Jackie Brown
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/78/786936161564f.jpg)
(http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/285/fourstar.jpg)
Year: 1997
Film Studio: Miramax Films, A Band Apart, Mighty Mighty Afrodite Productions
Genre: Drama, Suspense/Thriller
Length: 154 Min.
Director
Quentin Tarantino
Writing
Elmore Leonard (1925)...Original Material By
Quentin Tarantino...Screenwriter
Producer
Bob Weinstein (1954)
Harvey Weinstein (1952)
Richard N. Gladstein
Elmore Leonard (1925)
Lawrence Bender (1957)
Cinematographer
Guillermo Navarro (1955)
Music
Stars
Pam Grier as Jackie Brown
Samuel L. Jackson (1948) as Ordell Robbie
Robert Forster as Max Cherry
Bridget Fonda (1964) as Melanie
Michael Keaton (1951) as Ray Nicolette
Robert De Niro (1943) as Louis Gara
Michael Bowen as Mark Dargus
Chris Tucker as Beaumont Livingston
Review
For those who’ve ever read my reviews, or had a film discussion with me in regards to directors, it comes as no shock that I have a well-defined disdain for the films of Quentin Tarantino. Derivative of previous director’s work and self-stroking narcissism are the cornerstones of almost all of Tarantino’s work. At one time, I would have included every film he has made in that description, but finally, I have found the one film that does not follow that innocuous formula. That film is Jackie Brown, Tarantino’s follow up to the highly successful Pulp Fiction. Unfortunately, the fans of his first two films were highly critical of this offering and the film did not do well at the box office.
What sets this film apart from the other films he’s released is that this one rarely deviates from conventional storytelling, and with its sparse amount of gratuitous violence, pretty much guaranteed that his fanbase would dismiss this film outright. But what his fanboys do not understand is that, for the first time in his career, Tarantino created something original without sampling other people’s work, re-shaping it and passing it off as his own creative subject matter. It saddens me to think of how his career would have progressed had this film been the success it should have been. Maybe we would have been spared the puerile and pedestrian films that followed this one. Maybe I’d be lauding his maturation into one of the industries auteurs, instead of deriding his immaturity and the laziness that abounds in his subsequent works.
But that’s enough of a diatribe; let’s move on to the film in question. Pam Grier stars as Jackie, a 40-ish flight stewardess who has fallen on hard times. Busted years before for smuggling cocaine for her boyfriend pilot, she now works for a small Mexican airline that barely pays her enough to make her rent. To make ends meet, she has been shuttling money for an LA gun runner named Ordell (Samuel L. Jackson) who has an accomplice in Mexico who is laundering his ill gotten gains. Things are going smoothly, until one day, Jackie is stopped by two men, one is an ATF agent and the other a cop from Los Angeles. While searching her travel bag, they come upon a substantial amount of Ordell’s money and also a small bag of cocaine. Turns out, another of Ordell’s accomplices, a punk named Beaumont (Chris Tucker) has turned in Jackie in hopes of receiving a lighter sentence on an earlier drug bust. Beaumont, in turn, has been hastily dispatched to the netherworld by Ordell, fearing Jackie’s fate would soon be imparted upon him by the police. With her past conviction, Jackie is in deep trouble. She knows Ordell killed Beaumont, and he probably has designs on eliminating her too. But Jackie has an ace in the hole, and Ordell knows it. He can’t get his hands on his $500K that’s sitting in Mexico without Jackie’s help.
Enter Max Cherry (Robert Forster), the bail bondsman who secured Beaumont’s release by writing the bond that Ordell has paid for. Now Ordell wants to transfer the bond to Jackie, so that he can eliminate her too. Max agrees to the transfer and secures Jackie’s release. After dropping her off at her apartment, he returns to his office and notices the handgun that he keeps in his glove compartment is missing. He knows Jackie took it to protect herself, surmising that Ordell has killed Beaumont and Jackie’s next on the hit list. He does nothing that night and returns to Jackie’s place the next morning to retrieve his weapon, which Jackie gladly returns to him. She invites him in for coffee, and she recounts the events of the previous evening after Max’s departure. It’s self-evident to the both of them that an attraction exists between the two and Jackie asks Max to help her get out of the mess she’s in. He agrees and the rest of the film deals with Jackie’s expertise in setting up Ordell, all the while, stringing along the ATF and police into believing that she is ready to hand over Ordell to them. With the end result being that Ordell is out of the way, permanently, and Jackie skates with his $500K.
