Write descriptive essay about Reservoir Dogs movie 1992, write an essay of at least 500 words on Reservoir Dogs, 5 paragraph essay on Reservoir Dogs, definition essay, descriptive essay, dichotomy essay.
Reservoir Dogs
Year:
1992
Country:
USA
Genre:
Crime, Drama, Thriller, Mystery
IMDB rating:
8.4
Director:
Quentin Tarantino
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 Ofcr. Marvin Nash
Edward Bunker as Mr. Blue
Quentin Tarantino as Mr. Brown
Steven Wright as K-Billy DJ
Rich Turner as Sheriff #1
David Steen as Sheriff #2
Tony Cosmo as Sheriff #3
Storyline: Six criminals, who are strangers to each other, are hired by a crime boss Joe Cabot to carry out a diamond robbery. Right at the outset, they are given false names with an intention that they won't get too close and concentrate on the job instead. They are completely sure that the robbery is going to be a success. But when the police show up right at the time and the site of the robbery, panic spreads amongst the group members and one of them is killed in the subsequent shootout along with a few policemen and civilians. When the remaining people assemble at the premeditated rendezvous point (a warehouse), they begin to suspect that one of them is an undercover cop.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x816 px 8139 Mb h264 9710 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 656x272 px 1392 Mb mpeg4 1442 Kbps avi Download
Reviews
Stolen file
I watched Ringo Lam's city on fire and I was upset to see how Quentin stole everything from it to make Reservoir Dogs, Yes I like the way he combines different movies to make one but reservoir dogs was like an American Version of city on fire with white actors (not in a bad way).

I know it has been said before, but I recommend you to watch City on fire, things that didn't make sens or if you don't want to waste your time listening to those tough guys talking about what they did, City on fire will just show you what happened in a small box of time.

But anyway, I think Mr Blond and Pink made it look pretty though.

I am sorry, just in case he paid for the rights.
2006-03-18
You Don't Believe In Tipping ?
When a diamond heist goes badly wrong, the gang meet back at a warehouse and try to figure out what happened. Is there a traitor in their midst ?

Reservoir Dogs is one of those truly great debut movies, like Citizen Kane or A Bout De Soufflé or The Evil Dead. Tarantino was just twenty-eight when he made it and his talent shines out, not just in his razor-sharp script and stylish touches, but also in his production smarts. He uses suspense and shocks expertly to keep us riveted despite the fact that the whole movie pretty much plays in one room. He cleverly alludes to events that we don't see, thereby keeping costs and down and retaining the creative control so crucial to his vision. What I love most about the movie though is its originality. It may pay homage to earlier heist flicks (notably The Killing and The Taking Of Pelham 123) but it's like no other crime film before or since. Characters argue about whether or not Pam Grier was on a TV show. The time line shoots all over the shop but we never feel wrong-footed. A droll DJ (the noted comic Steven Wright) plays catchy music by bands you've never heard of with names like George Baker Selection, Stealers Wheel and Blue Swede. There's more blood than a Herschell Gordon Lewis film. Everyone wears suits, except for the late great Chris Penn (his best performance in an amazing career), who wears a blue tracksuit that must be seen to be believed. The finale is about the most ambiguous in all cinema. It's great. Everybody is terrific in it, as is the delineation of the characters. Mr White is the straight-ahead tough guy, Mr Pink is the only one with any brains, Mr Blonde is the psycho and Mr Orange is the fink. Tierney - the star of 1945's Dillinger - has a wonderful turn as Joe the kingpin. Tarantino winds them up and then lets them go, slicing into each other with fizzing little soliloquies that are still buzzing in our heads when we're onto the next one. It's also highly funny in spite of the grim nature of the story; in a weird way it reminds of the Black Knight sequence in Monty Python And The Holy Grail - characters arguing with each other about details whilst they bleed to death. It's hard to believe this movie is now twenty years old, since it still seems as fresh and gripping as the day it was made. It's a modern crime classic, a bravura piece of ensemble macho man acting, and a stunningly brilliant first film from a director in full command of cinematic form.
2011-08-18
really a great movie!
I watched this movie for the first time without knowing what the movie was about. I remember hearing about how cool this movie was and I saw people wearing shirts and listening to the soundtrack, but I had never seen it. So when it first came out on DVD, I bought it without ever watching it before. In Tarantino I trust. For good reason. This is a classic movie, a throwback. A movie about a jewel heist gone wrong and the consequences of working with strangers. This flick has a great cast, great script, and flawless direction. Taratino films are great because they stress the story more than anything else. In all of his movies, the script is strong enough to carry the movie. Now add good over the top acting and you have a hit. The realism of this movie is what grabs you. You really feel like you are in that abandoned warehouse. If felt privileged to have bought such a movie without watching it first. An instant classic. I love this movie!
2004-12-17
WARNING - Reading this review may cause you to achieve maturity.
I coughed up good money to see this revolting waste of celluloid at a late-night grindhouse showing back in '94. As I queued outside the cinema in the freezing cold, I was surrounded by excruciatingly nerdy teenagers who quoted the dialogue ad-nauseum, urban 'sophisticates' giggling like naughty schoolkids at the thought of the "controversial" film they were about to see, and curious students who, in retrospect, were obviously willing to accept whatever sadistic, would-be 'blackly comic' crap was doing the rounds before TRAINSPOTTING came along and gave them what they deserved. Finally, we got into the cinema, and as the film began with a long, tedious and desperately unfunny conversation about guys with big dicks, the lyrics of old pop songs and the validity of tipping waitresses, several people in front of me got up and left. A couple of the comments I overheard were "This film sucks arse!" and "What a waste of f***ing money". I wanted to join them, but I thought as I'd paid to see the film, I might as well stay until the end. By the end, I was bored, resentful, fidgety, nauseated and thoroughly let down. Who decided this was a CLASSIC? Almost two hours of lumpenly racist, misogynistic, thick-witted 'bad guys' dressed up like Jake and Elwood Blues, waving guns around, bellowing obscenities, bleeding, hacking, slashing, punching and torturing their way through one of the most banal, cliche-ridden and hackneyed scripts in cinema history does NOT amount to a classic. Yet all around me there was awed silence, gasps of "brilliant" and people falling over themselves to praise Tarantino's homoerotic gangster fantasy in ever-more lavish terms. It seemed that everyone in the cinema seemed intent on endlessly reappraising a huge, stinking turd until they'd convinced themselves that it really WASN'T a turd. And, depressingly, so do many of the reviewers here.
2002-07-11
Best Tarantino-film
Reservoir Dogs is easily the best film Quentin Tarantino has directed. Much better than Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown. RD is funny, entertaining, intelligent and actually not so violent as some people say. Sure, lots of blood, but not so much violence, according to me.

