"Rolling Stone" review of "Reservoir Dogs" (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

In the new issues (with the Vines on the cover), Peter Travers reviews the Reservoir Dogs DVD. Bizarrely, his only comment about the new transfer states that it offers "colors that pop like a whore's lip gloss". Anybody else think he came up with that line BEFORE he watched the DVD and didn't bother to change it? Hey, I generally LIKED the transfer, but even I can't state that it displayed rich and vivid colors.

I think it's tacky for him to review this DVD at all since he participated in the extras. He mentions this in the review, but it still smacks of a conflict of interest...

 

[Dave F]

I've seen him use that phrase before. He probably didn't watch it & just decided to cut-n-paste. What a hack.

-Dave

 

[GuruAskew]

The fact that he's featured on the disc probably had something to do with his review.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Travers is actually a respected critic. Would Ebert's significant presence on Warner's Citizen Kane disc disqualify him from saying nice things about it in the Sun-Times or on his show?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Something tells me he never watched this DVD.

 

[Skoobooz]

A DIRECT QUOTE from the back of the Mulholland Drive DVD:
"'There's nothing like this baby anywhere! This sinful pleasure is a fresh triumph for Lynch, and one of the best films of the year. Visionary daring, swooning eroticism and colors that pop like a whore's lip gloss! ' says Rolling Stone's Peter Travers.
Wow. He must have run out of descriptive adjectives.

 

[Scott Simonian]

This reminds me of an old thread parodying WSR magazines "limited vocabulary".

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Travers is actually a respected critic. Would Ebert's significant presence on Warner's Citizen Kane disc disqualify him from saying nice things about it in the Sun-Times or on his show?

If I actually believed that Travers WATCHED the Dogs DVD, I'd probably not care. The extras for it are excellent, so I can't accuse him of faking passion for them. However, when someone refers to that DVD's dull hues as looking so vivid, it seems clear that he didn't watch it and he's just acting as a shill. As I noted, even the DVD's defenders don't claim it offers vibrant hues.

It also seems suspicious that he discusses Dogs but fails to mention the other two QT DVDs from August. I just think the whole thing seems very suspicious...

 

[Piers C]

Perhaps this has become Travers' signature phrase?

 

[Sebastian_A]

Or perhaps Mr. Travers is just one not-to-be-taken-serious reviewer of a not-to-be-taken-serious-anymore magazine???

 

[Randy A Salas]

Or perhaps Mr. Travers is just one not-to-be-taken-serious reviewer of a not-to-be-taken-serious-anymore magazine???

That's where my vote lies. I think it was entirely fitting that the commentary track with the three film critics on Reservoir Dogs accompanies the pan-and-scan presentation of the movie: Both are absolutely worthless.

 

[Josh Lowe]

Sounds like he knows more about picking up hookers than he does reviewing movies. Perhaps he should do us all a favor and switch careers.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Yo that's hysterical! I mean, who intentionally uses the phrase "Whore's Lip Gloss" in print twice in a 12-month period? (Answer? No one.) I'm a penny-ante critic, and MY editors would call me on it were I that lazily redundant.

I don't like to say nasty things about critics, because it may seem like sour grapes coming from a measly 'freelancer'...but I think this thread has effectively offered some accurate insights into the work of Peter Travers.

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

Read a number of his reviews and note the amount of oral sex references. I'm not kidding. It's like the guy has a fixation.

I haven't gotten the disc yet (based on the reviews of the transfer, I'm wishing I hadn't sold my old DVD), but didn't know that the critic's commentary is only on the P&S version of the film.