Aguirre decided to write in with his "counterpoint" to Hallenbeck's Jackie Brown review. I'm still getting over-whelmingly positive reviews for Jackie Brown, with no other report nearing Hallenbeck's in dislike. Anyway, Aguirre continues to prove his search for cinematic gold is not in vain, by finding the films fast and early. There are some SPOILERS here!!! Good work!
Saw Jackie Brown the other day. Pretty cool damn movie. This isn't Pulp Fiction, and it isn't Reservoir Dogs, and it's not supposed to be. People are going to be bitching because Jackie Brown isn't full of snappy one liners and whole conversations they can put between songs on their mix tapes. Some parts are slow, some parts really kick ass, some characters are cool, some are underwritten. The story isn't something completely new, but this is a very, very character based film. The story is secondary. The story is secondary, that's fucking blasephemy, I know. Okay, I give, the story is a bit tired, but it's Elmore Leonard's work; Tarantino agreed to do the movie, so who the hell is he to change the story? That's just a personal bias there, I almost always go with the author. But through these characters is where the film really kicks ass. It's also where it stumbles. Six main characters- well no shit, who hasn't seen the poster -here we go...
Now Hallenback is bitching over there about how Robert Forster (that could be spelled wrong...but, then again, my spelling is impeccable) looks like he got out of a twelve step program and shit. Well, Joe, did you ever think he was supposed to look like he just got out of a twelve step program? What the hell do you want, fucking Chris O'Donnel? Come on man, his character is a guy who's been through completely boring job for years, a sucky boring life, and can't even find excitement in what most would consider at least a little bit exciting (a whole bit about breaking into houses, I won't spoil it)- you think maybe he's gonna drink a bit too much? Be a little sloppy? Dammit he's supposed to look like that, and he is very good in the film. As boring as some of the conversations between him and Greir get, he's still genuinely good and completely believable. Just because he's nonchalant in most of the scenes and isn't going over the top doesn't mean he's not acting. He's being a smart actor and holding back. You know how easy it would have been to go over the top with that character? "I hate my job! I hate my life! I'm an angry bail-bondsman! I want some way out!" Is that the kind of shit you wanted Joe? Come on, that would have been boring as hell and way too typical.
Deniro is good, yeah, but he spends the first three-fourths of the movie goings "Uhhhh" and "Idunnuh" and smoking up. It's just hard to see him as a dumb thug when he's got such prescence on screen. Yeah, that's personal bias, dude should be able to do anything or take any role he wants. KINDA SPOILER HERE- And it would be one thing if he showed himself to be a little bit smarter than he let on the whole movie- like he's being quite because he knows something. But he just doesn't do a thing. He's stupid and quiet for the first three fourths and stupid and loud for the last fourth. He's boring.- END OF KINDA SPOILER.
You know, I was never super into Samuel L. Jackson before. I thought the man was real cool and all that, but man, damn, the dude is FUCKING COOL. I just figured that out...I'm a little late on this bus, aren't I? Holy shit, I love watching actors just tear into stuff and do things we don't expect. Deniro had the possibility to do it here, but the way his character was written didn't allow it. But Jackson, damn, his shit is cool. The man is cool. Him and Forester make the movie. Part of me wants to say he's just playing bad Jules, sorry, not-so-endearing Jules, but Jackson exudes this slimy, schmucky, greasy slickness while at the same time being a almost-cool-but-you-know-he's-despicable. And that nasty piece of shit dangling from his chin the whole movie...
I didn't fall for Pam Greir as much as I'd have liked. I wanted to see more bad ass out of her. The people in the theater started hooting and hollering when she started talking shit; let the women do it some more QT. There were two ways I could have felt about her when the big transcaction takes place in the end. I could have felt nervous for her, thinking she might not pull it off. Or get all righteous and excited because I knew she was a bad ass and ain't nobody gonna mess with her. I didn't feel either. There ain't enough build-up showing her as vulnerable, and their ain't enough build-up showing her as a take no shit bad ass. Left in the middle, the character is just too blah. Now maybe Quentin wanted to make a fun throw back to blaxploitation flicks. To modernize the character the ingredients are one part booty kicking bad ass, one part sensitive, caring kick ass mo-fo. Unfortunately, in Jackie Brown there's no damn link betweent the two.
