Jackie Brown

Where does a director go after making two colossal worldwide hits?

"Reservoir Dogs" (1992) and "Pulp Fiction" (1994) were two of the greatest movies ever made, and they launched director Quentin Tarantino into the realm of Mainstream Hollywood Director. Most of the time, a director faced with this reality will sink into a slew of really bad movies, but so far Tarantino has been either extremely lucky or extremely talented - his third feature film, although lacking in the brutality of its predecessors, contains just as much wit. Based upon the Elmore Leonard novel "Rum Punch," it's packed with the clever dialogue that Leonard is known for in his writing. It's also got a good amount of style, too. It's not a typical Tarantino movie, but is that necessarily a bad thing? In this particular instance, no.

Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) is a flight stewardess forced into running jobs for Ordell (Samuel L. Jackson), a ruthless criminal who has no respect for life - or death, for that matter. However, during one of her smuggling efforts, a couple of FBI Agents (including Michael Keaton) nab her and offer her a deal: If she helps them get Ordell, she will be let free from custody. The Feds do not know who Ordell is, but they know he exists, and that is where Jackie comes in. She reluctantly agrees to participate in their sting operation, but all is not what it seems. And when $500,000 dollars disappears from his retirement fund, Ordell stops, thinks, and arrives upon the conclusion that we all anticipate with glee: Jackie Brown did it.

His partner in crime, Louis (the wonderful Robert De Niro), also decides to double-cross Ordell, with the help of a sexy blonde ditz named Melanie (Bridget Fonda), The movie's twisting plot line and intersecting story lines is very reminiscent of "Pulp Fiction," and De Niro's underrated performance is a real stand-out. The movie's quite well made and enjoyable.

Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. This is no "Reservoir Dogs," nor does it want to be. It's not in the same vein as Tarantino's other movies, at least not at a superficial level. However, it is extremely entertaining, helped along by a great cast and a terrific script. The only difference here is that Tarantino did not come up with everything by himself. He adapted the screenplay from another source, something he usually doesn't do. But there's also a little-known fact that Roger Avary co-wrote some of "Dogs" and "Fiction" with Tarantino, as well as sparked the idea for some of his films. Here, Quentin adapts Leonard's novel and does justice. People who say it isn't as good as his other movies because it's recycled obviously don't know what they're talking about.

Tarantino started out as a video store clerk, and is the movie buff's filmmaker. Not only does Tarantino share a deep passion for films, but he also knows what most of the real movie enthusiasts want. He has yet to disappoint me with any of his directorial efforts. His own life story would make an interesting movie, and indeed it did with "True Romance," partially based on Tarantino's own self-image of himself. (A geek working at a comic book store falls in love and goes off of an adventure into a new realm -- in Tarantino's own case, it was film-making. For Clarence, from "True Romance," it was drugs and murder.)

Tarantino has a flair for raw energy in all of his films, and "Jackie Brown" is no exception. The movie is bursting at its edges, packed with wild antics and the occasional fierce brutality. The movie was criticized by Tarantino's die-hard fans for being too different from his other films. However, the mistake of many directors is to repeat the same formulas over and over again. One must at least give Tarantino credit for trying new things in each of his films. If anything, the only thing that Tarantino likes to insert into all his films is a large source of energy. And is that a bad thing?

4.5/5 stars.

Many people were disappointed with 'Jackie Brown' when it was first released as it didn't live up to their expectations created by the more flamboyant 'Reservoir Dogs' and 'Pulp Fiction'. I admit that I was one of those disappointed fans. But as the years have gone by I have come to appreciate this movie more and more, and if you deal with what it IS and not what you thought it was going to be, you'll see that it is an underrated gem of a movie. 'Jackie Brown' is much more character driven and leisurely plotted than Tarantino's previous two movies. I haven't read the Elmore Leonard novel on which it was based so I can't tell whether this was a conscious decision by Tarantino himself, or it's because of the source material, but it might be a stumbling block for those with MTV-style attention spans. 1970s crime movie buffs will find it much easier going. The big names in the cast like De Niro, Jackson and Fonda are all very good, but the real standout performances in this movie are by 70s blaxploitation icon Pam Grier ('Coffy', 'Foxy Brown', 'Black Mama White Mama',etc.etc.) and a revelatory one from Robert Forster. Forster back in the day showed plenty of promise in movies like 'Medium Cool' but quickly found himself stuck in b-grade exploitation movies like 'Vigilante' and 'Alligator'. Fun stuff, but hardly Oscar material. Max Cherry is the best role he has ever been given, and he is superb in it. The fascinating thing about 'Jackie Brown' for me is that Tarantino's critics accuse him of making shallow and violent self-consciously hip crime films, but the central story of this movie concerns an inter-racial Middle Aged romance, something I haven't seen done in a believable or realistic fashion by Hollywood before. By doing this so well Tarantino shows he has much more depth, and is a much more interesting and braver film maker than his more acclaimed contemporaries. 'Jackie Brown' is a fine movie that hopefully one day will get the kudos it deserves. Don't overlook this one just because it isn't 'Pulp Fiction The Next Generation'!

