It was an interesting start for Tarantino and he boldly sneered at action mad crime thrillers, but -- like I said -- he vastly improved his craft in subsequent releases. To me "Django Unchained" and "Pulp Fiction" are his crowning achievements, but all those examples I listed are worthy.
Sorry, but that's criticism I can't even take seriously.
Why? It's a legitimate criticism. If someone's going to place 80% of their story in a drab, one-dimensional setting, he/she better have great characters, dialogue, themes and at least one alluring woman (seeing as how cinema is a visual medium). There is
some interesting dialogue in "Reservoir," and arguably themes, but it's mostly just lowlife thugs bickering back-and-forth for 99 minutes with flashes of violence and the corresponding cartoonish blood, not to mention the production has a spare change vibe. I can handle micro-budget productions if the movie keeps my interest with an interesting story, quality characters, serviceable locations, potent themes, excellent score/soundtrack, etc., but IMHO "Reservoir" was too lacking.
At the same time, it's unique and I can see how people would be fans. I just think it was a creative-but-not-quite-successful start for Tarantino and he immediately progressed to true greatness, which "Reservoir" isn't.
reply
share
Stratego (30595)
7 years ago
Come on, a lack of women is not serious criticism. And I'm saying that as a woman myself. The story simply didn't call for any except in a short deleted scene.
Most stage plays take place in one setting, so that in itself is also meaningless criticism. Now you've explained yourself a little more, but we have to agree to disagree on that. I do think the characters, dialogue and themes are interesting. The limited setting actually creates more tension to support the development of the plot.
The only true great Tarantino movies are his first three.
reply
share
Wuchak (8778)
7 years ago
It might sound eye-rolling, but attractive women are an important staple of most genres of film, including crime drama/thrillers, which explains why "Jackie Brown" features Bridget Fonda (in her absolute physical prime) and the titular character; "Inglourious Basterds" has Mélanie Laurent and Diane Kruger; and so on.
Your being female, I can see why you might not care so much about this element.
Most stage plays take place in one setting, so that in itself is also meaningless criticism.
But there's a difference between stage plays and cinema. What works for a play at the theater doesn't always work for film, although it CAN work if the writing/acting/characters are great. So it's not a meaningless criticism.
Let's take the original "Night of the Living Dead" as an example. The bulk of the story takes place inside a farm house, but the story/dialogue/suspense maintain the viewer's interest, plus there's a long opening sequence and ending sequence that don't take place in the farm house (a middle one too where someone made a run to the vehicle/gas or whatever). "Reservoir," by contrast, was too one-dimensional for me and the dudes' constant bickering back-and-forth didn't interest me. It doesn't help that they're ignoble thugs who don't particularly stir my interest. Let 'em all die for all care, which is basically what happens, except for the one guy who stashed some of the diamonds.
Nevertheless, I can see why some people favor the movie, so I respect your position. I just think Tarantino improved with his subsequent releases, with "Django Unchained" being one of the best Westerns ever made.
reply
share
Stratego (30595)
7 years ago
Reservoir Dogs is popular enough with guys. And I'm sure they aren't all gay.
A limited setting is not a legitimate criticism in itself. There are plenty of critically acclaimed movies that take place in just one room. Reservoir Dogs also alternates with quite a few flashbacks on different locations. Apparently the problem for you is the interaction between the characters in that limited space and on that we just have to disagree. No problem.
reply
share
Wuchak (8778)
7 years ago
I don't think that guys who like RD have to be gay; the idea never crossed my mind. I was just saying that a good-looking female character or two -- like those examples I gave -- is a staple of the genre, which RD lacks. I suppose it could be argued that this makes it bold and unique.
There are plenty of critically acclaimed movies that take place in just one room.
I call them confined-location movies and they're challenging to pull off in cinema. "Wind Chill" (2007) is a good example of one that does IMHO.
I'm not a big gangster film fan outside of "The Godfather" trilogy. The reason is -- like I said previously -- I consider career thugs to be ignoble lowlifes and therefore uninteresting, unless there's a well executed subtext about redemption, like in "Pulp Fiction" with Samuel L. Jackson's character, contrasted by Travolta's fate.
reply
share
Stratego (30595)
7 years ago
I was not actually suggesting that's what you meant, I was simply exaggerating the implication of your statement. I think plenty of men don't necessarily need a hot woman in every movie.