The acting... Steve Buscemi has never been better, Harvey Keitel is great, but the stand-out in this great cast is Tim Roth. He's brilliant. Great flick. (8/10)
2000-12-11
Reservoir Dogs - Rugged, raw and riotous
Somewhere along the way, opinions on Quentin Tarantino have become divided - some still loving his work, others calling it bloated and unnecessarily inflated. However, those are two criticisms that cannot be levelled at his first (major) film, Reservoir Dogs. It's the very definition of 'minimalist,' focusing on the aftermath of a bank robbery gone wrong and it's shot (in some places) in 'real time.' The story is simple: a gang of bank robbers thinks that one of their number is a 'rat' and has tipped off the police. How do they deal with this? Watch the film and find out.

It's hard to choose a 'stand-out' performance among so many great actors. Everyone from the stoic Harvey Keitel, to the psychotic Michael Madsen plays their roles to perfection (and let's not leave out Tim Roth and Steve Buscemi).

Basically, if you like gangster or crime films then you probably should have already seen it. However, even if you're not a fan of the genre and simply enjoy cinema then this one is worth a watch because it is very arty in its approach and the performances alone should make up for the fact that some may consider it to be a little over the top on the violence (not to mention explicit language).

Tarantino's next film, Pulp Fiction, may have been cleverer and more stylish, but Reservoir Dogs has all the raw appeal of a real cult classic that will definitely stand the test of time.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/
2014-08-05
Actually an anti-violence movie
If you want to see anti-violence movie, then you need 1st see this.

How can anybody like seeing/doing real violence after seeing most violent parts of this flick?

Tarantino is in the same league with Verhoeven and Peckinpah. Realism is the best educator.

