Siskel & Ebert - Reservoir Dogs
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2024
- Sigh...needless to say Quentin Tarantino was way ahead of his time. Reservoir Dogs was the first film Quentin Tarantino directed and many have called it the greatest independent film ever made. Unfortunately, both Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert gave the film 2 thumbs down and both said the film was capable of much more than it actually accomplished. As great as Siskel and Ebert were, they missed the boat on Tarantino early on. But then again, so did a lot of people.
The opening line of Ebert's written review of Reservoir Dogs is 'Now that we know Quentin Tarantino can make a movie like "Reservoir Dogs," it's time for him to move on and make a better one.' This prediction was pretty well vindicated with Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown to follow, so I'm not sure about missing the boat - he saw the potential was there.
Jackie Brown better than Reservoir Dogs ?
@@positional_play Yeah, unpopular opinion I know. I think Jackie Brown honestly just gets a bad rep because it's the least Tarantino-y Tarantino, but I actually liked that it has less of his flashy quirks and didn't try to be another Pulp Fiction. It showed he could make a more human film with more fleshed out characters. Great acting, great music, clever plot, idk for me personally there is no competition from reservoir dogs.
@@positional_play Easily
@@simonmarshall4985 🤨reservoir dogs >>>>>>>>>>>>>
@@simonmarshall4985 Jackie brown is held in pretty high esteem, as it should be. You're right about it being the least Tarintino-y thing he's ever made, although that dialogue is pure and unmistakably Tarantino. I would say it tends to get lost in the pantheon of his movies, though, and I'm sure that's prolly what you meant. To me, it is almost a masterpiece and one of his most mature works. The pacing of that movie is second to none.
Their take on it is surprising. They say it's about nothing, but it has a lot going for it. Tarantino's dialogue is the highlight, it's cool, it's interesting, and you get awesome scenes like where Mr. Orange is going through his cover story scene, seriously a super cool and interesting point, and one of my favorite parts of any movie.
I love how you can hear Tarantino say “shit” under their narration.
This was one of the most Biggest disagreements that I had with these two for Resevoir Dogs. Its an incredible film.
Hell no!
@@RJ_873 ?
@@rubenreyna2198 just don’t agree that it’s “an incredible film.” I’m a huge QT fan, Inglorious is in my top 5 favorite films all time. I think this movie is boring, poorly written & one of his worst pieces. Absolutely agree with the legends on this one.
@@RJ_873 you're grasping straws mate. It's an incredible film. Inglorious Bastardz compared to Reservoir Dogs was a rather good film. It was more akin to regular cinema unlike Dogs which asked us to follow along those criminals & see how the other side live & breathe. (Mic Drop)
most biggest is a double superlative
What a pity, these two bad reviews completely sank the career of this promising young director before it even started. I wonder what he's been doing now.
He's had a few acting roles
He wrote a book 30 years later
Tim Roth barely speaks in the warehouse, as soon as he gets there he trys to convince White to take him to a hospital, passes out, and then wakes up and talks just a little bit an hour later when Mr. Blonde is doing his thing. Did Ebert get confused and think the flashbacks were in the warehouse?
*tries
@@jamesanderson6373 Thanks, I will never make that grammatical mistake ever again!
@@Harkness78 I'm just giving you a hard time.
Reservoir Dogs is about a lot of things, but for me, it's the relationship between Mr. White and Mr. Orange. Mr. White is Mr. Orange's protector throughout the movie, and in the end, Mr. Orange can no longer deceive him.
like father, son, and betrayed. One of my all time favourite films. Great reviewers can be wrong. and they are wrong here
Spot on. They never said the movie was bad. It's very talky which is a trademark of Tarantino and hear he hadn't sharpened his unique oft copied characterspeak he'd later master in pulp fiction. I doubt many people of my generation were introduced to Tarantino through reservoir dogs so its impossible to expel what he excels at in later films when watching this movie hindsight.
In fairness Reservoir Dogs had a shoe string budget. The sneaky most effective thing Tarantino did was not show the robbery itself. Tell me everything - show me nothing. The characters discussing the event is like a horror film and scorched an image in my head for years how nasty the heist went. I always seen RD as an independent film. It ranks with State of Grace - King of New York - Deep Cover - Bad Lieutenant - Miller’s Crossing - Goodfellas - Casino - Road to Perdition - Heat .. as one of the greatest crime films
Miller's Crossing was awful.