The rest of the cast; HOLY SHIT, man, Fonda looks hot. Woah. She's good, not much to her character, but she's good. Keaton is way, waaaaaaaaay underwritten; you're telling me that the only thing we can come up with on this cop is that he's kinda kooky? Keaton deserves some more scenes- you know QT's little conversations between characters that have nothing to do with the plot but everything to do with the characters and how we feel about them? Keaton's character deserves a couple of those, at least one. Jesus, you'd think that with someone as good as Keaton, the riffs he could have gone on would be great. Maybe Tarantino is saying that he doesn't have to build up characters like he has done in the past. Makes sense- I wouldn't want to get stuck doing the same thing over and over either, and maybe it isn't really fair for me to bitch because he didn't do the same thing he always does. Maybe...all I'm saying is that the dude is bland,and I think Keaton could have handled a lot more. And why the hell can't we see more of Zeus dammit!?! You'll know when you see the movie.
The filmmaking itself, well, Tarantino does have an obvious style. Joe, you actually think a director can turn on a camera and then go take a shit? Anyone who has filmed knows that every shot, every fucking sceen, is thought out and shot with a very specific purpose. So lets talk about QT's decisions, not a make stupid fucking comments about how he sucks my fat hog. One of the most annoying things in the world is when a director thinks it's more important to show every conversation, every shot in different light, from an angle, that no one has ever seen before. The dude is respecting his characters- when he shoots them simple, it's because he doesn't want to detract from what they're saying by swinging he balls infront of the camera and showcasing his bravado. Anyone who has read an Elmore Leonard novel knows how character driven they are. I think it takes some character to check one's ego and let the film do the same as the novel, dwell on the characters and let them tell the story. The shots may look simple, he might shoot conversations in two shots, in fact most of the movie is very plain shots. I took that to mean that he was very conciously trying to take attention away from what he was doing behind the camera. A young filmmaker like Tarantino doing that, man, I respect that.
And the whole movie is not shot like the camera was held to a first year film student. There's a great long shot when Chris Tucker's Beaumont character get's thrown in a trunk. A film student would have gone to a close up in the end of that scene. QT doesn't, he shows how distant from any semblance of decency SLJ character is (when they're close to the camera Jackson's cool and clean, when they're far, he's the evil fuck he really is). Now rather than rip off other movies, I think QT is doing little homages to them- shit, he's been doing that since Dogs. That's part of the fun of watching the movies man, picking out his little nods to great films. Does anyone really think he's taking those sceens, like the one straight out of The Graduate at the beginning of the film, because he is seriously trying to rip off great filmmakers?
The soundtrack is good, but damn, considering all the great songs from that period, why does it sound so bland? Personally, I thought that it really didn't vary that much. It's all along the same vein, there's nothing thrown in there that has the effect that QT's last soundtracks had, where the music almost made the characters more dynamic because it fit the situations so perfectly. Now I'm starting to think, though, that the soundtrack is so similar because of the film itself- this isn't like PF, where there's this big group of characters who all have different intentions, desires, hopes, motivations- all these people just want the money. The only thing that's different is what they'll do to get it. Now if that's the case, the music picks work. So on that level, the soundtrack works. Unfortunately, it necessitates that all the music is similar...At least there were no "Son of a Preacher Man"'s here...God how I hate that song.
Some scenes are a bit slow, especially the one between Greir and Forrester in Greir's kitchen. The whole finale is really cool, the three different perspective sceen is nice and very well done. Jackie Brown isn't a joke and do lines (ha, not those lines...) with your buddies flick. This is a bit more serious shit. Yeah, it's lighthearted at the core, yeah, Tarantino still gets laughs when people get shot. It sits between Pulp Fiction and an out and out dramatic picture, i.e. the gunshots aren't funny. If Tarantino is still thinking about doing God Said Ha this is the movie he needed to do to get ready for that one. Don't be alarmed or pissed because this isn't Pulp Fiction. Sunflowers was a beautiful fucking picture, but you didn't see Van Gogh painting the shit twice.
I can't believed I just compared Quentin Tarantino to Vincent Van Gough...
