reina4788673

Reviews:

Foxy Jackie Brown
“Jackie Brown” was widely received as a disappointing follow-up to Quentin Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction,” but I think it’s actually a better movie, if less obviously so. It’s hard not to be blown away by “Fiction” because of it’s sheer audacity; “Jackie Brown” is a quieter film that shows Tarantino has the potential to become a mature and sophisticated director.

It’s somewhat ironic that Tarantino, associated with the young hipster audience, made this film, because at the basic level “Jackie Brown” is about getting old. All of Jackie’s motivations spring from the fact that starting over will soon become impossible for her. That the options available to a a middle-aged, lower income level, black woman in modern America are severely limited. Tarantino shows an amazing prowess for getting into the head of this woman. His sensitive direction coupled with Pam Grier’s top-notch performance combine to make Jackie one of the most compelling and honest female characters to hit the movie screen in recent years.

The rest of the cast is uniformly excellent too. Robert Forster stands out as bail bondsman Max Cherry, who becomes Jackie’s partner in crime, as it were. Samuel L. Jackson does well with the kind of part he seems born to play, but his character is not as interesting as the others and so makes less of an impression. Bridget Fonda is a scene stealer as a California beach bunny, and the contrast between her and Pam Grier is used quite effectively.

It’s interesting to note that in the book this movie was based on, “Rum Punch” by Elmore Leonard, Jackie was white. Changing the race of the title character to black adds a whole other dimension to the film that the book lacks. This is one case where the movie greatly improves on its source material.

“Jackie Brown” will take some commitment on behalf of the viewer. It’s leisurely paced and more reliant on character study than Tarantino’s other films, but these aren’t detriments. They merely illustrate that Tarantino has some range as a director, and I hope he continues to explore that range.

A ‘Long Time Woman’ gets her due
I waited a long time to see “Jackie Brown”, because I heard it wasn’t any good, and I didn’t want to tarnish the memory of “Reservoir Dogs” or “Pulp Fiction”. Both those films were kinetic, profane, daring, and truly visceral experiences. I loved every minute of them. “Jackie Brown” is a horse of a different colour, however. It is low-key, thoughtful, tender, and assured. And, I must say, just as good.

One of the main criticisms leveled against it, that I’ve heard, is that it’s too long and too slow. Well, compared to “Pulp Fiction”, which is about the same length, of course you’d think it was too slow. But that’s the way this story needs to be told, for one simple reason. “Pulp Fiction” was about young, experienced criminals, always on the go, always in control. They could afford to move quickly. “Jackie Brown”s criminals are a touch older. Jackie Brown and Bail Bondsman Max Cherry even have a conversation about what it means for men to get older (they lose their hair) verses what it means for women to get holder (their behinds get bigger). It’s actually kind of a touching, and very odd, moment to have in the middle of what should be a zippy little heist flick.

Another way it differs from “Pulp” or “Dogs” (which would lead people to believe that it’s sluggish) is the lack of gunplay. Tarantino’s earlier films were defined by the style and abundance of their shootouts. “Jackie Brown” has only six gunshots. And all are essentially off-camera, or off in the distance, producing little or no blood. Now I’m not offended by violence in movies. Not at all. But it is kind of refreshing to see a director, especially one who’s made his name off it, not rely on the showy exploitation of shooting someone. When he does show it, however, the torment and suffering and guilt of the shooter is always apparent.

Which brings me to the most intriguing thing about this movie. Tarantino, who the rap on in recent years has been that he’s tormented by his early success and hasn’t the confidence to make his next picture, actually shows a very assured hand in making this movie. Besides the above conversation between two aging characters, there are other places where he shows supreme confidence in his decisions. For instance, he’s cast Robert DeNiro in his movie. Okay, a no-brainer, right? Wrong. Because he’s cast DeNiro in a tiny, stoical role. Simultaneously, he’s cast Robert Forster (I know he got an Oscar nod, but before that wasn’t everyone asking “Robert who?”) in a role that’s very meaty, the tortured love-interest. A less-assured director would have switched the two actors, but Tarantino knows what he wants, and boy does he get it. DeNiro doesn’t do more than he has to in creating his understated character. And Forster steals the show with his laid-back, relaxed, but always conflicted Bail Bondsman.

And Forster’s scenes with Jackie Brown are touching, chemistry-filled, and a joy to watch. Credit in this case should go to Pam Grier, as Jackie Brown, another Tarantino casting coup. Grier is asked to be maturely sexy, street-smart, tough, and vulnerable all at once. And she pulls it off without flaw. I suspect that Tarantino has fantasized most of his life about casting Pam Grier in a movie, and would have done so even if the role didn’t suit her so. But it does. It truly does. She carries the picture as not only the title character but also its emotional centre.

The rest of the cast is good in their own rights. Sam Jackson was born to speak Tarantino’s dialogue, and doesn’t disappoint. He makes Ordell a genuine badass, even through his ponytail and silly little beard (and Jackson, bless his heart, even throws in a nod to my home town basketball team, the Toronto Raptors). Bridget Fonda is actually quite sexy as a layabout surfer chick, whose big mouth is bound to get her into trouble. And Michael Keaton, who I’ve always thought of as a very underrated and interesting actor, plays his ATF agent with just enough faux-cool and indifference that you’re always wondering if he’s playing Jackie or if Jackie’s playing him.

While talking about character, I’d like to give kudos to Quentin for a neat little-shorthand trick he uses to define them. Each character essentially has his/her own soundtrack. A scene near the end, which cuts between several different characters driving in their cars, shows this very well. Cut from Melanie’s (Bridget Fonda) van, where faux-eighties punk is blaring, to Max Cherry’s (Robert Forster) car, which features the laid back grooves of the Delfonics, to other characters and their distinctive musical tastes. The music shifts so suddenly sometimes that it can be jarring, but it’s an effective technique. Furthermore on the music front, Tarantino liberally uses the Meters’ “Cissy Strut” near the beginning of the film, which quickly brought a smile to my face, and let me know that funky good times were ahead.

“Jackie Brown” is a fine addition to Tarantino’s oeuvre. Sure, his fingerprints are all over it in some cases, such as his distinctive use of language, and his fondness for shifting time back and forth upon itself to show the same scene from several different perspectives. But it’s much more of a grown up movie. True, it’s a tad too long. But just a tad. I can take excessive verbosity from Tarantino easier than I can from any other writer/director, because he’s always fascinating, always moving, always trying to surprise, and always trying to tell a good story. “Jackie Brown” succeeds on all counts.

Dynamite Cast + Good Fun = Excellent Film
First off: “Jackie Brown” is not a disappointment. After the surprise success of Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction” in 1994, everyone was looking for him to fail on his next attempt. Sorry, friends, but this just isn’t the case. In many ways, “Jackie Brown” is a more enjoyable ride. After repeated viewings of “Pulp Fiction” and “Reservoir Dogs,” one can easily pinpoint the weaknesses in Tarantino’s style. He uses similar references to ’70s action and blaxploitation films, he uses relic music hits from the same era, and he even uses similar character names (Marvin with no ear, meet Marvin with no head). The violence is always there, and the incessant use of profanity is always there. But “Jackie Brown” is different from these previous efforts. There’s no appearances by either Harvey Keitel or Tim Roth; instead, the film is headlined by the queen of the ’70s blaxploitation flicks, the eternally sexy Pam Grier. The supporting cast includes Robert Forster, a staple of cheesy B-movies, Samuel L. Jackson in a return to the world of Tarantino, and the very interesting threesome of Michael Keaton, Bridget Fonda, and the ever-versatile De Niro to round out the cast. So what, besides the cast, makes the film such a knockout? While the profanity level has been toned down, Tarantino’s script loses no edge and maintains a constant freshness and sense of humor. Grier has never been much of an actress, but she’s always had a certain charm, and she uses this charm effectively in “Jackie Brown.” Forster gives his most memorable performance here, playing the role of Max Cherry with complete control and positive cool. Fonda is great as Melanie, and Keaton has a blast playing ATF agent Ray Nicolet, but De Niro steals the show as Louis Gara. De Niro has one of his better supporting roles here, and he makes the most of it. Louis is something of a dimwit, but only De Niro could inject the character with as much humor as he has here. The film, at 154m, is probably too long and overindulgent, but Tarantino presents us with an interesting plot, and some equally interesting subplots to boot. The most effective of these is the relationship that builds between Grier and Forster; there is an attraction there, but the insecurities of each character prevents this from ever reaching a climax. The film is colorful, has solid (but not brilliant) direction, and, aside from some serious lapses in logic, the script flows seamlessly. And guess what? There’s no guest appearance by the man himself, who must have realized after “From Dusk Till Dawn” that, while he may be a writer and a director, and actor he is not. “Jackie Brown” reveals the limitations of Quentin Tarantino, but the film is still a riot, and one of the most entertaining of 1997. That’s more than I can say for James Cameron’s “Titanic,” which fails on all levels for me, despite what the critics say. “Jackie Brown” delivers a knockout punch. It’s great to see that some Elmore Leonard novels are finally getting the big-screen treatments that they deserve.