Out of all the films in Tarantino's career as director, JACKIE BROWN is the one people are least likely to have seen. This may be because it's the director's most subtle and relaxed movie, and also the only one in which the material he directs isn't his own; instead this is an adaptation of an Elmore Leonard novel. This doesn't mean it's at all bad, and in actual fact it's entertaining to watch Tarantino try something different for a change.

Of course, his trademarks are still apparent for the fans. The dialogue is as zippy and frenetic as ever, and the characters the usual bunch of double-crossing low-lifes you'd expect to see in RESERVOIR DOGS and PULP FICTION. There's a huge set-piece late on in which takes place in a shopping mall that manages to be just as entertaining as the chop-em-up showdown of KILL BILL: VOLUME 1 even if the on-screen events are more laid back.

As with every other Tarantino movie I've seen (all of 'em, with the exception of DEATH PROOF), the cast is remarkable for its breadth and daring. Once again, Tarantino isn't afraid to pick forgotten or non A-list types as central characters. When he incorporates A-listers, like De Niro here, he does an about turn and casts them against type. It pays off. De Niro is hilarious as a no-good hoodlum and seems to be loving the chance to play something other than a slick mob boss.

Elsewhere, we get cult favourite Robert Forster (ALLIGATOR) who gives what I think is his best ever performance; Michael Keaton, playing a pretty weird/wired cop; Bridget Fonda as a stoner; Chris Tucker, not annoying for once; Samuel L. Jackson as a cold-blooded, almost reptilian character and, of course, Pam Grier. While I appreciate Grier's iconic status - I've seen a fair few of the '70s flicks that made her famous - I don't think she's quite the actress that Tarantino hoped for when casting her, but she's adequate at least. Add in a Sid Haig cameo and there you have it: a typically offbeat, original and enjoyable Tarantino outing with a cast to die for.

Although different than some of Tarantino's more violent precursors, such as "Reservoir Dogs", "Pulp Fiction" and "True Romance" this is an excellent film. Where it lacks in violence however, the film makes up for in language earning it an "R" rating in the US. In certain scenes, I thought it Tarantino went to far with the explicit language and it seemed awkward and artificial, but that does not cast a shadow of over what I thought was an otherwise fantastic film. The editing and directing is excellent. There is good character development of the main characters, yet there is not one scene where the movie drags throughout its entire 150 minutes. I couldn't tear myself away from this movie until the very end.

Especially enjoyable is the performance by Robert Forster whose character I thought was outstanding. Max Cherry, played by Forster, is a tempered bail bondsman who cautiously handles his unscrupulous clients. One day he is approached by Ordell Robbie, played by Samuel L. Jackson, to post a bond for Jackie Brown, a middle aged flight attendant for a low cost airline who gets caught smuggling Ordell's fortune in Mexico into the US. The initial meeting between Jackie and Max sets up a relationship between these two characters on both professional and personal level and that changes Max from a methodical and business man to almost an innocent young boy with a crush. The last scene in the movie between these two characters is absolutely brilliant.

I highly recommend this film and it's fun to watch Tarantino mature as a director. The little extras littered throughout the film such as "Chick with Guns", the fabulous locations such as the Cockatoo Inn, and the excellent characters make this film well worth a view.

Coming as it did after critical darlings "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction", it's perhaps not surprising that Quentin Tarantino's next film failed to - at the time - scale those giddy heights. Yet on reflection these days, when viewing Tarantino's career over twenty years later, it's one of his tightest works.

Working from master pulper Elmore Leonard's novel "Rum Punch", Tarantino had a concrete base from which to build on, which he does with aplomb. Cleaving close to the spirit of Leonard, "Jackie Brown" is rich with glorious chatter, each conversation either pings with a biting hard ass edge, or alternatively deconstructing the vagaries of the human condition.

Oh for sure this is a talky pic, but nothing is ever twee or pointless, for it's a film that pays rich rewards to those prepared to fully grasp the characters on show, to be aware that all is building towards the final third. It's then here where the story brings about its stings, with a complex operation cloaked in double crosses and evasive captures, of violence and more...

There's a wonderful portion of the story that sees Tarantino play the same sequence out from different character perspectives, but this is not self indulgency. Tarantino reins himself in, not letting stylisations detract from the characters we are so heavily involved with. His other triumph is bringing Pam Grier and Robert Forster to the fore, who both deliver terrific performances. It's through these pair, with their deft characterisations, where Jackie Brown is most poignant and purposeful.

Is it a case of "Jackie Brown" being undervalued in Tarantino's armoury? Perhaps it is? For it's ageless, holding up as a piece of intelligent work of note, and well worth revisiting by anyone who hasn't seen it since it was first released. 9/10