MovieChat Forums > Reservoir Dogs (1992) Discussion > Memories of Reservoir Dogs ...When It Ca...

Memories of Reservoir Dogs ...When It Came Out in 1992

posted 2 years ago by ecarle (14979)
7 replies | jump to latest

Its funny to think of a time when nobody knew who Quentin Tarantino was...when he had to deliver a low-budget, talk-heavy, small scale independent movie to get his name on the map in three crucial places: (1) In Hollywood as a company town ; (2) among film critics and (3) with the public at large.

As I recall, QT's splash with critics was "so-so" -- Roger Ebert gave Reservoir Dogs a two-and one half -star review and urged QT to "do better next time"(after noting that this was a promising debut.) And a bunch of critics seemed to miss all of QT's glorious and utterly unique dialogue and talk patter patterns to note how gruesomely violent the movie was. Honestly, they were treating it like it was The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or something.

But let's face it -- it WAS violent, from the opening scenes showing Tim Roth's stomach wound spreading all over his white shirt in an ever growing, bright red oil slick of viscera to the torture scene of a captured cop up to and past the severing of his ear with a straight razor by Michael Madsen. (OK, we didn't SEE the ear get cut off, but we saw the ear AFTER it was cut off.) And that cop getting beaten up by the crooks, and innocent bystanders dying(on screen or described as dying off screen.) Yeah, a pretty violent movie all right.

So not all critics went for it, and the public at large didn't see it (at first) but where the movie really SCORED, I think, was inside the Hollywood machinery, in "Hollywood as a company town." That's where a "comer" from the rock and roll world named Harvey Weinstein knew talent(QTs) when he saw it, where other studio creative personnel saw past the blood to the GREAT dialogue sequences (about Madonna's song "Like a Virgin," about to tip or not to tip, about "Get Christie Love", about the perils of trying to give thieves false names based on colors ("I don't want to be Mr. PINK!" "Hey, Mr. Brown sounds like Mr. S--t") About "being professional." About a man's almost "loving" code of honor towards another man, so convinced about the stand-up loyalty of his fellow crook that he can't even conceive of his surrogate son(or lover?) being an undercover cop....

...and great lines.

Michael Madsen's Young Robert Mitchum of a psycho cool hood says:

"Are you gonna bark all day little doggie...or are you gonna bite?"

and:

"Hey, that was exciting. I'll bet you like Lee Marvin movies. I love that guy."

or Chris Penn's Nice Guy Eddie trying to understand a betrayal he can't believe in:''

"Now, I'm going to say this out loud so I can try to understand it." (A typical, observational QT moment - kind of like Larry David's realpolitik view of the world.)

Or Laurence Tierney's totally bald crusty gang leader chastising his gang for joking around too much: "Hey, I'll tell you a joke. There's these five morons in the bullpen at San Quentin arguing about who screwed up the job, each one blaming the other, why are they in prision and suddenly they realize...hey, maybe if we weren't joking around all the time and goofing off, we might have pulled off the job."

Or Steve Buscemi saying practically anything.

And yet, the star of Reservoir Dogs, the guy who got it made, the macho man with the heart of gold to his bloodied little buddy(Tim Roth) was ...Harvey Keitel, hitting all the right notes of "maturity among crooks" in his veteran thief ("You take a manager who won't give up information about the safe combination...cut off his little finger and he'll tell you if he wears ladies' underwear.")

All those guys, all those lines, that great script -- this attracted Harvey Keitel to Reservoir Dogs in the first place and made QT's NEXT movie -- Pulp Fiction -- a sought after property among many actors(with another great role for Keitel, a star making role for Sam Jackson, a comeback for John Travolta and a needed career boost for Bruce Willis) and the true launch to QT's legendary career.

Which left behind this rather radical aspect to Reservoir Dogs. It was low budget, raw , out to outrage and get noticed. So yeah, it WAS violent. But the dialogue out of these hard core criminal mouths was also VERY in-PC. Racist. Sexist. Homophobic. AS A WAY OF LIFE for a group of white male crooks who were out to make big money from modest beginnings. That dialogue is pretty much un-repeatable here (yet VERY funny) but...you can bet that it made a difference, too, in getting QT noticed and getting QT contracts for scripts and direction. From the beginning, QT claimed that he would be able to write and shoot scenes with no censorship and no interference and GET AWAY WITH IT. And he did. But nowhere moreso that in Reservoir Dogs.

Because nobody knew who he was.

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 2 years ago

He more than paid back the PC brigade with Kill Bill, Django and Basterds, even Deathpoof ticked all the right boxes.

I just watched this again tonight after a long while and it remined me why i fell in love with him, top be honest from Kill Bill onwards i thought the dialog was very self indulgent and while i don't hate the films, he got the balance perfect in this one.

And old Joe might be the funniest greatest character he created.

Who needs proof when ya got instinct

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

He more than paid back the PC brigade with Kill Bill, Django and Basterds, even Deathpoof ticked all the right boxes.

--

Yeah, I suppose so. He still used the "n" word a lot, but overall took the sympathetic view with his avenging women, African-Americans,and Jews.

The white male crooks in Reservoir Dogs are a classic case with QT saying "I don't endorse what these bad guys say, but it sure is outrageous and funny when they say it, isn't it?" I'm thinking of the dialogue among Tierney, Penn, and Madsen in their first flashback scene together, in which maybe the cleanest line is Madsen to Penn: "If you keep talkin' to me like a bitch, I'm gonna slap you like a bitch."

Jack Nicholson won an Oscar for a more "acceptable" version of this character in As Good As It Gets. He's kind of mentally ill, and he's "terrible" so he gets to say all sorts of insulting things about race and gender.

--

I just watched this again tonight after a long while and it remined me why i fell in love with him, top be honest from Kill Bill onwards i thought the dialog was very self indulgent and while i don't hate the films, he got the balance perfect in this one.

--

Well, I kind of feel that his first three films at bat -- the "Los Angeles Crime Trilogy" of RD, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown -- were when his writing was new and controlled and professional. He took 6 years off after Jackie Brown(which wasn't nearly the hit that Jackie Brown was) and came back "different" -- with new genres to explore, even worse ultra-violence to depict..."something changed."

That said, I like all of QT's films to date and I think the dialogue is good -- but in a different way than the LA trilogy -- all the way through.

----

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

And old Joe might be the funniest greatest character he created.

Who needs proof when ya got instinct

--

Great character, great line. Great voice..but evidently very difficult and combative on the set. QT got into a near fistfight with him on set. Tim Roth said he would never work with Tierney again. Jerry Seinfeld said the same thing after Tierney played the part -- in a very funny manner-- of Elaine's macho, mean, menacing father. Great performance -- but Seinfeld and company were uncomfortable around the guy.

--

It occurs to me --in my memory of seeing RD in 1992 -- that while I didn't see it in the theater, I DID rent it pretty quickly on VHS because when the reviews weren't saying how ultra-violent it was, they WERE saying that this guy QT had a real ear for dialogue, a real talent. So I rented it and...I loved it.

I also think it is interesting --given QT's serious interest at the time in making it as an actor -- that he LEADS OFF Reservoir Dogs as the main character on screen, telling his outrageously filthy theory of why "Like a Virgin" has that title. He's introducing HIS face, HIS voice, HIS manner...and its pretty funny really. Then he isn't in the movie very much after that and he gets killed early. He appeared just long enough to make an impact as an actor.

QT did the same thing with his role(later in the movie) in Pulp Fiction. Appeared just long enough to register. Its rather like how Alfred Hitchcock used cameos in his movies and later his TV show introductions, to establish HIS "star quality." Hitchocck and QT made themselves rich and famous by selling THEMSELVES, but they also made/make very good movies.

[–] Roguemail (1614) 2 years ago

My first impression when I saw it was that it was nowhere as violent as I was led to believe.

I was also a little bummed out that we never saw the actual heist.

Here in the UK the press went overboard, giving the impression it was sustained violence. Which it clearly is not.

People forget that there are only brief bursts of violence.

When I watched it a few times more, I began to appreciate the dialogue a lot more. And also the interesting structure, with the flashbacks and character introductions.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

My first impression when I saw it was that it was nowhere as violent as I was led to believe.

--

Well, I was citing (from memory) reviews that as I recall "led with the violence." But its true -- we don't actually see the ear being cut off and a lot of the movie isn't all that bloody. I'd say Tim Roth's movie-long condition as a white-shirted mass of slick red blood may have been the real issue, here. But no, soon critics -- and everybody else -- saw the movie's strengths in its dialogue, not its violence.

---

I was also a little bummed out that we never saw the actual heist.

---

Well, I think what we were seeing here was a writer-director having to HIDE his shoestring budget and short shooting schedule. The characters TALK about the heist -- and Mr. Blonde's merciless killing of "real people"(not cops per the crooks) including a young woman. And QT gives us the aftermath chases and gunbattles but still -- this movie could well have been a play with certain changes.

---

Here in the UK the press went overboard, giving the impression it was sustained violence. Which it clearly is not.

---

Ha. Wussies they were! That said, QT certainly didn't spare the gore in a LOT of his movies after RD. Kill Bill, Deathproof and The Hateful Eight especially. QT has characterized himself as "a heavy metal filmmaker."

--

People forget that there are only brief bursts of violence.

--

And a nice premlinary "threat" to the captured cop by Madsen: "I don't care if you tell me anything or not...I just want to torture you...all you're gonna do is to beg for a quick death..which you ain't gonna get." Or something like that. We IMAGINE upcoming horrors that we don't see.

--
CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

When I watched it a few times more, I began to appreciate the dialogue a lot more. And also the interesting structure, with the flashbacks and character introductions.

--

Yes, as I said up top, I expect that QT impressed Hollywood dealmakers more with his script writing style -- narrative with flashbacks, incredible dialogue and storytelling -- than the violence in the movie. Harvey Keitel went nuts for that script; everybody else then went nuts for Pulp Fiction and a great cast signed on there.

PS. A SPOILER , but I'll try to hide it: the "reveal' of who the real rat is, and exactly how and when it happens, and the fact that the tortured cop DID know who the rat was -- is the great twist of the movie, you ask me. The big moment in the script. Again: Hollywood was impressed.

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 2 years ago

Yeah the reveal that Marvin Nash DID know all along struck me more than Tim Roth, for some reason and i can't swear 100 percent but i think i alway's knew Roth was the Rat from the start he's clearly the odd one out in the group, at the diner he never quite seems relaxed or in with the banter.

Tarantino is a hardcore liberal, that's how he gets away with what he does, Hollywood doesn't give a shit how depraved the violence is or the bad language, so long as you promote their key principles.

I actually don't agree with a lot of QT takes on movies, Invasion of the Body snatchers for example he sides with the Aliens, even though in my mind the Aliens represent the Cold Corperate globalist style takeover the world was transitioning into.

Or Taxi Driver he thinks Bickle was a racist and shouldn't have been portayed in a sympethetic light, i do rate a lot of his opinions but i think fundementally he thinks like Hollywood wants him to think, he's not a renegade outsider shaking things up, he's part of the establishment