One of the key strengths to this film, was the fact that for the first and only time in his career, Tarantino showed the ability to restrain himself from making every character in the film an extension of his narcissistic personality. For once, each person had a voice that set them apart as unique from the others, without the appearance of being a faded carbon copy of Quentin’s pseudo-hipster, street credible über-geek. Helping matters along are the dynamic performances of the principle leads in the film, Grier and Forster. There is not a hint of bullshit to their portrayals of two common, everyday persons, each desperately in need of rebirth from the malaise that has set in their souls. As good as Grier is, it’s Forster for me, who steals this movie. I know Jackie is going to find a way out her mess, but will Max betray his convictions to help her succeed? Will he, in the end, walk away with her into the sunset or is Jackie playing him the same way she’s playing Ordell and the ATF? It is his integrity throughout the film that keeps the screenplay gelling and keeps you on the edge of your seat.
In closing, as much as I really enjoyed this film, there were two small things in the film that left me wanting to be a backseat driver in regards to the story. One was the choice of a couple of songs that didn’t quite fit the atmosphere of the film. The first instance was a gangsta rap song that was used as a thematic tone during one scene. In keeping with the 70’s flair, and knowing Tarantino’s love for diverse musical offerings, I was surprised that he did not use any one of Gil Scott-Heron’s ghetto tone poems in its place. Scott-Heron was after all, the father of rap music and it would have conveyed the same feeling without sounding out of place and staying within the context of the overall film atmosphere. The second instance takes place during the final money exchange, where Tarantino uses The Crusader’s Street Life as background for the bag switch. Now, while this song stays within the time framework of music that has been used throughout the film, it doesn’t truly convey the tension of what’s taking place at that moment in the story. At this juncture, I would have opted to use The Undisputed Truth’s Smiling Faces Sometimes. The lyrics of that song would have fit nicely with the betrayals that were happening onscreen at that moment.
The other thing that I would have done differently was Ordell’s demise. All the throughout the film, Ordell has been one cold, cool and calculating MoFo. But when he gets to Max’s office, he completely goes against character and walks willingly into a trap. This did not make any sense to me. He tells Max in the car, that if Jackie isn’t alone in the office or if this is a setup, then Max is going to catch the first bullet, before Ordell is dropped. So what does he do, he enters the office using Max as a shield and asks why it’s so dark in there. He hears Jackie in the pitch black back office and instead of having Max turn on the lights, he leaves Max up front and walks calmly into the trap that Jackie has set for him
I have to give Tarantino credit for not succumbing to a Spielberg moment with the final scene in this movie. When Jackie shows up the next day, in Ordell’s car and with Ordell’s money, she offers Max the chance to accompany her to Spain. They embrace and kiss, the phone rings and Max starts talking to a mother whose son has been arrested. Jackie realizes that he’s not coming with her and she gets back in the car and drives away. Max ponders for a moment and if this were a Spielberg film, he would have dropped the phone, ran out the door, and chased Jackie as she drove down the street. She would see him in the rear-view mirror, stop, get out of the car, run to him, they’d embrace, fade to black. But keeping with the integrity of the characters and the screenplay, Tarantino keeps it real. Max hangs up the phone and does nothing. He will not sell out his ideals or gamble on a shaky romantic partnership with a two time criminal.
Review Criterion
5 Stars - The pinnacle of film perfection and excellence.
4 ½ Stars - Not quite an immortal film, yet a masterpiece in its own right.
4 Stars - Historically important film, considered a classic.
3 ½ Stars - An entertaining film that’s fun or engaging to watch.
3 Stars – A good film that’s worth a Netflix venture.
2 ½ Stars - Borderline viewable.
2 Stars – A bad film that may have a moment of interest.
1 ½ Stars – Insipid, trite and sophomoric, and that's its good points.
1 Star – A film so vacuous, it will suck 2 hours from the remainder of your life.
½ Star - A gangrenous and festering pustule in the chronicles of celluloid.
The second was it was way to Vanishing Point. I'll give credit for Tarantino for acknowledging its predecessor, but those car chase scenes were all Point.
