bret

15 Comments

  1. I love “Jackie Brown” (1997). It may not be the wildly enjoyable ride of “Pulp Fiction” or the insane, kinetic, short length “Reservoir Dogs” (1992), and like those two lacks the brilliant Robert Richardson cinematography (as always) of “Kill Bill” (2003/2004), BUT “Jackie Brown” was a wonderful, elegant, hugely enjoyable, perfectly cast, tremendously acted, brilliantly plotted, terrifically made, wonderfully written piece of epic filmmaking, an overlooked gem of a masterpiece from a young auteur writer-director who specializes in gem style masterpieces. This one’s plain brilliant!

  2. I love “Jackie Brown” (1997). It may not be the wildly enjoyable ride of “Pulp Fiction” or the insane, kinetic, short length “Reservoir Dogs” (1992), and like those two lacks the brilliant Robert Richardson cinematography (as always) of “Kill Bill” (2003/2004), BUT “Jackie Brown” was a wonderful, elegant, hugely enjoyable, perfectly cast, tremendously acted, brilliantly plotted, terrifically made, wonderfully written piece of epic filmmaking, an overlooked gem of a masterpiece from a young auteur writer-director who specializes in gem style masterpieces. This one’s plain brilliant!

  3. An excellent follow up to Pulp. No its not Pulp 2, but it makes up for the flashiness in the emotional, human, soulful side of QTs writing/directing. Its almost as if a veteran director had made the film, not a guy in his mid 30s. Maybe its not a film for the younger audiences, but that doesnt make it any less important than Pulp or Dogs. This film deserves more praise for sure and I think until Kill Bill, it was QTs finest work.

  4. An excellent follow up to Pulp. No its not Pulp 2, but it makes up for the flashiness in the emotional, human, soulful side of QTs writing/directing. Its almost as if a veteran director had made the film, not a guy in his mid 30s. Maybe its not a film for the younger audiences, but that doesnt make it any less important than Pulp or Dogs. This film deserves more praise for sure and I think until Kill Bill, it was QTs finest work.

  5. “I didn’t like it because…” would be illuminating. “It sucked,” only describes the vacuous space between your ears. ;-)

  6. “I didn’t like it because…” would be illuminating. “It sucked,” only describes the vacuous space between your ears. ;-)

  7. I actually liked it. I’m not just saying that to be “cool and contrary” either. I can easily understand why people did not like it though.

  8. the bottom line is it may be different than pulp, dogs, etc., but thats the point. tarantino doesn’t do repetative films. and thats what everybody needs to remember when they watch jackie brown.

  9. the bottom line is it may be different than pulp, dogs, etc., but thats the point. tarantino doesn’t do repetative films. and thats what everybody needs to remember when they watch jackie brown.

  10. I havn’t seen the movie in its entirety, and what I did see was not what I would expect from QT. However, I wouldn’t say it sucked either. It just lacked being good. But QT is still the man, and proves it with the almighty Kill Bill.

  11. I havn’t seen the movie in its entirety, and what I did see was not what I would expect from QT. However, I wouldn’t say it sucked either. It just lacked being good. But QT is still the man, and proves it with the almighty Kill Bill.

  12. Kill ill….fuck u
    the reason i didnt go into all this intricate detail to explain why i dont like a movie is cuz i h8 pointless forum argument that know no end or shitty limits.
    was that illuminating enough for u?

Comments are closed.