Naturally, it's your perogative not to enjoy gangster movies, but that's a matter of preference of course.
reply
share
FilmBuff (7272)
6 years ago
I think you're a bit too fixated on the lack of a female character. I've seen Reservoir Dogs perhaps 5 or 6 times since it came out and I never even realized there weren't any women in major roles it until you pointed it out. It's a brilliant film, tightly paced, with fantastic dialogue. It doesn't need "a good-looking female character or two" for you to admire anymore than it needs some added scenes that take place outside of the warehouse. In the same way that Rear Window is a great film because it's shot almost entirely in that one room, it's the fact that most of Reservoir Dogs takes place in that warehouse that makes it so gripping. The audience is experiencing the action as if they are Mr. Orange, and they only see and hear what he does, most of which is at the warehouse save for a few flashbacks triggered by events in the warehouse.
reply
share
Wuchak (8778)
6 years ago
The lack of women is a decidedly secondary issue, so let's drop it.
I thought the characters were uninteresting, morally-deficient lowlifes and that the one-room setting just augmented this potential problem. I think Tarantino improved his craft with future projects and more resources. For instance, "The Hateful Eight" treads similar ground (one-room drama/thriller with a bunch of thugs) but is just all-around more effective -- the dialogue's more interesting, the story's more compelling, the flick's more amusing in a black comedy way, the setting's superior and the themes are weightier & more intriguing.
I'm not one to tell someone else a picture they like is bad. I'm merely sharing why "Reservoir Dogs" disappointed me. At the same time, it's a respectable low-budget first-stab for the director/writer -- even impressive in some ways -- and I can see why people like it.
reply
share
FilmBuff (7272)
6 years ago
I'm with you when it comes to realizing that everyone has their own likes and dislikes, and I'm not trying to change your mind.
It's interesting that you brought up The Hateful Eight, for I think that's Tarantino's weakest effort to date. Like Reservoir Dogs, it centered around a room full of lowlifes, but for me it fell flat.The dialogue lacked the originality and punch of Tarantino's earlier efforts, and often felt like a bad imitation of his style. The characters weren't as interesting to me, either, unlike those of Reservoir Dogs who felt more fleshed out and relatable to me.
You also mentioned Django as another favorite of yours, which I like, but consider one of Tarantino's worst films, ranking only better than The Hateful Eight and Kill Bill, Vol. 2 in my mental list of his films. I think we just enjoy different aspects of his work.
reply
share
Wuchak (8778)
6 years ago
Parts of "Hateful Eight" didn't sit well with me the first time I saw it (while I appreciated other elements) but -- after seeing it again -- I reevaluated the movie.
The excellent opening with the figure of Christ dying for our sins keys off the theme, which is humanity’s fallen condition and dire need of redemption. The title, “The Hateful Eight,” is a perversion of “The Magnificent Seven.” The latter celebrates the noble and heroic whereas “Hateful” parodies the base and odious. Tarantino pokes fun at our petty hostilities that separate us based on race, gender, sectionalism, faction-ism, envy and rivalry. Moreover, men divided by hatred of culture/race can unite in hatred of something else, in this case misogyny.
I absolutely loved the setting -- the wintery wilderness of Wyoming in the Old West -- not to mention Morricone's excellent score.
Incredibly, “Hateful Eight” illustrates how an essentially one-room drama can be pulled off in looong movie. If you can roll with it, it’s consistently amusing. But I can see why some people wouldn’t like it.
I still hate the "black angus" part, but the characters are, after all, the "hateful eight" and -- besides -- it was a fantastical tale given to provoke the old Confederate to draw.
reply
share
snepts (11123)
4 years ago
You are describing your own taste in films well, but I don't think you are sharing how others should feel about them very well at all. Minimalist films / low budget are interesting in their own right, and not that they lack the "Slam Bang" qualities of bigger budgets.
You either have an inquisitive mind and want to concentrate on what's in front of you, or you want to be Entertained and don't care what artistry the Director might be bringing to the experience.
"I want a Happy Ending where the the Two Leads Fall In Love and live happily ever after !"
smh
reply
share
Wuchak (8778)
4 years ago
"I want a Happy Ending where the the Two Leads Fall In Love and live happily ever after !"
Every movie is unique, so it depends. For instance, the downer ending of "The Mist" is shocking and depressing, but it makes a memorable point -- Never give up hope because you never know how close you are to the dawn.
As far as romantic relationships and a movie's climax go, "Macho Callahan" is practically ruined by the deaths of the protagonist & his pardner whereas in "Bandolero!" it was basically the way it
had to end (with the woman in question surviving in both cases).
Tarantino's a great filmmaker, no doubt, but -- for me -- "Reservoir Dogs" pales in comparison to "Pulp Fiction," "Django Unchained," "Inglourious Basterds," "Jackie Brown," "The Hateful Eight" and "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood." I found the characters & dialogues dull and the setting too one-dimensional (a green warehouse). These are legitimate criticisms. However, like I said, the flick showed promise for the future.
reply
share