@@Revelian1982 ...said nobody ever.
@@daneng3641 Yeah, I said it a few days ago
Heat: “She’s got a GREAT ASS and you’ve got you’re head ALL THE WAY UP IN” classic
In fairness, it was brilliant.
The 4k version looks absolutely amazing. Well worth the upgrade
I’m sorry but Reservoir Dogs is a masterpiece.
It’s good. Maybe a masterpiece as far as low budget movies go
Masterpiece is overused.
lol
I fully agree with S&E. Always thought this movie was overrated & overhyped. "Pulp Fiction" on the other hand is an absolute masterpiece.
I love both..and true romance..without reservoir dogs,no Vincent Vega..
S&E wasnt ready for Tarantino. What makes Tarantino's films so great is him making you use your own imagination to fill in the blanks. not to mention the movie was made on a 1 million dollar buget!!!
Loved the movie it was and still is one cool movie.
Thanks for uploading this, mate. Appreciate it.
No problem! Happy to do it!
Wow. They both missed a legitimate classic here
Both wrong at the same time. Rare.
@@degsbabe i agree, I mean i love the character writing of the film but the film didn't have anything to say
@M D what’s the point of the film then
@M D whats the point of reservoir dogs...
Same thing with Eraserhead, they totally missed the art of it.
These guys were usually on point but they missed this one sooooo badly.
I don't think you get where they're coming from. Tarantino is famous for his postmodern style, i.e. his movies aren't really about anything. There is no grand narrative, they're exercises in style. However, Reservoir Dogs lacks the style points of Pulp Fiction to make up for its lack of insight and profundity.
Too many scenes of behavior, but not of insight. EXACTLY!!!!!
If it’s any consolation, they dedicated an entire episode and gave lectures to college students about how much they loved Pulp Fiction
Siskel and Ebert had some really odd foibles that showed from time to time, I think Ebert was the better of the two but its really telling how they would often not evaulate a film for what its trying to do buut rather admonish films for not foing what they wanted it to do.
Definitely. Two thirds of their reviews are spent moaning that what's on screen has been seen a million times and there's nothing new going on, then in the above they moan about it being new and different. Siskel even calls it fresh.
Your only praising ebert cause he fought for resize dogs. Siskle had good points but just wasn’t ready for a film that he praise if made 1978
When it comes right down to it, ALL film critics have big foibles. After having realized this I became more forgiving toward Gene and Roger when I felt they were REALLY missing it. Roger's big strength was his writing. Whether you agree with him or not, many of his essays are thought-provoking and eloquent. That's what placed him above most other critics. In any case, both these guys were fun - even when they pissed us off.
The first time I saw this movie i agreed w/ Gene and Roger. BUT I saw ten years later, and as the masterpiece it was
@@errolbourgeois8230 I often feel different about a film I hadn't seen in a long time - either growing to appreciate something I missed before or realizing I seriously overrated it on my first viewing. A few things factor in with this. Your mood at the moment; new experiences over the years; acquired knowledge.
If I recall, they were one of the only two critics that gave the film a negative review when it came out.
The only rare time that I know of Siskel and Ebert being totally contrarian from the rest of the consensus.
One of the few times the boys broke my heart :( they just weren't ready- Pulp Fiction opened their eyes
Few times? About every other film they get wrong. These two guys are probably the worst movie critics of all times. Ebert is better then Siskel, but he's way to overrated too.
Lol. Another simple response to siskle from Sunday armchair movie critic
@@trondwillyfry8000 No, two of the best.
This aged well
R.D. IS A CLASSIC.
I think the biggest problem they had, probably more than any other Tarantino film except perhaps The Hateful Eight, is this film is solely reliant on your absolute interest in the plot and characters. It’s like a stage play, there’s actually quite little action outside of the flashbacks anf there’s only one location for almost the entire movie. Whereas in Pulp Fiction, a film they loved, there’s a lot more narrative to the story, there are more characters and a lot more of those interesting dialogue sequences that people love Tarantino for. Reservoir Dogs is actually quite unique in Tarantino’s wild filmography, and films like Inglorious Basterds, Django Unchained and Once Upon A Time In… Hollywood kind of leave it feeling like a no-Budget student film (which it kind of was, the film was made for only $2 million which is basically nothing in film terms).
Now don’t get me wrong, I love this movie to death, and I especially do love low-Budget cinema, particularly in this current age where it seems $100 million - $200 million budgeted movies are the norm.
