Jackie Brown

Quentin Tarantino takes on Elmore Leonard? At first look not such a good idea but coming to "Jackie Brown" several years after its more or less lukewarm initial reception (released after so-called masterpiece "Reservoir Dogs" and the inventive and infectious "Pulp Fiction", "Jackie Brown" was seen as something of a disappointment) and being able to assess it without putting in context of Tarantino's filmography, "Jackie Brown" is surprising.

It is, without question, Tarantino's most mature and complete work to date as a director. Mature in the sense that Tarantino here is not preoccupied with 'homages', references, style (not too much, at least), or indulging himself in his fantasies. Tarantino, for once, is primarily a storyteller, and the approach works stunningly well. "Jackie Brown" is a fantastically entertaining crime thriller that not only does justice to Leonard's source material, but in some senses improves on it (admittedly, the novel this is based on is hardly his best work). The cast is a dream for this sort of movie, and contains what is as of 2008 Robert De Niro's last truly memorable performance, the music fits perfectly, the atmosphere created is the sort you can lose yourself in for the running time of the film (which feels significantly shorter than it is), and the screenplay, with its witty exchanges, striking characters, and plentiful plot twists, keeps the viewer more than entertained. This is a truly engaging film.

Tarantino movies do it for me. I don't think he's one of the greatest directors of all time or anything, but he is a talented director with the capacity to make tremendously entertaining films. While many would prefer him to do films like "Kill Bill" I think "Jackie Brown" is a far better representation of his talent. He's certainly not completely out of his element here, there's plenty of 70's retro cool in this film, but thankfully it is contained and kept from going overboard.

Expect another "Pulp Fiction" and disappointment is an understandable reaction, but if you go into this with an open mind and expect nothing in particular you might just find that "Jackie Brown" is not only Tarantino's best but one of the most entertaining films of the 90's.

9.5/10

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 a 44 year old air hostess who also acts as a money carrier for her boss, gun dealer Ordell Robbie. When one of Ordell's other employee's is caught he is forced to kill him, however, before he can get to him the employee tells the police about Jackie and they pick her up. With Jackie facing jail or being killed by Ordell she strikes a deal with both the police and him to bring in a large stash of money. However to help her retirement she plans to play the game to her own ends.

Coming as a follow up to both Dogs and Pulp, this film was going to be the `greatest movie ever made' or it was going to be met with a critical response that seems to be a bit negative. It was the hype and hyperbole around anything baring the name Tarantino that perhaps was giving every film he did higher and higher standards to meet, it is wasn't Jackie Brown that was met in this way it would have been the next film, or the next one. However the reviews were mostly good, but it did get some unfair reviews from critics who expected this to continue the upward trend. In a way I believe that this film did show Tarantino's growth as a director.

Where Pulp Fiction was dizzying in it's style and pace, Jackie Brown is much more of a mature, balanced film that is satisfying in a more traditional sense that the design of Pulp. Developed from a Leonard novel, the plot is a solid crime thriller with a good plot that still gives room for Tarantino to do some time shifting as he reveals some key scenes from different perspectives to allow us to see the bigger picture. As a story it fills the rather generous running time pretty well and is enjoyable throughout.

The film is still full of Tarantinoisms for the fans - the heavy soundtrack, the pop culture references, the witty, slick dialogue. However where the film stands out is that the characters are actually better than in his previous films where they never really went beyond the story and dialogue. Here not only are they better but they also include well-written female parts! While some of the characters are as good as they need to be within the confines of the basic crime story, it is in Jackie and Max where Tarantino has grown up a bit - although in fairness this was an adaptation rather than his own script, but he still manages them better than some of his own thin characters.

Following the praise for Pulp and Tarantino's ability to rejuvenate careers, he must have had no problem cherry picking for this role. Grier gives a great performance and should be grateful for the role in an industry that generally ignores middle-aged women (not to mention black women!). The only thing surprising about her is how poorly she has taken this big lead role and used it to take her career on. Her performance embraces her age and uses it well, but it is Forster who gives the standout performance here. Not an actor many will be aware of apart from this film, he got an Oscar nomination for this and I think he deserved it. His performance is very low-key and quite moving - I think I will appreciate his work here more as I get older. Jackson does what is expected of him and has no real character, but his energy and skill are there to see. De Niro plays a little against type and is an interesting, but underused character. Fonda is really, really sexy and has some good lines while the rest of the cast do good work in small roles with people like Keaton, Tucker and Bowen in there.

Overall I enjoy this film and can understand why it will never be loved to the extent that Pulp was and is. However to me this is a more satisfying film with an enjoyable plot and a more traditional delivery. The development of actual good characters beyond snappy dialogue is what impressed me the most and it sadden me to see him regress about a decade into style without substance with Kill Bill Vol. One.

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.

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.