February 2, 2007
I rewatched Quentin Tarantino's Jackie Brown today, for no other reason than that I've have it on my mind since Ja mentioned it over at My New Plaid Pants nearly a month ago.
Jackie Brown seems to be a movie that has been forgotten. It came three years after Pulp Fiction single-handedly changed the way some films are made (the aftereffects are still, scarily, visible in the many movies still aping it's style to various degrees of success). It was released, in one of those Weinstein-oddities, at Christmas time. It got lost in the shuffle and only got one lowsy Oscar nomination (Best Supporting Actor for Robert Forster). When I eventually saw it on good ol' VHS I didn't think it was as good as Pulp Fiction, but in the years since I have changed my opinion. It is better. It holds up better to repeat viewings I think in that it hasn't been copied and repeated so many times since, yet still seeing like Tarantino. It's still fresh, it still has a sting, it still has that exciting zest for thrills. It's a great great movie, and the best Tarantino has ever done.
Of course the "cherry on top" (if you've seen the movie y'all know what that quote is) is Pam Grier and her stunning performance. Not that many ladies would let you get a closeup of their face just as is. She hasn't "uglified" herself, she's just a normal woman. She's a force. I love her so much as Jackie Brown. But the acting talent doesn't stop there. Samuel L Jackson is great, Robert DeNiro is actually my second favourite performance in the film - something I had certainly never seen before from him, Bridget Fonda is hilarious "Helloit'sforyou!", Robert Forster is dependable and cut from the same cloth as Grier's Jackie. And of course, Michael Keaton is wonderful too. Why did his comeback never take place? Strange.
Jackie Brown is what I wish more movies were: effortless. Even Pulp Fiction looks like it's straining at times. This one glides along on the super-coolness of it's mere being. I love this movie. A