Jackie Brown Needs More Love
Aaah, yes. It’s the Tarantino movie that nobody likes. Apart from the people who say they like it best, just to look cool and contrary. The weird thing is, in many ways, Jackie Brown really is Tarantino’s best movie. Or at least his most interesting. Shorn of most of his trademarked pop culture riffing, displaced timeframes and pretty much violence-free, it’s no surprise that it failed to connect with an audience primed for Pulp Fiction 2: The Blaxploitation Years. Instead, you get a slow-burning movie about middle-aged people fumbling around the fringes of society. It’s a movie for grown-ups, stewed in funky 70s jerk seasoning, and still the most rich and mature movie to sprout from the QT Mental Archive.
The Defense: Forget it’s from Tarantino. Forget what you expect from him. And just enjoy a movie that’s as mesmerisingly languid as a cloud of bong smoke.
LINK
Comments: 9 (closed)
Previous Comments
[1] On Mar-26-2004, Eric Wilkinson wrote: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] On Mar-26-2004, Budd wrote:
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.
[3] On Mar-28-2004, l wrote:
i thought it completely sucked.
sory, Q
[4] On Mar-28-2004, Kill ill wrote:
"I didn't like it because..." would be illuminating. "It sucked," only describes the vacuous space between your ears. ;-)
[5] On Mar-29-2004, Nick wrote:
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.
[6] On Mar-29-2004, jason wrote:
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.
[7] On Mar-29-2004, Alexa wrote:
"The Defense: Forget it’s from Tarantino. Forget what you expect from him. And just enjoy a movie that’s as mesmerisingly languid as a cloud of bong smoke. "
That's basically what I've been telling people. It was the last of Q's movies that I've seen (having been initiated with Kill Bill). Upon seeing it, it was the last thing I expected, which is what Q has always given us.
[8] On Mar-30-2004, Sh8dy Milkman wrote:
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.
[9] On Apr-02-2004, l wrote:
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?
