strongly say again: this was a good start.
Reservoir Dogs starts off well, with a soon-to-be signature rotating camera view of a cast of off-beats discussing highly irrelevant topics, in this case: Madonna songs and an awesome anti-tipping monologue. But after the strong and fun opening, the movie moves on to the real story. These men, cleverly named (mostly) after colors (Pink, Brown, White, Orange, Blonde, Blue, Nice Guy and, uh, Joe) attempt a heist which, of course, gets botched and one of them is no longer a color but a rodent, or rat, to the police.
The film, in (again) soon-to-be classic Tarantino fashion, is told in multiple flashbacks and decisively never actually shows the jewelry robbery, which I liked. In fact, the majority, if not 99% of the film plays out like a theatre production and gives the movie time to breath with great dialogue.
Granted, the movie is hard to watch, and I am not just referring to those so lost when a movie's not shown in chronological order. It's hard due to the excessive violence, blood, torture, language and being almost completely void of any characters to root for. These men are bad, very bad and I am guessing this is the message Tarantino wants to get across: this is a movie about bad, very bad guys. It's not a nice cop/western show where the good guys wear white and you applaud them on.
Recently, I began re-watching all of Tarantino's directorial flicks, mostly in reverse order, of which, I finished here, with Reservoir Dogs. If you happen to watch them that way, it's easy to see how great and definitively quickly he grew to what I strongly believe to be one of the best directors to live. But, therein lies the problem I had with Reservoir Dogs and this has nothing to do with the original review I had with this movie. (By the way, I did upgrade my rating - slightly, but it did take a few additional movies of him for me to, well, "get him" – my bad, and it did take more than one viewing of this film, as well.) This film had a lot of what Tarantino wanted to say, to do, with rich dialogue, interesting characters with absolute depth, and film, comic, music and pop references, but it really didn't allow Tarantino to really take it to the next level, or what Pulp Fiction did.
So, don't do what I did, unless you have seen his entire directorial collection. Watch them in order, starting with this one and ending with (so far) Inglourious Basterds. Sure, you might still like/love this one, but, you'll soon love to explore the depths he takes his talent, both on screen, behind the camera and in the scripts.
And here is my original review written in late 1992 for The College Voice. By the way, I've since lighted a lot of the subject of homophobic lines and characters in movies. Unless it's blatantly against and rallies people to burn gays, I rarely even bring it up. In addition, I remember specifically those guys in the newsroom, the same ones who thought it was fun to make light of my mullet, were ready to kill me for my opinion on this. I get that a lot.
"Dark humor and violence dog irrelevant 'Reservoir'"
A confused film usually can't tell if it wants to be a comedy, drama or a speak-out-against-society film.
"Reservoir Dogs" is a movie in that category, and it's more a black comedy than anything else.
Somewhat funny at times, "Reservoir Dogs" is not an interesting film. It's too much of a confused and angry movie, lashing out against law enforcement, homosexuals and African-Americans.
The film's weak plot begins in a diner with six or seven gentlemen, and an array of obnoxious, annoying criminals who sit and talk about today's lighted topics, including Madonna.
After the diner scene, which is the best part of the entire film, they switch to the events that take place after the crime, which they were hired to commit.
Violent, gory scenes follow as "Orange," (Tim Roth) a criminal, has been shot and is quickly dying due to loss of blood. "White," (Harvey Keitel) his partner in crime, takes him to their "hide-out," an empty warehouse, in fear the police will find out who they are.
The story line suggests a strong hatred for police officers. It even shows one of the men bringing in a police officer to question why the police showed up so quickly after the robbery.
Later, this officer is brutally tortured. It is obvious to see debut-director Quentin Tarantino's respect for law enforcement.
The profanity and violence in the film makes it realistic, but at most times, it's irrelevant. "Reservoir Dogs" receives one out of five stars on my film rating scale. This film should be avoided.