The title works but mainly gets its shine from being the sequel to the much applaused 1992 hit. What I think would improve it somewhat would be a sub-title: Reservoir Dogs 2, Dog Day – or something similar. But overall the title doesn’t need changing.

Firstly, this is way too long for logline standards. Second, what you have here is not a logline, but a very condensed version of a synopsis. Bear in mind that the job of the logline is to hook and entice, not DESCRIBE the entire movie in a mired way. Keep it short and keep it simple. Anything over 1-3 lines is too much.

A synopsis is the simple and linear retelling of your story with an emphasis on the plot points that drive it forward. Presently, you do not have a synopsis, but rather a string of teasing paragraphs describing character that it not linearly following the plot of the story. Which inexorably leads to a bogged down reading and ultimately a poor synopsis. I suggest you rewrite this.

Plot-wise the story works. The three acts are present and do their jobs right. However, the major issue I have with plot is how much it tries to emulate the original Reservoir Dogs, or any of Tarantino’s movies for that matter.

There is a constant coming and going in this movie where no one knows anything enough, but they all know enough to know that, that is at best confusing for the audience. The non-linear approach is also another Tarantino feature that not anyone can master.

Still, ignoring the fact this is too much like Reservoir Dogs, the overall story and plot points work. Why you felt you had to write a sequel to an established movie (especially after 17 years) is beyond me. When you could have simply renamed your characters and give it another title and voila: you have your own story.

And this is what I strongly suggest you do: given the story and plot its points, you DO NOT need to make this a sequel, but rather a stand alone story. It’s good enough to stand on its own, it doesn’t need Reservoir Dogs to do that. Just change the title and the names of the characters and also take out elements that make it similar.

There are two things to be said about your dialogue: 1) on its own it’s good and works; it’s smart and sarcastic and even funny at times; however 2) because your title is Reservoir Dogs 2 and because Tarantino is a dialogue master, you really can’t stand up to that.

So even though you can stand alone when it comes to dialogue, you just cannot pull a Tarantino (so to speak). But rest assured, neither could he back in the day. It takes a lot of practice, hard work and tons of rewriting to get to his (or anyone in Hollywood) level.

In conclusion: good dialogue on its own, but not so good when compared to its predecessor.

Much like the title, the characters too get their shine from the 1992 movie. They are not original (since they are being re-used) and they have no new dimension (as characters appearing in a sequel should). In other words, without adding anything new to the characters, who were once decently complex, you end up serving us a dish of cold and one-dimensional characters that are overall linear and unappealing.

All the sons in the movie are reflections of their fathers, and they even act accordingly. Some names also sound a little off: Holdaway? This is the name of a character who takes some diamond and holds them away. Not just is this too on the nose, but it fringes of being insulting to the audience.

Never patronize your audience and never take their intelligence for granted, especially for this genre which is usually appealing to people with a higher level of intelligence.

That said, getting back to characters, they are the same old guys we’ve seen in 1992 with nothing much added but a lot of wrinkles and some dust on their suits.

Still, I have to give it to you: it’s not easy to re-use such characters and you manage to pull it off almost.

Budget level for such a production would be moderate and the movie would appeal to a Young Adults audience.

Well, the first piece of advice I can give to any writer is to not emulate anyone and try to pursue their own style. That said though, you do a pretty good job of Tarantino-esquing this story. However, Hollywood is not too fond when it comes to recycling good ideas. Remaking is one thing, but this is taking an established movie that can more or less be continued and, following the exact same recipe, trying to emulate its original success.

Also, you might want to consider that some of the characters you’re using have died in the original. Still, if you can somehow make that plausible, there is another issue: they’re old. They were roughly in their mid 30’s when the original hit the screens. And now, 20 years later (as you put it), they’re in their mid 50’s. Needless to say a bunch of 50 year olds running around and shooting left and right is not really action, it’s comedy.

Nitpicking: though the cutting off of the ear may be a tribute (more or less hidden), it is an exact copy of that scene and you might be considered a hack, not to mention that once you’ve been typecast a copy-cat in Hollywood, there only so much you can do to prove them wrong. So be careful with that scene.

Finally, though the story might work and the characters too (if stripped of their semblance to the original ones), Tarantino’s movie is almost made to not be continued. Had he desired to follow it up with a sequel, I’m sure he would have done it by now. For that reason I underline again: I strongly suggest you consider making this a stand alone project and not a sequel.

You have writing skill and a free imagination. There’s nothing stopping you in pursuing more original endeavors.

Good luck!