do film critics have morals ?
are there any unwritten laws an ethical movie critic would or should follow ?
naturally we do n't want to go into a film with any preconceived notions , which is pretty tough but something we all have to accomplish .
secondly , and along the same line , we ca n't prejudge a film because of it 's stars , director , etc .
the difference ?
well , in the first one , we 'd go into a film thinking it 's going to be dumb or
it 's going to be good , and that would affect our viewing ( that movie sounds and looks dumb , so i 'm not expecting much ) .
on the second hand , we 're simply assuming it will be bad or good because of a personal " grudge " against the film company ( it 's made by disney ?
oh , it 's just a merchandising ploy then ) , the actors ( jim carrey 's in it ?
it 's gon na stink ! ) , or the director ( who ? ca n't be that good ) .
this is more of a biased viewpoint as opposed to a first impression viewpoint .
make sense ?
ok ,
but what about comparing ?
is n't that kind of along the same lines ?
when we compare a certain actor or director or even composer 's credibility in one film to another they were involved in , is that really fair ?
sure , in sequels you can expect and accept comparisons a lot more , but what about jackie brown , for example ?
is it fair for me to take the review and turn it into a comparison of pulp fiction , just because quentin tarantino directed and wrote the screenplay for both ?
i think it is , and i 'll tell you why .
a good critic should be able to view the film from the " average joe ( or jane ) " viewpoint , while still taking into account the artistic integrity behind the film .
sometimes that can be tough .
"
the acting was superb , but i was bored " or " i loved it ! !
it was sooooo cheezy !
" might be used to describe a film .
these are contradictions , and a critic has to weigh both sides and come to a suitable balanced critique .
but which is more important ? and which is better ?
an extremely well shot and acted film that is boring , or a really amateurish film that you wanna go back to again and again ?
getting back to the point , my philosophy on comparing films being fair works because we 're reflecting what the public wants to know anyway .
every average person out there who 's interested in this film is likely to ask " how does it compare to pulp fiction ? " and so , as a critic , i 'm already responsible to ask that same question .
jackie brown stars pam grier , the " blaxploitation " heroine from the 1970 's , who is likely to make a big comeback thanks to her role as the title character .
tarantino 's pulp fiction is in big part responsible for john travolta 's sudden revival in the movie industry , and with talks of an oscar nomination , the same is likely to happen for grier .
( we 've made it thru comparison # 1 ! )
jackie is a 44-year - old airline stewardess who brings in extra cash , and probably her main revenue , by smuggling large sums of money into the united states for ordell robbie ( pulp fiction 's samuel l .
jackson and comparison # 2 ) .
ordell is in the illegal firearms business and has enlisted the aid of louis gara ( robert de niro ) , a bank robber who just got out of prison after serving four years , to help him accomplish a scheme worth a half- million dollars .
trouble arises when jackie is stopped by atf agent ray nicolet ( michael keaton ) and taken into custody for possession of narcotics , as well as having more money than is allowed in an airport without being claimed .
naturally this proves an obstacle to ordell 's plans and , not as friendly intended as we 'd hope , he posts jackie 's bail after she is put behind bars .
the thing is , ordell is in this for no one more than himself , and as we learn from his previous actions , he 's willing to kill anyone who stands in the way .
jackie finds herself in a tight squeeze .
ordell wo n't think twice about taking her out if she fails to help him as she 's always done , yet at the same time , a compromise with the authorities would be in order if evidence against ordell was provided .
it comes down to a simple question : would jackie rather face ordell or prison ?
what ensues is a rich and intriguing example of storytelling
as we question who jackie is really out to help : the law , ordell , or maybe just herself .
coming into play is another 70 's veteran , robert forster as jackie 's bail bondsmen max cherry .
max 's obvious fondness for jackie will become a major benefactor in her fight to beat both sides of the system , and forster plays him with subtle charm that adds depth to unbrewed romance .
also involved is ordell 's " surfer girl " girlfriend melanie ( bridget fonda ) , a ditzy sun- bleached babe who spends her time watching tv with a bong in hand .
fonda
does the best she can with an essentially thin role , but there 's nothing more to her , and therefore , she becomes a tossable addition to an otherwise flourishing bouquet of characters .
de niro is also wasted in his role as a quiet nobody crook out to score a few bucks for himself .
de niro is a brilliant actor , but a character who hardly ever speaks does n't need a de niro to play him .
compared to pulp fiction ( comparison # 3 ) , the characters in jackie brown and very thin and replaceable .
in pulp fiction , even the small , seemingly irrelevant characters were wonderful , complete , and lifelike , whereas jackie brown has such common figures that it would n't have suffered much with a lesser talented cast , the exception being grier .
tarantino wrote this script with grier specifically in mind , so to say that she is made for this role is a reversed truth .
sadly , grier too could have received a bit more attention , especially when the story is all about her newly - jarred perception of life .
jackson teams up with tarantino again , but the chemical reaction is n't as awesome as the first time .
jules was the rambling , bible - quoting hitman in pulp fiction , and jackson is the only person who could have pulled it off .
and although jackson is really , really good in jackie brown , i do n't think he 's quite as irreplaceable .
in fact , maybe a new face would have been better .
jackson could 've remained tarantino 's jules , and a new guy could have become ordell , forever to remain so in our memories .
sadly , these characters are too much the same , except ordell just is n't as impressive , and putting this in the hands of jackson once again is only going to deter from our fond recollections of jules .
another problem is that ordell is way too focused on in the beginning .
this is grier 's film , so why spend so long getting to know a man who will become more of a supporting character as the film progresses ?
it not only makes the movie feel a little too slanted , but it makes for a slow beginning because we have to take longer getting to the meat of the story .
it is likely that those pouring into the theater to see this film are going to be those anxious to partake of tarantino 's quirky dialogue and eccentric directing style , and not so much those interested in seeing a silver screen adaption of elmore leonard 's novel " rum punch " .
for those movie - goers , do n't expect another pulp fiction and
you 'll be satisfied , for the script oozes with the familiar brash qualities that has made tarantino an icon of 90 's film- making
.
the directing has toned down a bit , however , yet
we 're still reminded that this is tarantino 's movie thanks to odd split - screen story - telling devices and scenes being replayed multiple times from different viewpoints .
so getting back to the question that i began with , this is n't pulp fiction at all .
it 's good , but it is n't anything that made pulp fiction such a revolutionary effort in the first place .
this is a more conservative tarantino , but not one that wo n't satiate true fans . if you can realize that this is n't going to knock your socks off , then
you 'll be happy to at least let it massage your feet .
after all , we all know how much tarantino loves that particular part of the human anatomy .
the script oozes with the familiar brash qualities that has made tarantino an icon of 90 's film- making a rich and intriguing example of storytelling we 're still reminded that this is tarantino 's movie it 's good does the best she can with an essentially thin role you 'll be happy to at least let it massage your feet with talks of an oscar nomination , the same is likely to happen really , really good you 'll be satisfied