Reservoir Dogs

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Written by: Quentin Tarantino
Year: 1992
Genre: Crime drama
My rating: 4 and a half out of 5

Famous for its nonlinear storyline, "Reservoir Dogs" opens with the beginning of the main plot. Eight men finish breakfast at a diner and partake in completely irrelevant but nevertheless engaging conversations. Six of them wear matching suits and use aliases, and have been brought together for a diamond heist by Los Angeles gangster Joe Cabot (Lawrence Tierney) and his son, "Nice Guy" Eddie (Chris Penn). The exit the diner in a memorable slow-motion fashion, and the opening credits are displayed over a black background. We are brought back into the story just after the heist. Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) is driving a car with one hand and frantically trying to comfort Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), who was shot in the stomach during the robbery. They arrive at an abandoned warehouse and are soon joined by the paranoid but nonetheless professionalism-obsessed Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi). We learn some details about the heist from the discussion between Mr. White and Mr. Pink, who thinks that one of the six of them tipped off the police, because they showed up very quickly after the alarm went off. Their conversation turns to accusations and the two are soon at gunpoint, but they are interrupted by the sly Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen), who apparently began shooting into a crowd of people the moment the alarm was set off. The three argue for a few minutes, until Mr. Blonde reveals that he kidnapped a cop to interrogate. While Eddie works to cover their tracks and the survivors try to figure out who set them up and learn the fates of Mr. Brown (Quentin Tarantino) and Mr. Blue (Eddie Bunker), we see through flashbacks how the men each got involved in the heist.

I've seen "Reservoir Dogs" before, but only recently heard that Tarantino has called it his version of Kubrick's "The Killing." Having just watched "The Killing," it's amazing to see how closely related they are. The nonlinear storyline, the irony, the separate characters' stories, the post-robbery complications; it's all there. However, although Kubrick is honestly the better director, Tarantino's rendition works much better. The most prominent reason is, of course, his sublime skills as a writer. Everyone knows that he writes the absolute best dialogue in cinema, but here he also shows his prowess at character development. Each of them has a distinct personality that isn't too one-sided yet isn't too complicated for us to learn in 90 minutes. They talk like real people would talk, but have their own ideas of how to compose themselves given the situation and their experiences. One wonders if Tarantino was ever perhaps part of a diamond heist, to be able to craft such characters. Take Mr. Pink for example (Buscemi's breakthrough performance is one of his best), who tries to keep everyone's professionalism in check yet has reasons to be suspicious of them all, and finds room for unrelated personal quirks like his no-tip policy, for which he puts up a more than adequate defense. The film is also made more effective by its notoriously unflinching use of violence, although I'm sure Kubrick would have implemented more violence if not for the harsh censorship of the time.


Structure/Form:
What does the title mean in relation to the film as a whole?
It doesn't have any literal relation, I think Tarantino just liked the name.

How are the opening credits presented?
On a black background with radio music playing, similar to "Pulp Fiction."

Are there any repeated scenes, images, dialogue, etc.?
We see two parts of one scene at different times. Tarantino is able to make the nonlinear storyline understandable without overlapping sequences.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
I don't think the music used had too much of a higher purpose.

Are there any striking uses of perspective?
Tarantino uses a trademark shot of his: looking up at characters from inside a car trunk.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax? How does this scene resolve the central issue of the film?
Probably the last scene, but it could be argued that the climax is earlier, when we learn who set them up.

Does the film leave any disunities at the end?
Not really, no.

Why does the film conclude on this particular image?
No further information is necessary. Also, Tarantino considered this to be his "The Killing," and the ending is somewhat similar.


Theme:
How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
Like "The Killing," there could be a theme of ironic justice, but I sort of doubt it.