Quentin Tarantino's debut. Everyone's going to show up right from the start.
The wisdom and fate of Pulp Fiction can be found in Reservoir Dogs.
Reservoir Dogs adds a trial of trust, making the film more puzzling and laughably ponderous.
I don't want to say too much about this film, because in terms of plot, Tarantino's control is obviously not as proficient as "Pulp Fiction", and the various levels designed have a hint of banter, which is conceivable but unthinkable.
The only thing to say is the ending.
The culprit is dead. The accomplice is dead. Innocent cops are dead. Undercover is dead. The deceived Mr. Bai also died.
Is this the price of trust, or loyalty? Not at all.
Because in the end the biggest winner is a deceitful, tell-tale, distrustful, unsympathetic, cowardly Jew.
He was saved by his own bad habits. He was saved by his most despised morality.
Is this a moral subversion? Tarantino just wanted to laugh at the moral unconscious with a clown victory, I think.
He doesn't give Tim.Roth's undercover too much negative elements, he just wants to use an absurd structure to laugh at absurd social norms.
Quentin in 1992 gave people the answer. And Quentin in Pulp Fiction returns to the theme of love.
Is this the nirvana of thought?
In any case, the inheritance of violent aesthetics should indeed bear more responsibility for subversion.
View more about Reservoir Dogs reviews