Apart from the car, I saw no extended reference to Point. Probably because in Death Proof it was nothing more than a set-piece, while in VP it was the plot. That isn’t in anyway a critiscm of either; both work. Vanishing Point is rather profound in some ways and the scene in Death Proof is frivolous and fun.
The main reason being is films like Foxy Brown and Coffy were so much more important to their time period that it elevated to (rightful) classics. Plus, they stand the test of time and are still wonderful. That's not to say Jackie Brown won't stand the test of time, because I think it will. However, the classic Pam Grier blaxploitation flicks had a soul to them that Jackie Brown is missing IMO. (And by 'soul', I mean that in both the black way and the soul in your body sort of way. Don't worry if you don't understand this, it makes complete sense in my head. :lol: )
I know exactly what you mean, but I simply don’t agree. Jimmy will back you up no end here because that’s his genre, and I freely admit I’m obviously a mainstream whore. I like a slick production over gritty urban, so for me, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill and even Death Proof in some respects made smoother more fun and watchable versions of his inspirations. Clearly he adores that kind of filmmaking and it’s an ironic trick that he’s made it popular by picking the bones.
Specifically with Coffy and Foxy, important? Absolutely. Watchable? Hell no. Plus Grier made her mark in those films because in a way, she was having to fight for respect even while they were being made. There’s a fight scene in one, I can’t remember which, but the only point of it is to rip each others tops off. That’s dishonest bollocks and thank goodness we’ve moved on.
I won't disagree (although as much as I enjoy Reservoir Dogs, I won't call it superb), but the links certainly cannot be denied and the fact that Tarantino said he never saw it makes him not very credible.
Well I think it’s superb because of how he builds scenes. The ear slicing for one which is a great little piece of audience manipulation. I’m surprised at how much he supports Eli Roth because Tarantino has a great sense of how violence should be used.
You’re right his denials can only dent his reputation, but one thing that has always fascinated me about the movie industry is how it has to be played. Back then, I can’t blame him for not saying, “hey come look at my revolutionary movie that I lifted from someone you never heard of”. No, much better to stay relatively quiet and push Dogs as it stands. It deserved focus and still does.
To add, the names of the characters being a straight steal from Taking of Pelham is annoying as piss, too. I'm convinced that's why they didn't use those names in the remake because people would say the remake was ripping off Reservoir Dogs (as far as the names).
Sir, how dare you somehow attribute any kind of credit to that awful film! :laugh: You imply that if they could have used the names, we’d have a modern classic on our hands! Nope, still shite. Might have been better if they’d named them after the Teletubbies instead. ;)
But here is an interesting point that has to be stressed. The original Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is one of my top five films. I bloody love it. And when I heard the names in Dogs, it made me grin. I just nodded and thought “nice touch”. You heard it and started building your gallows. I find that difference in reaction interesting. I don’t think anything can be made of it, but still...
I haven’t seen The Bodyguard, but I’d have had the same reaction, honestly. I’d have just thought, how frigging cool is that? Jackson hamming up an obscure speech! Go for it! :laugh:
I’m afraid I consider much of the other comparisons as bollocks and including a Scorcese clip really dishonest. He did a marvellous documentary about American Cinema and one chapter was devoted to considering the director as a ‘Smuggler’, as it’s perfectly normal to do things like taking the case idea from Aldritch. He’s hardly likely to cry foul and someone shouldn’t presume to do it on his behalf.
There’s a case of pedantic double-standards in those videos. A hell of a lot of absolute blatant remakes never mention the fact. Or if they do, it’s only to trash the original (Pelham 1 2 3; 3:10 to Yuma). At least Tarantino clearly respects the originals to either do it quietly or actively promote the originals by going as far as employing their crew in some cases.
The Three Little Bops thing has always gone up my ass sideways. :voodoo:
Antares, that was your 1001st post. You made a correlation between three little bops and your ass for your milestone? You should be ashamed! :redcard:
:tease:
Well done. Thank you for being a big part of this forum and at least your other 1000 posts are of a much higher standard! I always enjoy your thoughts. :cheers:
The fact you reached the milestone after discovering I was right about Tarantino all along is just poetic. HA! :voodoo: :tomato: