Reeks of high quality and acting

Rating: Null/10 (14 January 2000)

I've seen this one over ten times; gets better with age. Superb acting from the entire cast, especially from Jackson. He turns the scumbag Ordell Robbie into an even more complex character than Tarantino had in mind when he wrote the screenplay. It's a brilliant characterization of a 'bad guy' who is not stereotypical and has intelligence. How do you hold your own when acting with a genius like Jackson? Just ask Robert Forster, who gave life to Max Cherry and was equally as phenomenal. Either one of them could and should have won an Oscar for their performances, in a better world where awards are given for quality and not media blitzes and popularity. Keaton, De Niro, and Fonda have less to do, but they knew that going in and do similarly fantastic jobs, while never showing off in their understated roles. Grier, on the other hand, while demonstrating that she can hold her own amongst such heavyweights, simply can't handle the grilling scenes in the ATF offices. She doesn't have the acting skill to get it on with Keaton in an believable manner. Overall, she did fine, and didn't embarrass herself. This is one of the most enjoyable movies in the last 20 years, with a wonderful soundtrack whcih contributes to the genuine 70's feel. It's flawless, unless you're of the opinion that these characters are generally uninteresting losers, but with this kind of acting it just doesn't matter. My favorite scene is the one near the end in which Ordell tells Max a few important things in the car before heading into the bond office for the final rendezvous. This scene is two of the best in full gear..and no voices are ever raised in that fake, unbelievable 'I'm a great actor so I'm gonna yell my lines!' style. I've seen some negative comments here on IMDB for this flick, most poorly written and comparing it negatively to Pulp Fiction. Jackie Brown is the better movie, but Pulp will always be a favorite with the Tarantino fans because of not only it's brilliance but also the graphic violence and shocking scenes. People who crave this sort of stuff, and consequently put down a relatively quiet film like Jackie, are merely conditioned products of society. They thrive on fodder and garbage, and they have no idea how to interpret a movie without extremely graphic violence, especially from a director known for those qualities. It bores their tiny minds and they trip all over themselves to shout how unsuccessful the film was. Apparently, once a director makes a successful film, he is supposed to repeat himself infinitely to satisfy these mental midgets, and cannot do anything in a different style. I would venture to say that someone who disses Jackie Brown (or Eyes Wide Shut) is not worth your time arguing with; they wouldn't know quality in a film if it bit them in a certain place. Let them have their Hanks and Spielberg films, since they crave manipulation so much; we'll our Jackie Browns and stay away from them.