Disclaimer: Go to http://greatcatsbyreviews.wordpress.com for more new and improved movie reviews!
Jackie Brown, the painfully stylish, third film from Quentin Tarantino follows the story of a failed flight hostess, a forlorn bail bondsman, a charismatic and fowl mouthed arms dealer and a variety of other more forgettable characters in pursuit of half a million dollars.
Jackie Brown breaks the usual QT mould by doing a number of things differently to it's two predecessors. It is an adaption of the novel "Rum Punch" as apposed to being the normal 100% biological, brain baby of QT, it has a structured storyline as apposed to the usual sporadic collection of intersecting episodes associated with Tarantino's movies. It contains an array of widely recognised and praised actors. Its typically over stuffed like a compulsive eater consuming not only the complimentary diner mint but also the tray that came with it, doesn't make a huge amount of sense, similar to my last metaphor, and most noticeably of all, as the ending credits roll up, doesn't nearly approach the frenetic quality of his previous two movies.
Tarantino evidently isn't quite used to making conventional cinema. Watching him attempt to create an inherently normal film from source material that wasn't born, kicking and screaming, from his own hyperactive "brain womb" is like watching Bambi trying to surf. And when he trys to incorporate character development and the complex, central narrative into the mix it's similar to seeing a quadriplegic try to juggle. It's an admirable sight but he doesn't quite manage to succeed to the extent he and the audience would of liked.
Each of the characters feels as if they could have carried an entire film on there own and even in the lengthy running time of 2 and a half hours almost none get nearly enough screen time.
The shear amount of misused talent is staggering, I know Jackie Brown was primarily a comeback vehicle for Pam Grier, but you'd have thought Tarantino would have found a little more screen time for De Niro and Micheal Keaton and would have invested a fraction more of his time making them more developed than simple 2 dimensional ciphers. They really only seem to be there to fill out the steadily increasing list of amusing crime movie cliches.
Robert De Niro doesn't seem to have an ounce of heart in the performance, looking uncannily like an alcoholic, post sleigh crash Santa, speaking in mono syllables and really only showing a flicker of emotion about 30 seconds before his onscreen demise. Micheal Keaton does his best with what little he's given but permanently has the look of an over enthusiastic Labrador with bladder problems.
Bridget Fonda who's fantastic as the oopa loopa coloured beach bunny bitch is also massively under used.
QT has opted instead for focusing all his twitchy attentions on the three central protagonists and does this well incorporating a degree of character development, some of his classic dialogue and trademark direction style into their scenes.
And don't get me wrong there were many aspects of it that I enjoyed. Samuel L Jackson played his smoother than a aggressively exfoliated baby's arse, character word perfectly and I'm still shell shocked to discover that he didn't even get an Oscar nom for it.
The scene inwhich Ordeal walks his recently bailed out, associate to his car is one of the most memorable and classically Tarantino moments of the entire film.
And the tentative and brilliantly realised relationship between Robert Foster's crushingly lonely bail bondsman and Pam Griers fiesty flight attendant is wonderful to watch, and both actors are equally brilliant.
The FUN-KEY, oh god i'm a loser, 70's soundtrack is absolutely great and I found myself re-watching the opening credits, a homage to the graduate, repeatedly purely to experience QT's fantastic direction but also for the painfully catchy song "Across 110th street".
Per usual in a Tarantino film it's an entertaining experience yet sadly the entire movie comes across as a rather hollow missed opportunity, with the potential to be so much more.
I'm sorry to break the glorious string of 8's but I feel it's my duty
6 out of 10 stars
feel free to post your comments and opinions below
Jackie Brown, the painfully stylish, third film from Quentin Tarantino follows the story of a failed flight hostess, a forlorn bail bondsman, a charismatic and fowl mouthed arms dealer and a variety of other more forgettable characters in pursuit of half a million dollars.
