Category Archives: Michael Madsen

Reservoir Dogs-1992

Reservoir Dogs-1992

Director Quentin Tarantino

Starring Tim Roth, Harvey Keitel, Steve Buscemi

Scott’s Review #1,332

Reviewed January 9, 2023

Grade: A

Reservoir Dogs (1992) is the film that began an essential transition in cinema history. The 1980s saw way too many watered-down or oversaturated films with enough sappy or melodramatic thematics to make a seasoned cinema lover want to gag and run for a good television series.

The 1990s were different. It’s impossible to think of the decade in film and not speak the name Quentin Tarantino, an iconoclast who took the crime thriller genre and riddled it with violence, dark humor, comic book-style characters, and dozens of other eccentricities and spun the world on its heads.

It was needed.

But before anyone begins to assume Reservoir Dogs is the most fantastic Tarantino film, it’s not. Many list it as his weakest catalog entry. That’s open to the opinion of course but in my view, the influence of the film accounts for much of my enjoyment of it.

It’s not as developed and stylized as Django Unchained (2012) or as powerfully fucked up or odd as Pulp Fiction (1995), but the rawness, the gore, and the go-for-broke scenes that are shot like a play, and the small-budget make watching Reservoir Dogs a reminder of the genius that is Tarantino.

Countless scenes mirror sequences to come in his later films so much so that a game can be played to discover where something played out in another Tarantino film.

The film gave new recognition and merit to the independent film genre which was huge and provided doors flying open to young filmmakers everywhere who had ideas and just needed to get their films known.

The influence of Reservoir Dogs is unmeasured and a double feature of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction is suggested. Even though the latter was released later, most people saw Pulp Fiction first and then discovered Reservoir Dogs.

A group of unsavory thieves assemble to pull off the perfect diamond heist. It turns into a bloody shit show when one of the men turns out to be a police informer. But which one is it and who is responsible for the ambush?

As the group begins to question each other’s guilt, the tensions and suspicions threaten to blow up the situation before the police step in and save the day. But how many will die first?

Tarantino cleverly casts himself in a small role as Mr. Brown and names all the men using the same formal title. There is Mr. White (Harvey Keitel), Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen), Mr. Blue (Edward Bunker), and finally Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) who is my favorite of all.

In 1992, many scenes were shocking. When sinister Mr. Blonde cuts off the ear of a cop and prepares to set him on fire the brutality and sadism are hard to watch.

The blood-soaked Mr. Orange lies in a pool of blood through nearly the entire film. As his skin turns whiter and whiter and his clothes redder and redder it’s an example of masterful cinema and creativity.

The few exterior shots are in Los Angeles which gives the film a low-budget, raw look.  It’s to be celebrated as the potent sun and grizzled veneer of the city of angels are on display.

I’m not a fan of the lack of female representation but this only enhances the muscle and masculinity of the characters. As they sit in a diner mulling over whether tipping is necessary we could easily be in a men’s locker room witnessing banter about getting laid, or watching an episode of Seinfeld.

There are no romantic entanglements to mess up the plot or no rescuing the girl from criminals to contend with. The closest we come is a couple of homoerotic moments of men embracing men amongst bullets and blood.

Reservoir Dogs succeeds as a whodunit, a heist film, and a vile look at the inhumanity of some of the characters.

The influence and relevance of Reservoir Dogs in 2023 are as abundant as they were in 1992. Cinema is like fine wine and sometimes the more time that goes by the more appreciation is warranted for a film.

It’s not perfect and is unpolished and sometimes underdeveloped but it’s been emulated so many times that it’s become a blueprint of the crime thriller.

Independent Spirit Awards: 1 win-Best Supporting Male-Steve Buscemi (won)

Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Volume 2-2003/2004

Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Volume 2- 2003/2004

Director Quentin Tarantino

Starring Uma Thurman, David Carradine

Top 100 Films #58

Scott’s Review #322

6003123660032563

Reviewed January 3, 2016

Grade: A

Despite being released as separate films (Fall of 2003 and Spring of 2004), Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Kill Bill: Volume 2 are one grand, sprawling feature.

The films were shot as one, but at a running time of over four hours, it was impossible to release them as one, so director Quentin Tarantino decided to release his masterpiece martial arts film as two sequential films.

I have decided to review them as one since Volume 2 is a clear continuation of Volume 1.

From a story perspective, Kill Bill is a basic revenge thriller. The plot is not complex nor ingenious and is rather ordinary containing B-movie components- think the really bad Kung-Fu films of long ago.

What makes Kill Bill an extraordinary masterpiece, however, is the style that exudes from the film, thanks to the direction and creation of Tarantino.

The film is brimming with good flavor and crackling dialogue of an intelligent sort.

Characters have long conversations with each other-not for redundancy’s sake- in between the endless martial arts and bloody sequences.

We meet our heroine, The Bride (Uma Thurman), in a chapel in El Paso, Texas. About to be married to her groom, the entire wedding party is suddenly assassinated in a bloody fashion by the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad.

Their leader, Bill (David Carradine), shoots The Bride after she reveals to him that she is carrying his baby.

The film flashes forward four years later- The Bride has survived the massacre but has been comatose ever since. When a hospital worker rapes her, she escapes and vows revenge on each one of her attackers- the revenge culminating with Bill.

Her path of destruction leads her to Japan.

Like most of Tarantino’s films, Kill Bill is divided into chapters and often goes back and forth from past to present.

The brilliance of Kill Bill is its pizazz. We know The Bride will get her revenge on the assassins, we just do not know in what way or how bloody the slaughters will be.

The film contains copious amounts of blood and swords and machetes are everywhere to be found.

The slow drawl dialogue as The Bride has conversations with her prey before she kills them, oftentimes ends in a big fight scene. Her first revenge, against Vernita (Vivica A. Fox), is unique in that it takes place in Vernita’s kitchen as her young daughter is happily eating her breakfast cereal.

The entire battle ensues in the kitchen and we are left watching blood and cereal.

It is Tarantino’s unique style of filmmaking and storytelling, adding violence, and long character conversations, that give Kill Bill, and all of his other classic films, his unique brand, and stamp of approval.

I dearly hope he continues to make films that challenge the norm, for years to come.