Review of Jackie Brown (1997) by Matt P — 22 Jul 2011

"Jackie Brown," unlike so many other of Quentin Tarantino's films, is based on the novel "Rum Punch" by Elmore Leonard , and adapted by the cult master himself. Although the film seems to start with a sort of radically different approach by Tarantino (the opening shot is a direct rip-off from "The Graduate"), it still carries that same necessary violence he seems to add in all his movies. Without saying much, I still say his style is most weak in this film. Basing a film upon another source took away from all those Tarantino quirks that we've come to know and love. Instead of some fresh-off, tight-knit shots and outlandish characters, we get what is almost a crude caricature of his raw-cut ideas (still at this point stored away in his head). There are some scenes and exchanges of dialogue between characters (such as the gun conversation with Samuel L. Jackson and Robert De Niro) that seem to be attempts of a Tarantino film, but never truly are. The only character I will agree deemed worthy of seeming original was the actual character of Jackie Brown, the heroine played by Pam Grier. Alas, this is a recycled role even for Grier, as she's ironically shadowing the "Foxy Brown" role she portrayed in the 70s.

Jackie Brown, an aging but still attractive flight attendant delivers money for Compton street-famous gangster Ordell Robbie (Jackson) who sells guns and ammo. But after a smart-alick punk (Chris Tucker) spills information about Brown and Ordell, the two must form a plan (within the narrow limits of two cops, one played by Michael Keaton), to get Ordells money back whilst scheming to rip each other off. It's a rather generic crime plot, but done in an entertaining way so it stretches out to a whole 154 minutes. Like I said, there isn't much else besides the plot that kept me liking this film. The performances, such as De Niro's aren't bad but not very interesting either. The character Robert Forster plays, a bail-bondsman named Max, allegedly got Forster an Oscar nomination, and where I won't say it was a bad performance, I will say it was a hard to understand character (juggling several emotions and thoughts as we're left to interpret his character based on the type of radio music he listens to). And that goes for the rest of them, including Brown who convincingly carried the movie together but never struck me as one of those characters I truly care about.

The film itself is good, just not as impressive as say, Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction," which is an inevitable compare being as it was his proceeding film after "Pulp."Perhaps Tarantino needed a hiatus of sorts from the often Biblical heavy based content and blood and gore fused in his two prior smash hits.