These Dogs Show Their True Colors

Rating: 9/10 (25 August 2005)

White, Pink, Orange, Brown... you'll be thinking of these colors in a different way after watching this ensemble of actors act their guts out in a twisting, vibrant re-interpretation of a crime drama. Tarantino nails it; the next one, "Pulp Fiction" was more ambitious and had more bucks, but this had the advantage of a fresh approach, a new way of presenting cinema as, dare we say it, art. The actors went along with him, all the way, to the smallest detail. Watch the end of the introductory breakfast scene, after Mr. Pink (Buscemi) explains his non-tipping philosophy. Joe (Tierney) returns to the table and commands Pink to pay up anyway and Pink finally complies. Eddie (Penn) sits very solemnly during this point, with his hands under his chin, as if in deep thought. What's he thinking about? Could it be he thinks I should've forced Pink to pay? Is it times like these when I'm still the kid and my dad's the man? This is just a 2-second shot.
Examples like that may be why a film such as this gets better every time I see it. I don't remember much about what I thought of it when I first saw it back in '92; probably that it was interesting. I thought it was more interesting the 2nd time I saw it. By the 3rd time, I was thinking, this is fantastic. I've just seen it again, probably for the ninth time and it's better than ever. Returning to Penn's performance as Eddie: most fans of this film usually point out Buscemi as the comical, quick Pink, or the cool Keitel as Mr.White, or the unpredictably cool Madsen as Blonde (Blonde-what a color,eh?-you psycho!). Penn gives the performance of his career here. He switches from daddy's boy to Blonde-type menace in the space of a few frames. He's probably the most creative with Tarantino's lengthy dialog, juggling pressure from his boss/dad, supervising the cadre of crooks and trying to make phone conversations interesting. And Tierney, struggling in a B or C movie career all his long life, has the role of his lifetime here thanks to Tarantino; the entire scene of him giving out the color names to the boys couldn't have been played better.
What is really thrilling, however, is how Madsen still manages to surprise and chill after all these years. I watch him now and questions start to percolate in my brain: was he on drugs when he 'acted' this role? Is he slightly insane in real life? He really is amazing here - so much so that the few years following this movie all his roles were overshadowed by this performance. I almost believe Madsen discovered a new method style of acting back then, which didn't take because no one else knew how to do it.
So why not a full ten stars? I have a few problems with Roth; nothing too serious - he's dead on in some scenes, such as when he tells himself not to chicken out in the mirror; other times, he's trying hard to hide an accent or just trying too hard. Thing is, in most ways, he has the most difficult role; he has to act like a criminal being acted by someone else being acted by Roth. I'm also aware of accusations regarding the older film "City on Fire" which hints this work may be slightly imitative of at least one sequence unlike, say "Pulp Fiction" which, despite appearances, is wholly original. But these are quibbles in the end - if Reservoir Dogs isn't original, what is?