Nah, City on Fire has nothing to do with Reservoir Dogs except for the very last 20 minutes Tarantino stretched out to an entire movie, even Ringo Lam himself said that it's absolute bullshit claiming Tarantino did "steal" from his movie, he just took the climax and based an entire movie around it.
Although I have to agree that City on Fire is a largely better movie, but it's also way more conventional than Reservoir Dogs was, which could be translated 1:1 into a theater play.
I've never met a single person who understands this movie. I'm not sure Quentin even understands it himself, though the scene of the other detective coaching Pink leads me to believe he might.
The movie is like A Clockwork Orange, it teaches us a moral lesson. In that film, the lesson is about punishment, autonomy, restriction, and control. This movie is about lying and honor. Mr. Orange is a dishonorable liar, the way the police and doctors and prison guards are technically the good guys in ACO, so is he. The point of the story is to ask the question, "Is it moral to lie, to earn the trust of another man, to take on the role of the son to the father, only to betray that man and cost him everything, merely in the name of the law, and to catch a 'bigger fish?"
The answer is obviously no. Orange kills a citizen, because Quentin can't into subtlety. But even without that, look at the evils all those cops sat around and watched and participated in, all because they wanted Joe. The entire film is an indictment against the way US law enforcement works, and in a depper way, an indictment against the imposter, the subverter, an indictment against the insincere and the tattletale.
I'll add, the fact Orange confesses after seeing the consequences of his actions, knowing White will kill him just goes the extra mile to show that even Orange in the end realized he was wrong. He is confessing because he knows he is about to die, and all humans, Christian or not, feel the need to allocute at times like that, because in the end, it consumes them.
Can you offer a perspective on Inglourious Basterds? Is it a shallow "Jews good, Nazis bad" flick and we're meant to revel in the israelite-on-Nazi violence in light of the Holocaust? Is it a "both sides bad" thing? Is it a litmus test of violence?
Hateful 8 falls apart as soon as the narration begins, and I've never seen OUATIH because I hate self referential material, like songs about music or anything by Stephen King. I'm a huge, huge TOOL fan and I can't stand the highly praised Lateralus because he's singing about music. This is shit people do when they are out of ideas. Also, I love Manson and Hitler, so revenge fantasies against them aren't my taste. Revenge fantasies shouldn't be anyone's taste though, that's the entire point of The Count of Monte Cristo, which the movie leaves out for a "happy" ending.
I feel like it's a satire on Hollywood as being a propaganda machine. that nazi guy who became an actor is based on Audie Murphy, an American vet who became an actor. that one scene where the israelitebear starts bashing that guy, made it seem like it was his honorable death
How does Mr. Pink fit into this though? He is shown to be cynical, logical and untrustworthy, yet is the only character that might have potentially survived the film, assuming he didn't get gunned down by the police outside. Doesn't really fit into the narrative that the movie was trying to indict betrayers (remember that Mr. Pink repeatedly wanted to get out of there with the diamonds instead of waiting around for Joe like they had agreed to).
Pink realized they had been betrayed, Pink was never duped. That's why he survives. Remember, Pink is the first one Orange snitches on about not tipping to Joe. It shows the type of nervous, cynical, untrusting, lonely person a society filled with imposters creates, because people must behave that way in order to survive.
Mr Pink isn't very important to the film and is mostly just a self-insert for Tarantino to put funny quotable dialogue into the script (Tarantino originally wanted to cast himself as Mr Pink, not Mr Brown)
The reality of criminals is that though Hollywood often portrays them as misunderstood Robin Hood types, they're generally just the worst scum. Disloyal, stupid, abusive towards women, pedophiles, drug addicts, they even have poor hygiene.
That's just survivorship bias. All those traits that you listed correlate strongly with stupidity, and stupid criminals are far more likely to get caught. We don't know how large of a percentage of criminals are actually intelligent, since the chances of capture go way lower with increasing intelligence.
I wonder, is there a gender swapped remake that would work. Not talking Ocean's 8. Just Reservoir Dogs with females as: >Mr. Pink >Mr. White >Mr. Blonde >Nice Guy Eddie >Joe
I think Lizzie Olsen could pull off Mr. White
Tim Roth has 5 times the blood of a normal man. >Oh, you didn't see it coming that the man who has clearly bled out is actually alive, can aim and fire a gun, and even maintain a conversation. Ha! You've been bamboozled
Keitel's character is a lifelong criminal and completely rootless outside of criminal associates
Being forced to care for Tim Roth's character in an emergency forms a bond between them that mimics the kind of father son relationship Keitel longed for but never had
Because Keitel thinks of Roth as his surrogate son he will protect him no matter what the cost
boypussy got him acting unwise
Just watch some Ringo Lam movies they're like Reservoir Dogs but actually good
Nah, City on Fire has nothing to do with Reservoir Dogs except for the very last 20 minutes Tarantino stretched out to an entire movie, even Ringo Lam himself said that it's absolute bullshit claiming Tarantino did "steal" from his movie, he just took the climax and based an entire movie around it.
Although I have to agree that City on Fire is a largely better movie, but it's also way more conventional than Reservoir Dogs was, which could be translated 1:1 into a theater play.
