📽️ Reservoir Dogs purchase, purchase Reservoir Dogs movie online , purchase Reservoir Dogs download , buy Reservoir Dogs movie, purchase Reservoir Dogs online, purchase Reservoir Dogs, Reservoir Dogs purchase movie 1992, where can i purchase Reservoir Dogs DVD 📀, Reservoir Dogs money can buy, Reservoir Dogs movie 1992 purchase 🎬.
Purchase Reservoir Dogs (1992) Movie Online and Download - Quentin Tarantino 🎥
Year:
1992
Country:
USA
Genre:
Crime, Drama, Thriller, Mystery
IMDB rating:
8.4
Director:
Quentin Tarantino
Harvey Keitel as Mr. White - Larry Dimmick
Tim Roth as Mr. Orange - Freddy Newandyke
Michael Madsen as Mr. Blonde - Vic Vega
Chris Penn as Nice Guy Eddie Cabot
Steve Buscemi as Mr. Pink
Lawrence Tierney as Joe Cabot
Randy Brooks as Holdaway
Kirk Baltz as Ofcr. Marvin Nash
Edward Bunker as Mr. Blue
Quentin Tarantino as Mr. Brown
Steven Wright as K-Billy DJ
Rich Turner as Sheriff #1
David Steen as Sheriff #2
Tony Cosmo as Sheriff #3
Storyline: Six criminals, who are strangers to each other, are hired by a crime boss Joe Cabot to carry out a diamond robbery. Right at the outset, they are given false names with an intention that they won't get too close and concentrate on the job instead. They are completely sure that the robbery is going to be a success. But when the police show up right at the time and the site of the robbery, panic spreads amongst the group members and one of them is killed in the subsequent shootout along with a few policemen and civilians. When the remaining people assemble at the premeditated rendezvous point (a warehouse), they begin to suspect that one of them is an undercover cop.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x816 px 8139 Mb h264 9710 Kbps mkv Purchase
HQ DVD-rip 656x272 px 1392 Mb mpeg4 1442 Kbps avi Purchase
DVD-rip 640x272 px 692 Mb mpeg4 1016 Kbps avi Purchase
iPhone 480x206 px 522 Mb xvid 600 Kbps mov Purchase
Reviews
You Don't Believe In Tipping ?
When a diamond heist goes badly wrong, the gang meet back at a warehouse and try to figure out what happened. Is there a traitor in their midst ?

Reservoir Dogs is one of those truly great debut movies, like Citizen Kane or A Bout De Soufflé or The Evil Dead. Tarantino was just twenty-eight when he made it and his talent shines out, not just in his razor-sharp script and stylish touches, but also in his production smarts. He uses suspense and shocks expertly to keep us riveted despite the fact that the whole movie pretty much plays in one room. He cleverly alludes to events that we don't see, thereby keeping costs and down and retaining the creative control so crucial to his vision. What I love most about the movie though is its originality. It may pay homage to earlier heist flicks (notably The Killing and The Taking Of Pelham 123) but it's like no other crime film before or since. Characters argue about whether or not Pam Grier was on a TV show. The time line shoots all over the shop but we never feel wrong-footed. A droll DJ (the noted comic Steven Wright) plays catchy music by bands you've never heard of with names like George Baker Selection, Stealers Wheel and Blue Swede. There's more blood than a Herschell Gordon Lewis film. Everyone wears suits, except for the late great Chris Penn (his best performance in an amazing career), who wears a blue tracksuit that must be seen to be believed. The finale is about the most ambiguous in all cinema. It's great. Everybody is terrific in it, as is the delineation of the characters. Mr White is the straight-ahead tough guy, Mr Pink is the only one with any brains, Mr Blonde is the psycho and Mr Orange is the fink. Tierney - the star of 1945's Dillinger - has a wonderful turn as Joe the kingpin. Tarantino winds them up and then lets them go, slicing into each other with fizzing little soliloquies that are still buzzing in our heads when we're onto the next one. It's also highly funny in spite of the grim nature of the story; in a weird way it reminds of the Black Knight sequence in Monty Python And The Holy Grail - characters arguing with each other about details whilst they bleed to death. It's hard to believe this movie is now twenty years old, since it still seems as fresh and gripping as the day it was made. It's a modern crime classic, a bravura piece of ensemble macho man acting, and a stunningly brilliant first film from a director in full command of cinematic form.
2011-08-18
It's not the pieces, it's the drive
A great creative insight is to take things that we think of as separate and contained (like 'art', 'genius', or 'ideas') and realize how they are fluid and inter-dependent, conditioned by factors. This is not to expose anything as little, deconstruction for its sake; it's to show them to be doable, that a road leads up to them. (It's also one of the three main areas of Buddhist practice)

One obvious way to do this would be to take this and note the many influences. This has been done to death already, every bit that Tarantino hoped to keep packed or wanted us to find out has been laid out in the open. But I don't think it's the influence the makes it.

