Jackie Brown. La estafa

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.

Jackie Brown is considered by many (myself included) to be one of Quentin Tarantino's best films and also one of his most under-appreciated. There's love for it but it isn't met with the same reverence as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, or the same enthusiasm as his genre homages that followed. But it should be more widely praised as it's an exceptional movie. The direction is wonderful, the soundtrack is fun, and the script is full of memorable dialogue, as you would expect from Tarantino. The cast is terrific, led by '70s legend Pam Grier in her "comeback" role and Robert Forster in an understated performance that deservedly earned him an Oscar nomination. Every scene with Grier and Forster, separately or together, is a treat. As fun as Sam Jackson is, these two are what hold the film together and make it so enjoyable to watch over and over. For his part, Jackson does what you expect him to do. He's foul-mouthed and funny but still very menacing when he needs to be. Robert DeNiro and Bridget Fonda both offer amusing support. Chris Tucker has a brief but funny appearance. The movie has a lot of humor. That's one of the main things that makes it so enjoyable to watch over and over. It's a great film that probably holds more appeal to non-Tarantino fans than most of his movies do.

Being a huge fan of Tarantinos earlier efforts Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction expectations were of course high. Especially since Jackie Brown is based on the Elmore Leonard novel "Rum Punch". And Elmore Leonards stories usually fit the big screen very well, they are actually one of the rare occasions where i usually prefer the film to the novel.

Tarantino sets a different mood here compared to the more frantic and violent Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. This is more of a slow crime story that focuses more on being cool than being shocking. I think this movie works very well despite the slow pace which seems to put a lot of people off. Mainly i think it works because the actors are all giving it their best (the casting is also excellent) while Tarantino seems to handle the whole story more gently than in Pulp Fiction. He doesn't stress it, he doesn't run the risk of over-doing the "cool" parts. The end result is enjoyable but a lot more somber than what you're used to from Tarantino.

All in all i feel this movie is underrated. It's enjoyable, well made and stylish. Recommended to those not demanding all movies to head on at breakneck speed. I rate it 7/10.

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'!