MsLedd on 19/9/2009 at 18:19
All I can say is I wanted to stand up and cheer at the end of it. Ohh if only that's the way it had really happened!
suliman on 20/9/2009 at 22:50
Oh wow, a Tarantino film that doesn't suck balls. If it were shorter by 30 or so minutes I would actually consider it pretty good. There are still some feet involved, but The Horrible Tarantino Formula of Dialogues™ is at a minimum here so the film would have been an improvement even if it DIDN'T come straight after Death Proof.
And Brad Pitt is awesome:D
Kuuso on 20/9/2009 at 23:27
I like this more than Pulp Fiction on thematic level. The level of social commentary put into this "mindlessly violent" movie is great. Pulp takes the cake as a piece of cinematography though.
scarykitties on 22/9/2009 at 22:06
Hey, dethtoll, I've found a review that I'll bet will make you squirm:
(
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/articles/fb/11716-bastards) See here.
Responses welcome. I'm not quite as nit-picky as Film Brain, but I agree with finding the black comedy disgusting, rather than hilarious, and incidentally disliking the ultra-violent protagonists.
june gloom on 22/9/2009 at 22:11
Yeah, and?
D'Arcy on 23/9/2009 at 02:23
Quote Posted by belboz
The only trouble with reservoir dogs is that its not an original film, its based on a (not sure) japanesse film, and once you've seen the original film the tarrantino remake is just that, a bad remake.
Just out of curiosity, have you actually
seen the said 'Japanese' movie, or are you simply trying to look cool by criticising a movie that a lot of people like?
That 'Japanese' movie is 'City on Fire'. It's not Japanese, but actually from Hong Kong. I've seen it, and to say that 'Reservoir Dogs' is just a remake (and a bad one) is plain silly. The movie takes some concepts and ideas from the last fifteen/twenty minutes of 'City On Fire' (most notably, the (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4zLns9l4WI) mexican standoff, and perhaps a few other (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pa-Qx4Bf9Y) scenes). But it's a movie way, way superior to 'City on Fire'. Filming, directing, dialogues, story, 'Reservoir Dogs' is a better movie in every single possible detail.
'City on Fire' is almost two hours long, and most of the time is spent following Chow Yun Fat's character, and seeing how he infiltrates the gang. The heist itself has little or no importance to the story, which evolves around Chow Yun Fat's moral dilemma between doing something that is right (helping to arrest the criminals) and at the same time, in doing so, betraying people who trust him and consider him a friend. 'Reservoir Dogs' is a completely different movie.
The only thing that annoyed me was that Tarantino kept changing his story about having watched CoF or not before writing RD, and never really acknowledged Ringo Lam as an influence in his work in RD.
scarykitties on 23/9/2009 at 12:18
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Yeah, and?
Just figured you'd have a counter-point, would want to defend how the film used violence, or otherwise offer an alternative message that I (and Film Brain) are missing.
june gloom on 23/9/2009 at 15:39
I've already made my point several times. You're just a pussy who can't handle something that doesn't have clear heroes.
Kuuso on 23/9/2009 at 16:17
Quote Posted by scarykitties
Hey, dethtoll, I've found a review that I'll bet will make you squirm:
(
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/articles/fb/11716-bastards) See here.
Responses welcome. I'm not quite as nit-picky as Film Brain, but I agree with finding the black comedy disgusting, rather than hilarious, and
incidentally disliking the ultra-violent protagonists.Well duh, they're horrible people who should be disliked.
Stitch on 23/9/2009 at 16:18
Quote Posted by dethtoll
I've already made my point several times. You're just a pussy who can't handle something that doesn't have clear heroes.
The only point you've made--and you continue to make--is that you have trouble engaging in debate without resorting to dismissive kneejerk assumptions.
