Skip to main content

Half a million dollars will always be missed.

Jackie Brown
(1997)

(SPOILERS) Commonly cited as the most underrated Tarantino film, Jackie Brown is usually simultaneously congratulated for being his most mature work, his picture that has heart (in that sense, it occupies a similar position to the Coen Brothers’ Fargo). This view has gained such traction, the picture is now, perversely, in danger of being overrated. Despite extruding a familiar pop-cultural dressing, this is where the director studiously proves he isn’t just a lot of flash and swagger, yet the result reveals a different set of weaknesses to those he has betrayed since.


You’d have thought, with the geek-fan casting of Pam Grier (Tarantino changed Jackie's surname from Burke, in order to invoke Foxy Brown) and Robert Forster, this would follow suit and turn into one long elaborate homage. But, as with Travolta in Pulp Fiction, his actor fetishes also show an incredibly good eye for unsung, or unfashionable, faces. Grier and Forster are the centre of the movie, and the entire reason Jackie Brown works as well as it does; it’s evidence of the director’s cachet at this point that he wasn’t merely casting has-been stars in lead roles, but never-really-were ones and getting carte blanche with it.


Grier wasn’t exactly known for her acting chops, while Forster had mostly inhabited B-movies during the ‘70s and ‘80s. There’s an alchemy here, though, as the two actors gel in a very natural, unpressured way, Tarantino shepherding a growing relationship rather than excitedly jumping up and down, eager to gabble on to the next scene. The director was in his mid-30s when this came out, and appears to have regressed in terms of his character work since. Certainly, nothing has exhibited the same deftness, insight and willingness to allow a relationship to evolve. These are two characters conscious of the pressures of time and age, albeit in different ways (Grier is playing a half decade younger, an air stewardess who at 44 can feel life passing her by, while Forster’s Max Cherry confesses only to a concern over his disappearing hair, but has clearly been marooned by habitual behaviour patterns).


The result is a bittersweet romance between a couple who express their mutual affection by collaborating on a plan to hoodwink both the ATF (Michael Keaton’s Ray Nicolette) and small-time arms dealer Ordell Robbie (Samuel L Jackson). Jackie has been smuggling money for the latter, and as a result is under pressure from Nicolette and Michael Bowen’s LAPD detective Mark Dargus to cooperate.


At every stage, Jackie is revealed as an outstanding schemestress, joining the ranks of other uber-confident Leonard protagonists (see also Get Shorty and Justified), manipulating the law and the criminal fraternity to her own ends, aided, advised and abetted by the impressed and devoted Max. Tarantino’s familiar stylistic devices and adjustments of timeframe interpose very naturally here: the initial trial-run bag switch, where a third participant is revealed, and the later beach towel bag switch played from three different perspectives.


Max, meanwhile, is the picture of level-headedness; he knows his job and takes unseemly altercations in his routine-worn stride. The interactions with the self-regarding Ordell are particularly enjoyable, Forster underplaying effectively to Jackson’s instinctive camera-hogging. Early on, there’s a fine scene where Ordell requests a second bond (this time for Jackie, having disposed of Chris Tucker’s Beaumont on the back of the first), and Max explains his indifference to Ordell’s activities (“Whatever you’re doing you seem to be getting away with it, so more power to you”) while spurning his “white guilt” trip (“Ordell, this isn’t a bar, you don’t have a tab”). Later, pre-showdown, the nonplussed bail bondsman is threatened by Ordell, exhibiting persuasively unimpressed steeliness.


Jackie and Max’s plan goes off with out a hitch, but the lack of happily-ever-after feels entirely appropriate. While they do finally kiss, he demurs the offer to accompany her to Spain. Max knows she doesn’t care for him as much as he does her (her invitation is almost an afterthought), added to which he admits to being a little scared of her (she’s supremely capable, legalities be damned). And, despite wanting to get out of the business, he’s too stuck in his ways; his mould is set. There’s more resonance here than in any of Tarantino’s other pictures put together, simply because he prefers Sturm und Drang over softly-softly emotional content.


It’s fortunate then, that the peripheral characters and incidents aren’t too distracting or overwhelming; they remain just that, peripherals. The downside is, this does mean you notice just how laboriously Tarantino is servicing them. Most of his pictures fly by, but while Jackie Brown never becomes inert, you definitely feel its two-and-a-half-hour running time.


The director scores with Bridget Fonda’s withering, bored, sarcastic stoner Melanie (“He moves his lips when he reads. What does that tell you?” she asks Louis regarding Ordell), meeting an untimely end after subjecting Robert De Niro’s Louis Gara to scorching derision one too many times (lost in the car park, she asks Gara “How did you ever rob a bank? Did you have to look for your car too?” It’s a hilarious, entirely deserved wind-up).


Keaton’s Nicolette, pulling double duties the following year in Steven Soderbergh’s Out of Sight, as the same character, marvellously delivers the ATF agent’s faux-naïve density, no match for Jackie’s plotting.


I’m less impressed by Ordell and Gara. Jackson and De NIro are suitably diligent, the former pulling off his latest ‘do with aplomb as a “ponytail wearing motherfucker”, the latter inhabiting possibly the least likable, dishevelled scumball of his career (I haven’t yet seen Dirty Grandpa). The problem is, as bad guys, we have no desire to spend time with them the way we do the very best Tarantino villains and anti-heroes. Ordell feels like a derivation of characters the director has already done, while Gara sucks all the energy out of the room (it’s ironic that Tarantino gets acting legend De Niro, then gives him one of the least prolific roles of his – then – career; apparently Stallone turned it down, and it’s easy to see why).


It’s also the Ordell side where the cracks of trad-Tarantino dialogue and geekiness show through, including the oft-selected but unrepresentative and rather irritating Ak47 scene (“The Killer had a 45”) and Fonda watching her dad on TV.  Other elements, such as the “Three minutes later” cue card for the perfunctory sex scene, actively work against the “respectable” card the director seems to be keen on playing. In contrast, when Jackie goes through her record collection and discusses CDs, it’s an actual conversation (even though we know it’s a Tarantino fave subject).


Characters talk about music more than movies here, from Ordell on his car stereo, instructing Gara not to adjust the levels, to his suspicion over Max playing the Delfonics (Max’s tribute to Jackie, which he keeps playing and playing; one wonders if Tarantino had been watching Chungking Express). Bobby Womack’s Across 110 Street is particularly well-used, bookending the picture first as an introductory anthem for Jackie, and then reprised to suggest an air of melancholy as life goes on regardless.


Despite it’s many estimable qualities, I don’t feel Jackie Brown is underrated; I’m definitely in the camp that sees it as a tad over-praised. It’s a long time since I last watched it all the way through, and I feel much the same as I did the first time. At points, it’s over-studied on its director’s part, suggesting he’s out to prove something to his critics by adapting a work of literature (Elmore Leonard’s Rum Punch). Which he certainly does in terms of pulling off the lead characters, the reverent (read: slow) pace, and relative restraint of the content (curiously, for a director so enamoured by gore of late, this film’s deaths happen either out of frame or direct line of sight).


But the allowing of the thing to breathe leads to too much ambling. The third film by Quentin Tarantino lacks bite, the most unlikely charge one might level at his oeuvre. Ironically, given my biggest complaint regarding his post-Jackie output is that he over-indulges himself, and that the typical Tarantino elements here stand out like sore thumbs, Jackie Brown could have done with more integrated, with being more of his own thing. As it is, it pales in comparison to the next year’s Leonard picture, the vibrant, vital, deliriously-scored Out of Sight (Steven Soderbergh hasn’t come close to a film that good since, alas).





Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.