Jackie Brown breaks the usual QT mould by doing a number of things differently to it's two predecessors. It is an adaption of the novel "Rum Punch" as apposed to being the normal 100% biological, brain baby of QT, it has a structured storyline as apposed to the usual sporadic collection of intersecting episodes associated with Tarantino's movies. It contains an array of widely recognised and praised actors. Its typically over stuffed like a compulsive eater consuming not only the complimentary diner mint but also the tray that came with it, doesn't make a huge amount of sense, similar to my last metaphor, and most noticeably of all, as the ending credits roll up, doesn't nearly approach the frenetic quality of his previous two movies.
 |
| The anniversary had lost some of it's romance |
Each of the characters feels as if they could have carried an entire film on there own and even in the lengthy running time of 2 and a half hours almost none get nearly enough screen time.
The shear amount of misused talent is staggering, I know Jackie Brown was primarily a comeback vehicle for Pam Grier, but you'd have thought Tarantino would have found a little more screen time for De Niro and Micheal Keaton and would have invested a fraction more of his time making them more developed than simple 2 dimensional ciphers. They really only seem to be there to fill out the steadily increasing list of amusing crime movie cliches.
Robert De Niro doesn't seem to have an ounce of heart in the performance, looking uncannily like an alcoholic, post sleigh crash Santa, speaking in mono syllables and really only showing a flicker of emotion about 30 seconds before his onscreen demise. Micheal Keaton does his best with what little he's given but permanently has the look of an over enthusiastic Labrador with bladder problems.
Bridget Fonda who's fantastic as the oopa loopa coloured beach bunny bitch is also massively under used.
QT has opted instead for focusing all his twitchy attentions on the three central protagonists and does this well incorporating a degree of character development, some of his classic dialogue and trademark direction style into their scenes.
 |
| Eye spy wasn't as fun as they'd remembered |
And don't get me wrong there were many aspects of it that I enjoyed. Samuel L Jackson played his smoother than a aggressively exfoliated baby's arse, character word perfectly and I'm still shell shocked to discover that he didn't even get an Oscar nom for it.
The scene inwhich Ordeal walks his recently bailed out, associate to his car is one of the most memorable and classically Tarantino moments of the entire film.
And the tentative and brilliantly realised relationship between Robert Foster's crushingly lonely bail bondsman and Pam Griers fiesty flight attendant is wonderful to watch, and both actors are equally brilliant.
The FUN-KEY, oh god i'm a loser, 70's soundtrack is absolutely great and I found myself re-watching the opening credits, a homage to the graduate, repeatedly purely to experience QT's fantastic direction but also for the painfully catchy song "Across 110th street".
Per usual in a Tarantino film it's an entertaining experience yet sadly the entire movie comes across as a rather hollow missed opportunity, with the potential to be so much more.
I'm sorry to break the glorious string of 8's but I feel it's my duty
6 out of 10 stars
feel free to post your comments and opinions below
Posts
This is easily my favourite Tarantino movie and, from an aesthetic point of view, his most accomplished as well. I don't see as how him adapting Elmore Leonard is a hinderance as everything Tarantino knows about dilaogue, in one way or another, comes from Leonard so it seems a natural partnership.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Tarantino is that he knows nothing about structure and is so in love with every one of his shots that he runs the risk of becoming his own worst enemy (as he was with Death Proof). This is the one film of his where the story breathes and flows and isn't bogged down in all his quirky oddball manerisms. Not saying those are a bad thing but they wouldn't be right for Leonard. Instead this film allows Tarantino to be Tarantino within someone elses story, which is, as almost all of Leonard's are, brillant to begin with. It's a love letter to Leonard, a love letter to these actors. The problem Tarantino is that his films only get rated on a scale next to other Tarantino films. Take that away, judge it was a real movie out in the world of other movies and it certainly is the best in a career of mostly great movies.
thanks so much for the comment mike
ReplyDeletegreat insight and no denying compared to the cinematic slaughter house that is hollywood, churning out bland, familiar products on a day to day basis Jackie Brown is a truly brilliant film but I'm trying to make this set of movie reviews more of a piece on tarantino and his work and comparing each of his films to the other is one of the major points, sorry for sounding a like a condescending twat
cheers for the add