Another way would be to see that it doesn't (can't?) work the same way as it did when new because all the change is behind us, made more ordinary by slavish followers. The moments of simple banter away from plot, the fooling round with edges of story without showing the main center-piece, bleeding on a floor, following Mr. Blonde outside to pick up a can of gasoline, Tarantino was probably proud that he was being "real", making a radical break from Bruckheimer's Hollywood.

It's bits and pieces of Godard, Cassavetes, Altman, and others. To see it now in this context shows it as theatric, not "real" at all. (The least theatric acting is by the bound cop. Roth is just woeful.) It's The Killers, with the violence and gum pop visuals as typical to see as The Killers was typical without them in its own time.

I'd like to settle for something else that brings us to real influence of a deeper kind.

Everything you see here is coming from a young guy who was at the best possible time in his life, lifted from obscurity and everything was beginning to click into place beyond expectation. Can you imagine how giddy he must have been to hear yes from Keitel and here's a check?

It's Tarantino coming in from the outside as someone young and eager to make a dream come true; it's bursting with energy but disciplined, kept in check by not having everything at your disposal, being the new kid on set. It would be nothing without this energy.

It's also Tarantino being rooted in his own world as he brings the dream alive, suburban LA. None of the story has any outlet into real lives, it's all bounced around movie cutouts. Gangsters showing up before a heist for breakfast in tuxedos? It's a video clerk's imagination cruising through his own world. He has guys exchange banter about a stripper from Palos Verdes, Roth improvise a story about buying weed the summer of '86.

So this is the most vibrant sense I get, someone making it, not having to prove himself because he's there, making a movie with name actors around town, relaxed and fired up at the same time. It's no masterpiece but the whole film breathes that relaxed excitement to me.

His next one would be the apogee of this path. It can also be traced to the 30 year old who had flown himself to Amsterdam to write away from home like a Hemingway, living the dream. Everything happening. A marked contrast to his middle-aged self.
2016-03-25
Are you gonna bark all day.....
A couple of weeks ago, I was blessed with a rare opportunity. one of the movie theaters in town did a midnight showing of this. Naturally, being a "Dogs" freak, I went down and saw it.

To say I was blown away would be an understatement. I have only seen two of Mr. Tarantino's films in the theater. This being one, and "Kill Bill" being the other. I only became a fan of his a year ago and have subsequently seen all of his films and own them all.

It really was a treat to be able to sit in the movie theater and watch this while eating grossly overpriced popcorn and drinking a grossly overpriced soda.

For those who don't know, the film involves a jewelry heist. Six strangers including Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, Steve Buscemi, Eddie Bunker, Tarantino himself, and Tim Roth are recruited by a crime boss named Joe Cabot, (Lawrence Tierney) and his son Eddie, whom everybody calls "Nice Guy" (Chris Penn). The six are almost all friends or associates of Cabot, particularly Keitel and Madsen. Cabot gives them colors for names (Mr. White, Mr. Blonde, Mr. Pink, Mr. Blue, etc.) And expressly forbids them to reveal anything about themselves to each other, so if anyone is caught, no one can inform on anybody. But the heist goes wrong, the cops seem to show up way to fast, some members of the group are killed, and the rest start returning to the rendesvous point to try to sort out what went wrong. After the arrival of Mr. Pink, They realize that one of the number is a police informer. The arrival of Mr. Blonde, and the present he has in his trunk, complicates things even more. Things are also complicated by the fact that since no one knows each other, discovering who the informer is is given added difficulty, since no one trusts each other.