The movie has also other aspects, which makes the movie experience very strong.
2017-11-06
Ten years on - still brilliant!
It's hard to get your head around the fact that 'Reservoir Dogs' has been around for ten years. It's almost difficult to remember a time before Tarantino made such an enormous impact (good and bad) on movies, but I saw this movie first time round before the hype. All I knew was that, like another "dog" movie from the same era that I saw, 'Man Bites Dog', that it was supposed to be violent, funny and disturbing, and that it starred a long time favourite of mine Harvey Keitel, and Tim Roth, who I mainly knew from Greenaway's 'The Cook The Thief His Wife & Her Lover'. Okay, I hope it's good I thought as I waited in the cinema listening to some half remembered 70s A.M. pop and a strange conversation about Madonna's sex life (the cinema was playing the soundtrack album before the main feature, but what did we know). Then the movie itself, electrifying and fascinating from the word go. It's impossible to describe the impact of seeing this for the first time without knowing what to expect! Still one of my greatest movie memories. Ten years later I've seen it countless times so the surprise has obviously worn off, but it is still a brilliant movie because beneath the violence and wise-cracks of Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi - 'In The Soup'), Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen - 'Thelma & Louise'), and Nice Guy Eddie (Chris Penn - 'At Close Range'), there is a lot of depth, that being the very human relationship between Mr. White (Keitel) and Mr.Orange (Roth). To me that is one of the things that elevates this above the many lame and unoriginal "Tarantinoesque" movies we've had to endure since 'Pulp Fiction'. His imitators just simply don't have a clue!

Simply brilliant cinema, and a modern classic. This is absolutely essential viewing!

2002-06-05
Major Letdown
I heard so many good things about this movie before I finally saw it, and I was misled. With a shorter running time, it seemed like there was an attempt to pack in a vast amount of plot, but it ended up seeming like more time was wasted because of it.

With such a fine cast, I was expecting some fine performances. I wasn't disappointed as far as that goes. I'll admit the variety of characters was interesting and fun to watch at times, most notably during the first scene. That's about all it has to offer though.

The basic concept of strangers getting together for a crime isn't a bad idea on paper, it just didn't work out at all for this script. I kept hoping the writing would get better as the movie went on, but after about a third of the way through, I knew what I was in for.

I really don't think there's anything groundbreaking here, even for 1992. Crime movies have been done, and been done better. This seemed more like a fantasy crime movie that would only be interesting to the person thinking about it in their own unique way.

There's also some torture scene put in, which I really thought didn't need to be. It didn't seem like it fit in, at least to the extent of what happened. So what's the bottom line here? Well, it's crime movie with a semi interesting plot, a lot of tough guy talk, and an overall letdown of what could have been. 4/10
2007-01-12
A bloody mess of a great early quintessential Quentin film
***1/2 out of **** stars

Okay...I've been a big fan of Tarantino's work since he exploded onto the scene in the early nineties. I've watched Dogs several times and watched it again tonight on IFC with the instantaneous intention to finally review it. Not for the squeamish, this one: large pools of blood; screams of pain; a severed ear; people (cops mostly) being blasted with deafening gun shots...so how can Dogs be so darn funny with so much carnage and suffering? Well, it's what makes Tarantino so darn special; the melding of gut-busting dialogue and gore, along with the prototypical wardrobes of black and white gangsta suits. Let us not forget Quentin's love for 70s nostalgia as well, which in one case is evident in his characters parleying about bygone blacksploitation movies and television shows. And what a fantastic ingredient to use Steven Wright's dead-pan voice to introduce all those archaic B-siders on K Billy's Super Sounds of the 70s.

A lot of Reservoir Dogs could be a stage production. I can easily imagine sitting front row in a playhouse watching all the actors hit their marks with precision, and hearing their voices reverberate throughout the building. Obviously, I speak of the warehouse scenes. For me, this is quite an accolade because how often can actors work so wonderfully and successfully in two different mediums with the same story? I realize that Dogs has never been made into a play, but it could be...don't you think?

Only a half-wit would bitch about Tarantino's formulaic storytelling. Does every movie have to begin, then go on to the very next thing, and the very next thing, and the next, and the next? Tick tock tick tock? Zzzzzzzz. What brilliance to amalgamate past, present and future with such rotating uniqueness. Keep teaching your audience to tune-up Quentin. Nothing wrong with starting your story somewhere in the middle and going anywhere you want from there. Way to go man, is what I say.

It seems as if Tarantino's career will be a bit like Kubrick's: quality instead of quantity. The bummer is having to wait for his next project, which can never come soon enough for me. What I love most about Q is his obvious great love for film-making. He seemingly has a child-like enthusiasm for the creative process, and his love for simply viewing movies, let along making them, is very evident.

Keep making movies as if you're watching them for $9.50 like most of us Quentin. If you do, you'll always have an audience that is just as excited about your stories as you are!
2008-06-04
Write descriptive essay about Reservoir Dogs movie 1992, Reservoir Dogs movie essay, literary essay Reservoir Dogs, Reservoir Dogs essay writing, narrative essay, Reservoir Dogs 500 word essay, argumentative essay Reservoir Dogs.
×