Also, I don’t actually think they were bashing it, they did actually say Tarantino had talent.
But with that mostly one location, a smash of a film. Tense, great dialogue, loved the flashbacks especially of Mr Orange. I rank it the equal of Pulp Fiction even if the latter more cinematic
Best largely single room-based film since 12 Angry Men
You just know that Tarantino was tuned in live to Siskel and Ebert that night, probably screaming and throwing things at the TV.
He says it is all style, but I would say it was an irresistible mixture of style and substance.
some of the dialogue is pure nonsense, it's fucking great lol
I miss these guys! They really had something to say about film and life!
Watching a Tarantino movie is like going to a restaurant and having the waiter dump all the ingredients on your plate.
Nah it's more like they come out with the wrong dish, but it's so good you don't complain
I think they both could see Quentins talent but just didnt think as much of this film as they did with Pulp Fiction they could tell he had a great future
Two thumbs down? Surprising..
Just goes to show you they weren’t always right...
@@RuffRyder_43 After watching a lot of S&E reviews they tend to be wrong more often not.
Jason Victor Everett Ebert also gave thumbs down to the Usual Suspects, Gladiator, Die Hard, A Clockwork Orange, Blue Velvet, Dead Poets Society, and the Thing. Siskel gave thumbs down to Silence of the Lambs, Unforgiven, The Terminator, Taxi Driver, Rocky, Casino, The Big Lebowski, The Last Crusade, and Dracula.
@@HugoSoup57 S&E were total movie snobs.
@@HugoSoup57 A thumbs down for "Unforgiven" is UNFORGIVABLE.
This review is like an analogy of parents reviewing music their kids like.
Their video pic of the week was “Star 80”... nice!
that was the best part of the review!
YEAH!
Agree soo much! This movie sucks so bad! & I’m no Tarantino hater, Basterds is in my top 5 favorite films ever. Love these guys even more now, RIP!
So they might've been slow to get on board because of Tarantino's new way of doing things. But really, though, none of their arguments are unfounded. And his movies did get better.
This was my favourite QT movie until he made Once upon a time in Hollywood................
Totally agree with the guys. Although Reservoir Dogs is a strong film on style -- and acting too -- it had little to say and I wondered why was I watching this.
Much prefer Tarantino's following flicks -- Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown.
He was clearly trying figure what worked and what didn't in his first time out.
SiskelAnd Ebert seem to be complaining that the movie consisted of mostly dialogue and didn’t really have a point to it. I don’t think that’s a bad thing at all I would if not for the fact that the dialogue is so incredibly well written. And it’s a dialogue driven movie.
It set the dress style for every British artist in the 1990's.
It still became the most iconic movies of that decade though.
I think ur being too liberal with "iconic"
Ebert wasn’t sure what Tarantino thought the point of this movie was? Siskel thought it was empty? I disagree. The whole movie is about people’s philosophies and principles, and what happens when they’re challenged during catastrophes, in this case the failed robbery. Therefore the emphasis on behavior is necessary to show how marginally different everyone is from one another. Tarantino doesn’t show the robbery partly because it would distract people from what he’s focusing on. He’s a storytelling genius.
I liked this movie as a teenager. After seeing thousands of movies years later I think it's just average at best. Too stagy and talky for its own good. People just doing cool posturing.
When you're a wanna be film noir crime villain of course you're going spend most of time search for meaning.
that's entirely conjecture, if there was a deeper meaning to the movie, it got lost in the rewrites due to budget constraint. This movie was put together by pure duct tape and will power, that's what makes it the greatest independent film of all time, but it's literally just macho candy for men
Tarantino wanted to do kill Bill first but decided that this was the best idea to start with before he got into the really big projects. It is experimental which is why a lot of beginning filmmakers look at it.