This film, Tarantino's first, is one of the best, if not the best one he has ever done. but part of this credit has to go to his outstanding cast. Keitel is an old pro at this type of thing, he has the distinction of being the first older actor who's career seemed to be going into a slump and who has recovered thanks to Tarantino's casting. But Tarantino can't claim sole credit for that, because Keitel really got the ball rolling on the project and help him score his budget and the prominence to gain his cast. Buscemi IS Mr. Pink. Tarantino wrote the role for himself, and he would have been good, but Buscemi brings a type of weasly professionalism to the role that no one else could. Penn and Tierney are ideally cast as the father and son who are left to sort out the mess of the robbery, Bunker is only in a few scenes but livens up the proceedings. Tarantino gives himself the perfect monologue for his character (Like a Virgin is a metaphor for big d*cks), and Tim Roth gives a spectacular performance as Mr. Orange, who is relegated to bleeding on the floor for a large chunk of the movie. His scene in the car when he has just been shot is particulary outstanding. But then, of course, I have to throw out a special nod to my favorite character in the piece, Mr. Blonde, as portrayed by Michael Madsen. Blonde is the definition of "Bad*ss", and Madsen fits him like a glove. His first scene back at the warehouse is particularly memorable, as is the "Ear torture sequence". Without Madsen's portraying of Mr. Blonde, I don't think the "Ear" scene would have worked, Madsen just does something with it that nobody else can. Not only does Blonde have most of the coolest lines, he's fun to watch on screen, especially his reaction to a gun pointed in his face by Mr. White. Madsen rocks!

"Dogs" Is one of the few movies where I don't think thae casting could have been any better. Part of the reason it works as well as it does has to go the the way the cast works with each other. No one seems to think that they are better than anyone else, and no one seemed to approach the project with the stuck up feeling of how bad it was that they were doing an indie film on a low budget and with an unknown director. Every single member of the cast gives everything he (or, to a much lesser extent, she) has. It's this mindset that, I think, has made "Dogs" the classic it is today. Little could be improved upon.

As a side note, This came out a year after "Thelma and Louise" which also stars Harvey Keitel and Michael Madsen. However, in "Dogs" They play ruthless characters. In "T&L" they play the only sympathetic Male characters in the entire movie. An ideal would be to watch "T&L" then "RD" and really see the difference. They are two great actors, and they deliver. And for those who enjoyed Madsen in this, I also recommend "Kill Me Again", made a few years earlier, and which also features a scene where he tortures someone.

"Dogs" is a great film to watch. Not a date flick, but for a cops and robbers movie, it's perfect. Seeing it for the first time in a theater, it hasn't lost it's touch, and the "Stuck in the Middle with You"/Ear sequence has never been more intense or memorable.

*****/***** !0/10
2004-03-07
Edgy, engrossing and still holds up well as a heist film over the years
"I feel like a director who has not yet directed, therefore I don't exist." Said an idealist, enthusiastic Quentin Tarantino back when he was working at Video Archives in the early 1990s, eager to start climbing the directorial ladder in Hollywood. At this time he was just a screenplay-writer, penning early works such as Natural Born Killers (a baby of his he felt he stabbed in the heart when he gave up to Oliver Stone to rewrite), True Romance and From Dusk Till Dawn—all initially fruitless fares that no one dared to green-light. Production companies were choosy, cliquish and wouldn't give an untested director like Tarantino a break. Not even for Reservoir Dogs.

Growing increasingly frustrated at navigating the world of hard-to-please production corporations to OK his project and pass him the director's chair, Taratino approached producer Lawrence Bender—arguably the best choice of his career (he's been working closely with him ever since). Bender loved the script of Reservoir Dogs—and who wouldn't? It pours crime, gangsters and humour into an exquisite blender and sprinkles it with heavy doses of edgy style. Together the two of them set out to do this film, and soon caught the eye of Richard Gladstein at Live Entertainment in Van Nuys, who would later agree to finance the little project.

It really was a "little" project, too, with a budget of a mere $1,200,000—which meant that the '65 Yellow Cadillac that you see in the film is Michael Madsen's own. Yet breathless and excited at becoming a debut-director and finally getting to tend to his baby himself which this position now afforded him, Quentin Tarantino and Lawrence Bender began the process and the mega cult hit that is "Reservoir Dogs" (1992). Harvey Keitel was first approached to star as Mr. White and with his name on-board, he himself convinced several star-actors to grace the cast list along with him. He told them they wouldn't get much money for it, but that the script alone was worth jumping on-board for. They agreed.

That's some basic back-story for you on how this film came to be, and I feel it is important to keep in mind the fervent enthusiasm and gratitude with which Quentin Tarantino embarked on his debut-director journey. It translates in the eager, rapid-fire dialogue between the characters, the clever pacing of the story and the fresh edge of the narrative. This is a man with a deeply-rooted love for films and who wanted nothing more than to make his own--and now that privilege had been granted, and not a minute too soon. Upon the release of "Dogs", Tarantino was rightly vaulted into the great directors' fame and, I imagine, became even more enthusiastic about film-making.