I've never met a single person who understands this movie. I'm not sure Quentin even understands it himself, though the scene of the other detective coaching Pink leads me to believe he might.
The movie is like A Clockwork Orange, it teaches us a moral lesson. In that film, the lesson is about punishment, autonomy, restriction, and control. This movie is about lying and honor. Mr. Orange is a dishonorable liar, the way the police and doctors and prison guards are technically the good guys in ACO, so is he. The point of the story is to ask the question, "Is it moral to lie, to earn the trust of another man, to take on the role of the son to the father, only to betray that man and cost him everything, merely in the name of the law, and to catch a 'bigger fish?"
The answer is obviously no. Orange kills a citizen, because Quentin can't into subtlety. But even without that, look at the evils all those cops sat around and watched and participated in, all because they wanted Joe. The entire film is an indictment against the way US law enforcement works, and in a depper way, an indictment against the imposter, the subverter, an indictment against the insincere and the tattletale.
good bot
I am not a bot, moron.
Quality post
I'll add, the fact Orange confesses after seeing the consequences of his actions, knowing White will kill him just goes the extra mile to show that even Orange in the end realized he was wrong. He is confessing because he knows he is about to die, and all humans, Christian or not, feel the need to allocute at times like that, because in the end, it consumes them.
Can you offer a perspective on Inglourious Basterds? Is it a shallow "Jews good, Nazis bad" flick and we're meant to revel in the israelite-on-Nazi violence in light of the Holocaust? Is it a "both sides bad" thing? Is it a litmus test of violence?
I've never watched it.
Nice digits.
Inglorious Basterds sucked. I'm not a huge Kill Bill fan either. I prefer Hateful 8 and Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.
>Hateful 8
the good version of Reservoir Dogs
Hateful 8 falls apart as soon as the narration begins, and I've never seen OUATIH because I hate self referential material, like songs about music or anything by Stephen King. I'm a huge, huge TOOL fan and I can't stand the highly praised Lateralus because he's singing about music. This is shit people do when they are out of ideas. Also, I love Manson and Hitler, so revenge fantasies against them aren't my taste. Revenge fantasies shouldn't be anyone's taste though, that's the entire point of The Count of Monte Cristo, which the movie leaves out for a "happy" ending.
I feel like it's a satire on Hollywood as being a propaganda machine. that nazi guy who became an actor is based on Audie Murphy, an American vet who became an actor. that one scene where the israelitebear starts bashing that guy, made it seem like it was his honorable death
It's israeli revenge porn
How does Mr. Pink fit into this though? He is shown to be cynical, logical and untrustworthy, yet is the only character that might have potentially survived the film, assuming he didn't get gunned down by the police outside. Doesn't really fit into the narrative that the movie was trying to indict betrayers (remember that Mr. Pink repeatedly wanted to get out of there with the diamonds instead of waiting around for Joe like they had agreed to).
Pink realized they had been betrayed, Pink was never duped. That's why he survives. Remember, Pink is the first one Orange snitches on about not tipping to Joe. It shows the type of nervous, cynical, untrusting, lonely person a society filled with imposters creates, because people must behave that way in order to survive.
Mr Pink isn't very important to the film and is mostly just a self-insert for Tarantino to put funny quotable dialogue into the script (Tarantino originally wanted to cast himself as Mr Pink, not Mr Brown)
>an indictment against the imposter,
Sus
>the film is an indictment against the way the US law enforcement works
if that is present at all, it feels incredibly tertiary. I dont think the film is a commentary on anything. I think its just a crime gone wrong story
He wasn’t a professional. He told his name and where he was from.
The reality of criminals is that though Hollywood often portrays them as misunderstood Robin Hood types, they're generally just the worst scum. Disloyal, stupid, abusive towards women, pedophiles, drug addicts, they even have poor hygiene.
That's just survivorship bias. All those traits that you listed correlate strongly with stupidity, and stupid criminals are far more likely to get caught. We don't know how large of a percentage of criminals are actually intelligent, since the chances of capture go way lower with increasing intelligence.
say the fricking wooords
you're gonna be okaaaay
SAY THE GODDAMN FRICKIN WORDS
I wonder, is there a gender swapped remake that would work. Not talking Ocean's 8. Just Reservoir Dogs with females as:
>Mr. Pink
>Mr. White
>Mr. Blonde
>Nice Guy Eddie
>Joe
I think Lizzie Olsen could pull off Mr. White
What do u think?
Mr. Pink?
>JOE
looks exactly like The Thing
Reservoir b***hes
Tim Roth has 5 times the blood of a normal man.
>Oh, you didn't see it coming that the man who has clearly bled out is actually alive, can aim and fire a gun, and even maintain a conversation. Ha! You've been bamboozled
I have never watched this movie. I’m saving myself
Mr. White was wrong for the right reasons. Joe Cabot was right for the wrong reasons.
It was a long-time investment.
Keitel's character is a lifelong criminal and completely rootless outside of criminal associates
Being forced to care for Tim Roth's character in an emergency forms a bond between them that mimics the kind of father son relationship Keitel longed for but never had
Because Keitel thinks of Roth as his surrogate son he will protect him no matter what the cost