Oh Quentin!

Rating: 8/10 (31 August 2001)

Why are you despised by so many? Is it because you re-defined American independent cinema with Reservoir Dogs (1992)? Is it because you achieved ultimate mainstream success with another cool and imaginative black comedy thriller Pulp Fiction (1994)? now a modern classic, or is it just the fact that you have such a strong belief in you're own talents? Thus is the sadness of Tarantino, a man who only wanted to make good films, but ended up having all his ideas stoles, ripped-off and twisted into stupid violent capers by talent less imitators (take a bow Guy Ritchie). Tarantino should be hailed as the genius he is, not only did he do more for nineties cinema than any other director, but he managed to create all his films with a strong story and believable, well-written characters.
Following Pulp Fiction was never going to be easy, and one must commend Tarantino's integrity to not just deliver a Pulp Fiction 2, instead opting for Elmore Leonard's multi layered character study "Rum Punch". This is a change of pace for Tarantino, a much slower, less flashy film than his previous classics. There are no over the top speeches or odd bursts of violence, the characters in Jackie Brown are based completely in life, a strong contrast to the almost pre-destined worlds of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, gone are the ironies and the knowing nods to all things past. Jackie Brown exists on it's own merits and should be judged that way.

The plot follows Jackie (Pam Grier, in the role she was born to play, if that wasn't already Foxy Brown) and the characters that move in and out of her life. She's a woman trying to do the best for herself, but torn between two men, Bail bondsman Max Cherry, and cool drug dealer cum gun runner Ordell Robey (Samuel L. Jackson). She's also torn between both sides of the law, trying to make the best of the situation without succumbing to the charismatic lure of Ordell, which would undoubtedly be her fall. The reason a lot of Tarantino fans initially reacted against Jackie Brown, is because of the difference in tone and pace, it not only shows Tarantino's willingness to grow as a film-maker, but also the respect he shows to his characters. The film unfolds slowly, making sure that all the balls are in motion for the grandstand final.
If the film is flawed in any way, it's in the fact that the characters are so multi-faceted that their actions become too hard to follow, we get lost and the film refuses to break the pace. And in an odd way, there still doesn't seem to be enough time dedicated to the actors, I was left feeling that I wanted to know more about them and their characters, that I deserved it. People just refuse to give the time it takes to enjoy everything the film has to offer, "Chicks with Guns", Jackie's Entrance through the airport in the opening credits, the Rashomon inspired three way final. Jackie Brown revels in it's homage to the Scorsese/blackploitation days of seventies cinema in the same way Dogs used the heist film or Pulp Fiction's references to, well pulp fictions.
People tend to forget that this was (and still is as yet) Tarantino's third film, think about how many directors have made such a well crafted and assured third film as this. And although Jackie Brown doesn't have the same magic as Dogs and Fiction, it's still one of the most outstanding films of the nineties. Hurry back soon Quentin, modern American cinema needs you.
A respectable 8/10