The end product is a very good film that sees five anonymous hit men team up for a big heist – an armed robbery on a Diamond warehouse that will be central to the wide variety of eccentrically quirky characters who all lend their skills to the job. The heat of the police clings onto them during this task because there's talk of a rat in their group... but who is it? The film starts at the end of the robbery, zooming in on a chaotic bloody state and then backtracks in flashbacks–non-chronologically and a bit babbling, but it still works–in an attempt to answer this question. Does it? Yes, but perhaps not in the way you think.

Although this fare is devoid of any profound message, morals or statement and there's no discernible kind of symbolism, it is extremely enjoyable on a basic level. In fact, maybe its straightforward approach to a story–but with criminal diversions, twists and plot-devices–is what makes it so great. This is a clever heist, just take it or leave it. The interactions and actions between the characters are at focus, placing environment in the backseat; this means that Reservoir Dogs can proudly boast of having one of the greatest dialogue-driven scenes in film, and it takes place at the beginning at the diner when Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) explains to the other guys why he does not tip waitresses--the others are compassionate and argue that they are minimum-wage workers no rely on tip, but Mr. Pink is stern: "Do you know what this is? Its the world's smallest violin playing just for the waitresses. "

The film is full of gems like these, full of great colourful gangster performances (in particular Michael Madsen as Mr. Blonde--the most badass character in history) and full of clear-eyed and gory style. As far as heist films go, this is a grand accomplishment. If anything, it is a bit short (99 minutes). These characters are so interesting that we never feel as though we get to know them enough--it's a little rushed and a little dizzying at times. This is no surprise as Reservoir Dogs was originally written as a short film, barely stretching 20 minutes and with characters that weren't meant to be particularly developed or dimensional. They are more so in the final, long version, but it's still a little too rushed. Although I suppose is intentional on Tarantino's part to signify the hectic pace of the heist and the cops chasing them.

Tarantino sported a modest wallet and a modest ego that had not yet swelled to a "Cro-Magnon forehead"--as ex-friend and Natural Born Killers producer Don Murphy would describe it--when he wrote and directed this film. Indeed, this aspiring filmmaker loved films so much that he would make a lot of enemies and lose a lot of friends during the course of climbing the directorial ladder in Hollywood. No friends were harmed in the making of this film.

8/10
2006-09-13
Major Letdown
I heard so many good things about this movie before I finally saw it, and I was misled. With a shorter running time, it seemed like there was an attempt to pack in a vast amount of plot, but it ended up seeming like more time was wasted because of it.

With such a fine cast, I was expecting some fine performances. I wasn't disappointed as far as that goes. I'll admit the variety of characters was interesting and fun to watch at times, most notably during the first scene. That's about all it has to offer though.

The basic concept of strangers getting together for a crime isn't a bad idea on paper, it just didn't work out at all for this script. I kept hoping the writing would get better as the movie went on, but after about a third of the way through, I knew what I was in for.

I really don't think there's anything groundbreaking here, even for 1992. Crime movies have been done, and been done better. This seemed more like a fantasy crime movie that would only be interesting to the person thinking about it in their own unique way.

There's also some torture scene put in, which I really thought didn't need to be. It didn't seem like it fit in, at least to the extent of what happened. So what's the bottom line here? Well, it's crime movie with a semi interesting plot, a lot of tough guy talk, and an overall letdown of what could have been. 4/10
2007-01-12
masterpeice of garbage
why do so many people like this film? is it because theres heaps of swearing? is it because theres lots of violence? whatever it is, its certainly not because it has a good storyline or interesting characters. sure, there were some good classic lines in the movie, but over all it is a very dull and boring movie. at the time of its release, i guess it gained attention because it was different and "innovative". it should be cut down to 30 mintues and take ever 2nd f!@# out so only every 4th word is f@#$. pulp fiction is a far better movie. so i wouldnt recommend this film to anyone except for kids who think eminem is cool cause he says "f!@#" alot.
2001-02-21
really a great movie!
I watched this movie for the first time without knowing what the movie was about. I remember hearing about how cool this movie was and I saw people wearing shirts and listening to the soundtrack, but I had never seen it. So when it first came out on DVD, I bought it without ever watching it before. In Tarantino I trust. For good reason. This is a classic movie, a throwback. A movie about a jewel heist gone wrong and the consequences of working with strangers. This flick has a great cast, great script, and flawless direction. Taratino films are great because they stress the story more than anything else. In all of his movies, the script is strong enough to carry the movie. Now add good over the top acting and you have a hit. The realism of this movie is what grabs you. You really feel like you are in that abandoned warehouse. If felt privileged to have bought such a movie without watching it first. An instant classic. I love this movie!
2004-12-17
A feast for the senses and a famine for the soul!
Wow! What can I say... the wife picked up this gem in a mad rush from the local video store. Which is to say she didn't read the cover jacket warning in time! Hence, we got to be intrigued and disgusted, pretty much in that order.