Compare & Purchase Jackie Brown Two-Disc Collector’s Edition by clicking here!

Amazon.com essential video
The curiosity of Quentin Tarantino’s Jackie Brown is Robert Forster’s worldly wise bail bondsman Max Cherry, the most alive character in this adaptation of Elmore Leonard’s Rum Punch. The Academy Awards saw it the same way, giving Forster the film’s only nomination. The film is more “rum” than “punch” and will certainly disappoint those who are looking for Tarantino’s trademark style. This movie is a slow, decaffeinated story of six characters glued to a half million dollars brought illegally into the country. The money belongs to Ordell (Samuel L. Jackson), a gunrunner just bright enough to control his universe and do his own dirty work. His just-paroled friend–a loose term with Ordell–Louis (Robert De Niro) is just taking up space and could be interested in the money. However, his loyalties are in question between his old partner and Ordell’s doped-up girl (Bridget Fonda). Certainly Fed Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) wants to arrest Ordell with the illegal money. The key is the title character, a late-40s-ish flight attendant (Pam Grier) who can pull her own weight and soon has both sides believing she’s working for them. The end result is rarely in doubt, and what is left is two hours of Tarantino’s expert dialogue as he moves his characters around town.

Tarantino changed the race of Jackie and Ordell, a move that means little except that it allows Tarantino to heap on black culture and language, something he has a gift and passion for. He said this film is for an older audience although the language and drug use may put them off. The film is not a salute to Grier’s blaxploitation films beyond the musical score. Unexpectedly the most fascinating scenes are between Grier and Forster: two neo-stars glowing in the limelight of their first major Hollywood film after decades of work. –Doug Thomas

DVD Features
The documentary Jackie Brown: How It Went Down is basically a vacuous cast-and-crew lovefest, but their enthusiasm is genuine, and the other bonus features are consistently worthwhile. A 54-minute interview with Quentin Tarantino seems excessive until you fully appreciate the writer-director’s passionate devotion to movies and movie knowledge; film students are advised to listen attentively. The gem of the bunch, however, is the complete “Chicks with Guns” infomercial that’s partially seen in Jackie Brown; it’s like the NRA meets the Snap-on tools calendar girls! For those seeking pop-cultural perspective, trailers for films starring Robert Forster and Pam Grier demonstrate the rigors of survival in Hollywood, making their Jackie Brown comebacks even more gratifying. At least one deleted scene is a classic, as Grier cracks up Michael Keaton with an improvised zinger. Digging deeper, there’s a well-chosen archive of reviews and articles, and DVD-ROM features allowing movie playback with informative text and trivia or side by side with the complete screenplay. –Jeff Shannon

Jackie Brown Two-Disc Collector’s Edition Description:

• Amazon Sales Rank: #2306 in DVD
• Released on: 2002-08-20
• Rating: R (Restricted)
• Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
• Formats: Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Collector’s Edition, Color, Dolby, Dubbed, DVD, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC
• Original language: English
• Subtitled in: Spanish
• Dubbed in: French
• Number of discs: 2
• Running time: 154 minutes

Features

• ISBN13: 9780788830532
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.

Stream Jackie Brown Two-Disc Collector’s Edition Online