They werent ready for this
Siskel in particular was way off and just plain wrong. Forget about whether the film is good, bad, or mediocre, which is obviously a subjective label. Siskel says that after 15 minutes you "get the point" that Tarantino wishes to show the sort of things that you don't normally see in crime films, that it's mainly an exercise in style. Perhaps so, but they began this episode with a cut scene (color name assignment) that doesn't occur until almost the end of the film. If one actually likes this exercise in style, as I do, then every witty or unusual piece of dialog is a treasure whether it occurs in the first 10 minutes or the final 15. It was a dumb criticism. Either you like the offbeat tone of the banter and the nonlinear plot devices or you don't. If you do, then you cherish the great scenes whenever they take place. Me, I didn't find myself wanting any insights into the motivation of the characters. What, Siskel wanted to hear about daddy issues? These crooks didn't like the public school system? Who cares. They're crooks. For this movie all you need to know about them is implicit in the nature of their individual dialog, and from this there's a wealth of insights into most of them (not so much for Brown and Blue, but definitely the others).
tarantino's best film. I was curious about this because I just watched Kubrick's the Killing which Ebert put on his best movies list, and I thought was just terrible. They are about similar capers and double crosses. But this one is so much better. They characters, for one thing, aren't stereotypes. And the plot isn't so overworked as to be incomprehensible.
The Killing is a great movie. Brilliantly directed. Way ahead of its time.
Siskel and Ebert kept people interested in movies during a time when creativity was fading in America. They would shudder to see the entertainment industry became in the last few years. Practically nothing.
This Movie was great
It was pretty good
I know hindsight is 20/20 but boy did they get this one wrong 😂
When you’re used to seeing a “formula” for basic movies, it’s not surprising that this one went over their heads.
Lawrence Tierney is such a bad ass
not a surprising review from them back in 92, they probably changed their opinions later down the line when QT became bigger and more respected
“I’m hungry, let’s get a taco.”
This movie rocked, one of Tarantino's first and S&E just didn't "get" the direction of his direction yet. No one had.
What the movie is about is that ineptitude and tough guy bravado leads to catastrophe results.
these muppets didn't know they saw a masterpiece 😂
The early90s GenX generation of movies snuck up on Siskel&Ebert.
I like that they didn't hate knowing these early-mid 90s movies were outstanding.
(Being that they were both Baby Boomers.)
Ebert was part of the silent generation. And, Siskel was right on that line. (So even older)
@@rae-everything They were both Oldest Baby Boomers
@@jasonpeters9716 Siskel was. Ebert would be younger Silent Generation. My father is squarely a baby boomer in his early 60's. Ebert would be almost 20 years older than him, if he were still alive.
But, I agree, I never saw him as curmudgeon like some say he was. Actually, for a stuffy critic, I think he was pretty open-minded.
Lil did they know...Greatest movies ever were just beginning.
Early-mid 1990s
There were quite many greatest ever movies before the 90's. Way before the 90's.
@@malafakka8530 I know, but u know what I mean.
Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, National Born Killers, Good Will Hunting, ect ect was quite step up fr 80s, 70s
@@jasonpeters9716 I don't think that they are quite a step up, just different and bringing soemthing new to the table (not movies like Good Will Hunting though). Maybe you are right about the 80's but the 70's are replete with excellent, influential and all time great movies. I don't think the 90's have that many great movies under their belt when compared to the 70's. That's just my impression though and the 90s certainly offered lots of opportunities for a new generation of filmmakers.
@@malafakka8530 Then all great Independent movies of 90s. There's some good movies back then. But not like 90s,00s,10s.
I'm not talking about f'ing box office smash like Lord of Rings, Dark Knight, and all those Comic book hero crap past decade. I haven't even watched any them.
Like Trees Lounge, House of D, KIDS, Bully, Clerks, Mallrats. I love movies like these
@@jasonpeters9716 Sorry, but I strongly disagree. I will admit that I haven't been much in touch with the 10's but I am trying to catch up. I really don't see those decades that you mentioned beating the 20s, 30s, 40s, (maybe 50s), 60s or 70s. If you haven't I recommend checking out those decades. If you already did that and still think that the last three decades are the best then that's alright. I don't even care that much about which decades might be best but I don't like when earlier decades get overlooked. One should try to know them all in order to have a well rounded opinion. Sorry if I am presuming too much.
I enjoyed the movie when I saw it.
The only review that hurt more than this was their take on Leon: The Professional.
I loved resovior dogs growing up (im 21) my dad showed it to me like it was this amazing movie, which it was. But years later, rewatching it shortly after seeing Mean Streets, I agree alot with them here. The movie was really lacking depth, and i undrstand that had to do with the non existant budget, they had to rewrite the majority of the movie into the wear-house, but it doesn't go deeper at all excpet "woah isn't violence so cool?" Which worked for a 13 year old boy, but not someone looking for an intellegent film, which it's supporters claim it is
(still love the movie for what it is, but i would hav loved to learn more about the characters, to explore more, i just wanted more)
"this movie was FILLED with violence!" he actually exclaimed with wide eyes.
oh really? was it really? FILLED with violence? or was the little violence in it just so damn realistic and disturbing that you THOUGHT it was chalked to the crim with it?!