I was OK with the dialogue, which is intriguing -- like one of those conversations where you're privy, but you don't open your yap because it's too damn interesting to interrupt.

But, then things went horribly, horribly wrong. Now, don't get me wrong -- I like a good blood-spattered, pleading-victim, grinning-sociopath, sadistic torture scene as much as the next man. NOT! Apart from the rest of the blood and gore, which is excessive (much like watching open-heart surgery), the torture scene just got way too up close and personal for my taste.

Reminds me of when we used to play 'Look!' You know, you chew up your food and say, "Wanna play 'Look?'" Then, you open your mouth to a disgusting view of partially-chewed carrots, peas and corn and scream 'Look!' If you're lucky, your little brother faints or at least heaves.

Well, apparently Quentin seems to think this is a way cool technique in the cinema. Duct-tape the victim to a chair and pull out the old straight razor! 'Look!' Apparently, a lot of folks think Quentin is way cool, too, judging from the many favourable reviews of this gore-fest. And, wow he uses the 'N' word, too. He's sooo deep! This movie has a lot of interesting little novelties that are worth checking out. But, the gore is over the top. Have your finger on the fast-forward... and make sure the kids are in bed.
2006-06-16
A simple story told in original way
What is good about this movie? Probably the same things what makes other Tarantino's movies good: great soundtrack, good actors, stylish direction and of course - violence (actauly there was only one scene which I would call really violent). The plot is pretty simple but it's portrayed out of chronological order (just like in Pulp Fiction). Probably that is what makes this movie different. Also everything in a movie looked pretty realistic (like violence) and all characters acted very natural (there were many memorable dialogs, so you could know each character better). This movie is very original, stylish and worth your time.
2008-10-10
You shoot me in a dream, you better wake up and apologize!
Tarantino's brutal debut film. From the original initial dialogue, to the final outcome, the director astonishes everyone and makes clear what his style: anthological dialogues (eye to the discussion in the distribution of colors that will identify each gangster, hilarious) a breakthrough structure, very good soundtrack (as in all his films), great doses of violence (although not at all gratuitous, but rather ironic) and, above all, a lot of black humor. In addition to superb performances by Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Steve Buscemi and Chris Penn. In short, a great example of good noir cinema (with all its ingredients: shootings, violence, betrayal, suspense, etc.), but with the innovative and very personal touch of the brilliant director, who would later continue to dazzle with the wonderful "Pulp Fiction".
2017-03-03
📹 Purchase Reservoir Dogs movie online, Reservoir Dogs HD 720p download, Reservoir Dogs the movie, Reservoir Dogs download, characters in Reservoir Dogs, Reservoir Dogs budget, Reservoir Dogs movie download, Reservoir Dogs Bluray purchase online, Reservoir Dogs HD full movie online, Reservoir Dogs HD online, Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Chris Penn, Steve Buscemi, Lawrence Tierney, Randy Brooks, Kirk Baltz, Edward Bunker, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Wright, Rich Turner, David Steen, Tony Cosmo, Stevo Polyi Reservoir Dogs, Reservoir Dogs 1080p, Reservoir Dogs 720p, Reservoir Dogs direct link download, Reservoir Dogs purchase download, Reservoir Dogs full movie, Reservoir Dogs full movie download, Reservoir Dogs full movie free download, Reservoir Dogs purchase movie 1992, Reservoir Dogs full movie online, Reservoir Dogs 1992, Reservoir Dogs Crime, Drama, Thriller, Mystery online, Reservoir Dogs purchase DVD 📀, Reservoir Dogs USA, purchase Reservoir Dogs, Reservoir Dogs download 720p, Reservoir Dogs dual audio, Reservoir Dogs HD Quentin Tarantino, Reservoir Dogs good movie to purchase, purchase movies and download, Reservoir Dogs movie 1992 purchase, Reservoir Dogs movie available for purchase, purchase Reservoir Dogs movie, Reservoir Dogs real life, Reservoir Dogs Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Chris Penn, Steve Buscemi, Lawrence Tierney, Randy Brooks, Kirk Baltz, Edward Bunker, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Wright, Rich Turner, David Steen, Tony Cosmo, Stevo Polyi 📼, Reservoir Dogs actors names, Reservoir Dogs HD digital copies of movie, Reservoir Dogs movies unlimited 🎞️.
×