This blog has mainly been where I write about music, probably because if I wrote about everything else I would never end up doing anything, and so eventually this would end up being a blog about writing a blog. Which would probably not be all that interesting.
Anyway, I felt motivated to just quickly notify the world of my opinion on Quentin Tarantino's 'masterpiece', Reservoir Dogs.
It is an old classic, very popular very critically acclaimed. I have already given Harry back his DVD and I can't be bothered to Wikipedia up a load of quotes, but a lot of people think it's good. One of the main reasons people liked it was the way the film was told 'non-linear', meaning chopped up, shuffled around then played backwards and sideways. It's interesting because you don't have the traditional experience of events being revealed to you chronologically, and despite some slightly confusing jumps, it works. And THANK GOD they chose to keep it slightly confusing, instead of adding loads of '3 Months Later'-type subheadings. It's a snapshop into a highly stylised way of life completely different to the majority of the audience, and probably not incredibly realistic, but it's not pretentious. Everyone likes it.
But it's really boring. The actual plot is dull. If the film was played chronologically, it would bore audiences to death. The plot is so basic and undeveloped it's like a twelve year old wrote it. This is a twelve year old who got a good mark, a gold sticker and an A plus, but not a genius of storytelling. (For the twelve year old analogy to work, let's just temporarily ignore the violence/morals of the story.)
If Tarantino wanted to make a really good film, why didn't he write a good story, and then chop it up and play it sideways?
Anyway, here's an oldie that you really must be mad not to like. And I realise for most of you 1995 isn't exactly an 'oldie', but it is and you will just have to cope with that.
DOWNLOAD: Fun Lovin' Crimals - Scooby Snacks (zShare)
5 comments:
you asshole, you're just wrong
Anonymous comments annoy me. If you want to have an opinion, put your name to it and make yourself accountable.
The plot is incredibly under-developed.
This is essesntially it:
Bosses gather a team. One of them is an undercover cop. They plan a robbery. It goes wrong because the police plaaned a sting. Long torture scene. Everybody dies. THE END.
Imagine if the film was played out chronologically. It's a nice stylish film, but the plot is crap.
Firstly,if I choose to make myself anonymous instead of adopting an obviously fake nickname then that it makes no difference,nobody uses real names in blogs anyway.However to keep you content,I will henceforth operate under the nickname...'anonymous'.
Secondly,the film.After pulp fiction, reservoir dogs is the greatest film ever conceived,by Quentin Tarantino or any other director.The beauty of the film is that the plot is deliberately underdeveloped in order to highlight the brilliance of the script and other aspects of the production.
Thirdly,the plot you have summarised is incorrect,as you have left out the various sub-plots which hold the key to the true understanding of the film.The stories of Mr Blond(Michael Madsen),Mr White(Harvey Keitel) and Mr Orange(Tim Roth)are pivotal in regards to the film as they give the viewer the basis for character interaction and human interest within the story.Without these cut-scenes,the story would mean nothing,and if that were the case you would have a feasible argument.
Fourthly,your use of the plural of the word 'bosses' is invalid,as in the film there is one boss,Joe Cabot.Played by Lawrence Tierney,he is a seldom seen but cardinal character within the film,in that without him,once again,the story would mean nothing.His aura throughout the film is so powerful that it is near impossible to write,and his overall alpha-male status is one that cannot be matched by many other characters ever portrayed on screen.
Fifthly,your use of the phrase 'long torture scene' does one of the greatest movie scenes in history no jsutice and,in not only my opinion,is bordering on blasphemy.It's prolonged use as a reference in popular culture,alongside the slow-motion walking scene to the music of 'little green bag', ensures that this cannot be disproved.Michael Madsen's performance in such a difficult scene in which to appear truly terrifying asserts him the status of one of the great movie psychopaths alongside Joe Pesci in 'Goodfellas'.
Sixthly,there is the misleading staement that tells us 'everybody dies'.One of the greatest aspects of 'Reservoir dogs' is the mystery that arises post-ending.It is never made clear if 'everybody dies',and even Tarantino himself has never spilt the beans as to what he believes happens after Mr White disappears from the final shot.In conclusion,the ending is as ambiguous as the final episode of The Sopranos.
Finally,there is your ridiculous sentence that asks us to 'imagine if the film was played out chronologically'.I have cited other elements of the film as important and pivotal,but this one is perhaps the most essential.Taking your own statement into account,perhaps ask yourself why the film isn't played out chronologically?
In conclusion,my overall aim is to push you into watching the film again.I have no shame in admitting that I did not fully understand it the first time I watched it,but fully intended to give it another try.If you are reluctant to do this,perhaps you should stick to writing about what you originally cited,'Musick,Musick,Musick'.
You say that 'the plot is deliberately underdeveloped in order to highlight the brilliance of the script and other aspects of the production.'
Why didn't Tarantino write a film with a developed plot, then everyone could watch the film and enjoy the brilliance of the script and other aspects of the production, and the plot?
OK this is getting confusing.
I am assuming comments one and three are the same person and number three is somebody else?
I hate to admit to being wrong, but i think Mr Anonymous number one may just have won his argument. Although to call me an 'asshole' and tell me I'm 'just wrong' really isn't the best way to win an argument. Now I see why he thinks that, yes he has a point. Although I would have to call into question how putting all the actors names in brackets after referencing the characters really strengthens the argument.
Post a Comment