Seven-6

I am an aspiring film student, so I can appreciate fully what the filmmakers had to go through in order to make this film.

Raimi does have an arresting visual style. Using the camera as the evil force was a relative new thing I would imagine in the early eighties when this came out. The beginning of this film is, I think, the only time where you see the evil force skimming across the landscape like a phantom. The story could have been better, as the plot had been used by so many bad horror films before it. The one thing this film had was a great moody forboding to it. The low budget forced Raimi into using the camera to scare people most of the time. This same low budget also gave Raimi the "freedom" to do lots of quirky things with the camera, such as when Ash comes out of the cellar towards the end and the camera not only shows the view from straight above, but also shows a view from below. Another good example is when Bruce is looking down in the basement nearer to the beginning and the camera, instead of looking down at what they are seeing, looks up at them from the attic. What this does is not only give the viewer something to continuously occupy their minds, but also serves to point out to the mind of the viewer the fact that the evil (the house) was all around Ash. I loved the way Raimi just seemed to want to play with the camera for effect. I do not think many filmmakers seem to want to just play with the camera and the point of view. There were few drawn out shots, which makes for a better paced film.

What the story lacked in depth Raimi made up for not just in camera style, but also in his ability to know that the audience needed for this film. This is a very kinetic film, a lot of movement. Some for no other reason than to show a different view of the surroundings. In the end, I think Raimi and Campbell are the two biggest reasons to view this movie.

The ending is also very good.

This is a really good film, let me just start that way. I think that, for everyone who liked Pulp Fiction's story telling and the way the film went about it, without a three-act screenplay, then this is the film you will enjoy. I agree with the one other person who I read, this film does not have any of the flash of Pulp Fiction. It does not have the flashy, catchy soundtrack that Pulp Fiction had, nor does it have the great lighting that made me think the sets were a little hot.

What Jackie Brown does have, though, is some very good dialogue. Not surprising considering this WAS a Elmore Leonard book with Tarantino doing the scripting. Both men have quite a talent for what they do. It is also clear, I think someone already brought this up, that Tarantino loves what he does, sometimes a little too much. Some of the shots could have been either edited out or trimmed a little, but, hey, some people might like it this way. I would have edited out some things, though.

Watch the movie, though, and get out of it what YOU can.

This a good movie and one which has gone down as just that.

The story is not particularly original and there were times which I could guess what would happen next, but the acting job more than made up for that in my book. I could never get Jeff's performance in the Vanishing out of my head until this movie. He did a great job in this one. Beau was also very good.

The one person who I must make a special note of is, or course, Ms. Pfeiffer. She simply blew me away. The piano scene is near legendary now. She is a VERY talented actress and I am glad she is getting everything she deserves now. She is sexy and talented, two traits which do not often go together. I love her and watch most movies she is in because she is talented and immense fun to watch onscreen.

I think I am biased, though, but, hey, everyone needs some actress/actor that they love to watch.