--- title: "Reservoir Dogs: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/reservoir-dogs/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/reservoir-dogs" critics_score: 70 critics_reviews: 14 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Reservoir Dogs (1992): what the critics said Critics' score 70 from 14 reviews: 10 positive, 2 mixed, 2 negative. Most critics like it. The praise settles on the dialogue, the pop-culture banter that makes criminals sound like men killing time in a café, and on the cast: Harvey Keitel, Steve Buscemi and Michael Madsen are named again and again. The reviews also agree it is an unusually assured first film, with a scrambled chronology that holds together. Nearly all warn about the violence, and most treat it as part of the point rather than a fault. The reservations gather around substance. A run of American reviews from its first release find it showy but thin: Variety calls it nihilistic and hard to love, The New Yorker a lively picture about nothing, and the Los Angeles Times all energy and no feeling. Slant, writing much later, takes issue with its enjoyment of its own brutality. The spread is wide, from full marks to negative, and the later British reviews are noticeably warmer than the first-run American ones. ## Radio Times — David Parkinson Rating 5/5. The critic highlights the film's runaway success despite its low budget and cult aspirations, along with its sharp, pop-culture-referencing dialogue. Standout performances from Michael Madsen as the sadistic Mr Blonde and Steve Buscemi as the exasperated Mr Pink make it brash, abrasive, and a must-see. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-bm2w3r/reservoir-dogs/) ## Empire — John Naughton Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. Tarantino's debut is a perfect, auteur-level crime film that stands out for its pop-culture dialogue diversions, knowing structure, and compelling performances drawn from a sharp script, rather than realism or conventional heist plotting. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/empire-essay-reservoir-dogs-review/) ## Evening Standard — Alexander Walker Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2012. The critic highlights how the film revitalized criminal dialogue with banal, pop-culture-infused banter and made crime look cool through its stylish, pop-video generation visuals and slow-motion credits sequence. He praises its subverted expectations, elliptical style, and influence as the most influential work of its time, noting the cathartic violence and black comedy. [Read the review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/reservoir-dogs-still-barking-7222303.html) ## The Independent — Adam Mars-Jones Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 8 January 1993. The critic calls Reservoir Dogs a gruelling but exhilarating first film and a remarkable achievement, praising its headlong approach to violence that insists on the simultaneous presence of perpetrator and victim, giving the suffering meaning and lending the film a kind of nihilistic integrity and almost moral weight. [Read the review](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/film-the-dog-it-was-that-died-the-dostoevskian-violence-of-reservoir-dogs-1477258.html) ## The Hollywood Reporter — Duane Byrge Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 23 January 1992. Festival review. The critic describes Reservoir Dogs as brutally violent and intense, likely to shock audiences at Sundance, but commends its masterful storytelling and strong performances by the cast. He singles out the writing and the actors' portrayals for particular praise. [Read the review](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/reservoir-dogs-review-1992-movie-904415/) ## Slant Magazine — Chuck Bowen Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 21 January 2025. The critic sees it as indicating a remarkably fully formed cinematic sensibility that fetishizes coolness, objects, and genre situations while revealing vulnerability. It praises the extraordinary performances and vitality but critiques the infantile glee in violence and failure to fully challenge troubling elements like racism. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/reservoir-dogs-review-quentin-tarantino/) ## The Guardian Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 7 January 1993. The critic finds the film an extraordinarily impressive debut marked by strong performances, particularly from Harvey Keitel, but warns that its extreme violence makes it unsuitable for many viewers. It is praised as a riveting treatise on betrayal set in a hopeless urban wasteland, with influences from Scorsese and others but its own distinct voice. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/1993/jan/07/1) ## The New York Times — Vincent Canby Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 23 October 1992. The critic praises the debut feature as a modestly budgeted crime movie with dazzling cinematic pyrotechnics and over-the-top dramatic energy, adding Quentin Tarantino to a list of promising new directors. It highlights the film's brutal violence while noting its effective structure and dialogue. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/23/movies/review-film-a-caper-goes-wrong-resoundingly.html) ## The Telegraph — Simon Heffer Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 24 June 2018. The critic views the film as a morality tale demonstrating that crime does not pay, with the bad guys mostly ending up dead. He praises its focus on character exploration and dialogue as a tour de force rather than action or thrills, while acknowledging the exceptional violence and profanity as part of its grim depiction of American low life. [Read the review](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2018/06/24/reservoir-dogs-pornography-violence-modern-morality-tale/) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 26 October 1992. Ebert finds the film an exercise in style with a talented cast and kinetic direction but criticizes the screenplay for excessive talk and lack of depth in characters. He likes it but wants more from the promising debut. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/reservoir-dogs-1992) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 55/100 (inferred from the text). 30 October 1992. Turan sees it as a brash, showy but insubstantial comic opera of violence, praising the dialogue, cast, and energy but noting it's one-dimensional and overly focused on violence without emotional depth. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-10-30-ca-760-story.html) ## The New Yorker — Terrence Rafferty Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 12 October 1992. Rafferty views it as a lively but ultimately thin picture about nothing, a stylized parody of heist films with playful nihilism but lacking emotional weight and substance. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1992/10/19/men-overboard) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 27 January 1992. The critic describes it as an intense, bloody crime drama with snappy dialogue and a terrific cast that demonstrates a smart new filmmaker at work. However, it is ultimately nihilistic, about nothing more than macho guys and their guns, making the pic impressive but impossible to love. [Read the review](https://variety.com/1992/film/reviews/reservoir-dogs-1200429146/) ## Den of Geek — Mark Pickavance Rating 4/5. 27 October 2008. The critic calls it a great movie with classic Tarantino touches like non-linear chronology and extreme violence, praising performances by Buscemi and Keitel, but notes it's slightly overshadowed by Pulp Fiction. The Blu-ray offers good image and sound quality. [Read the review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/reservoir-dogs-collectors-edition-blu-ray-review/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/reservoir-dogs.md