The critics track on Reservoir dogs really offers nothing over the obvious and, naturally, only reinforces the subjective nature of film criticism, whether its practiced in national film magazines or on internet forums, and leading to the big question of should critics (as opposed to historians) should be able to enshrine such thoughts for all time on little plastic discs. All three critics take the "this is my interpretation" route, which is inherently subjective (and only mildly interesting) and which speaks to a certain arrogance rarely found on the tracks provided by proper film historians on older films. Little technical information can be found on this track; just pretentious theorizing.

Plus what is up with Amy Taubin going on about how she wants to screw Eminem? This has NOTHING to do with Reservoir Dogs. Please keep your irrelevant fetishes at home Ms. Taubin.

What the fuck is the point of this commentary. They don't say anything that means anything at all. Just fucking stupid.

While you may agree or disagree with what these critics say, you cannot deny their intrigue. This trio of commentaries just prooves what Tarantino was saying in the feature-length commentary, how someone in the audience will have seen a slightly different movie than the person sitting beside them. A great film, a great piece of art, is open to interpretation. A nice supplement.

I am like many who found a commentary track consisting of interviews highly suspect. But, this edited track is no different than a Criterion commentary. Let me just say that Artisan has done a terrific job keeping the discussions scene-specific. Obviously, Tarantino is in the center ring here. His brilliance as a writer comes through about a quarter of the way into the track where he furiously defends his linear style. "I write like a novelist. Reservoir Dogs is divided into chapters. I will @#$%ing tell you when its a flashback." He also sheds some intriguing light on why eastern audiences understand the film's last couple minutes compared to western audiences. The other contributors, including many of the actors, are a real treat and offer very amusing anecdotes about the production. A great commentary track!

I really enjoyed this commentary. It's been edited well enough that the piecemeal composition of interviews and commentary from different people add to a comprehensive whole to give you a look at the film from a wide variety of angles. When I listen to a commentary of a film I like I want as much information as possible. If it's not a great picture, I at least want to entertained. The amount of pertinent information from everybody ends up being informative and more than entertaining enough. Excellent.

Commentaries like this, put together from interviews of people not watching the film, are usually the worst. But this one actually works well 80% of the time, and offers many insights. The right actors pop up at the right scenes, explaining something interesting about the process, creation, or meaning. The editor talks about why things were shot a certain way. The producer about how things came about. And Quentin explains a half dozen really important moments, that made me appreciate the film even more. Definitely worth listening to!