I AM SHOCKED at this review. I truly thought they would LOVE at least the dialogue is this film.......
What was the video pick of the week. I think that was Eric Roberts but what could I tell
Man, They Both didn't like that Movie but Great Reviews.
So did they give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down? Sounds like they both gave it a thumbs down.
Its a divisive movie for sure. I really liked it, but I think pulp fiction is still his magnum opus of movie making. This is top 3 or maybe 2 for me, but I can see why some people dont like it. Also it is pretty violent which after a while can kind of get to you.
I have rarely known anyone who didn't like this film. One of the greats, certainly one of the debut greats
I’m sorry, but I disagree with Roger. This is a great movie and a classic that stood the test of time. It’s definitely one of Tarantino’s best films.
Couldn’t agree more!
Empty is your review of Reservoir Dogs
Man siskel gave thumbs down to casino, big lebowski, reservoir dogs, fight club...mannnn some great flicks
I thought i was the only one. I respext tarantink but most of his early movies just don't do it for me
So I guess Reservoir Dogs is kind of like the Seinfeld of crime movies: A show about nothing.
S&E weren’t ready for Tarantino
Does anyone know what film they were referring to in the end when they said "coming up next, a frightening episode in the world of the Playboy empire"?
Hugh Hefner: Once Upon a Time (1992)
Star 80
It's just not a very good film. However the talent and potential were all there. It all would come together brilliantly for Pulp Fiction though.
I think it's Ironic that they would have likely loved "The Hateful 8", despite it basically being a longer version of Reservoir Dogs
I personally think this Clip is showing them being film snobs because Tarantino is doing things unconventional at the time with his Debut. They thumb downed the film because they didn't "Get it"
City of fire
Alot of tarrentino films are more sizzle but no steak.Most of his films are all jumbled and not very coherent.The scripts for his films are about babbling scitzoid dialouge and violence.For what it was reservoir dogs stylistically was entertaining.😐
Jeeez, one of the best movies ever made and they totally slam it, what does it take to impress these guys? Is there any movie they have liked ever?
I remember I fell asleep when I saw it on VHS!😒
Really like a lot of his movies but not so much this one I think it’s generally liked for the amount of violence which for me is a bit much.
My theory is that they so wanted Not to talk about the ending and its parallel to Its Asian counterpart, they just talked about premise and stylistics.
What’s the Asian counterpart?
@@Neo5GT City on Fire (1987).
They're right it is empty and might even make you go to sleep.
omg, they don't get it.
To be fair, Reservoir Dogs is more of a good idea rather than a good movie. Their points are valid, although I might not feel quite a negative as them
Nah. The movie is a masterpiece.
No. The movie is fucking great.
lol siskel and ebert get it wrong again. they didn't know what they were looking at. Same thing happened with jim carrey
No they got it right! This is terrible!
IIIIT HUUUUUURRRRRRRTTTSSSS
Just think both like die hard 2 over the first 1 🤔
RD is profane and tedious. They got it right.
I really like Tarantino's early stuff (specifically Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs). But even I admit the violence can get really old really fast and I like violence.
Man, I had the opposite feeling. Violence or its overuse in film often bored me. This film proved to me that violence in film can work
And at the end of the movie...
Jesus christ
I guess dialogue is overrated these days? tarantino creates mood not through action, but the audiences anticipation of action. all the while building up tension. show, not say, is the usual rule of film, but that action is only important when it has gravity in it. thumbs down on this review 👎
well....kinda but i'll go a little more positive, it's a 6 out of 10, not average but kinda empty...
Different times...like Sinatra reviewing Elvis...too far ahead...this changed culture sorry S and E
Reservoir Dogs is awful. There are no characters I like and it’s so overrated
You're Mr Buc and your opinion fucking sucks
Agree 100%! Overrated and boring!
Giving the robbers names of colors is a ripoff from The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3.
Actually, it's meant as a compliment.
Most of the film was to be honest - it's like a deja vu project...
Man did these criticisms not age well LOL
Wow, I totally disagree with S&E
Agreed. Overrated movie.
oops.
The next movie?! Perf film.. you watched it? Gross