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 .
Output: P