Jackie Brown

Staring: Pam Grier, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Forster, Bridget Fonda, Michael Keaton, Robert De Niro, Michael Bowen, Lisa Gay Hamilton, Tom 'Tiny' Lister Jr., Hattie Winston, Denise Crosby, Sid Haig, Aimee Graham, Chris Tucker, Ellis E. Williams

Review by The Ranting WolfCastle

    Tarantino has impressed me.  He writes things like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, two films which lead you to believe that his main thing is violence.  Then he comes out with Jackie Brown, a film that really isn't as violent as the previous two, but is still a good movie.

    Pamela Grier stars as Jackie Brown, a flight attendant that gets busted by Michael Keaton (Jack Frost, Batman) for bringing fifty grand, and some "blow" across the Mexican/American border.  Enter Odell, played by Samuel L. Jackson (Die Hard With A Vengeance, Long Kiss Goodnight).  Jackie Brown was carrying the money over for Odell, an arms dealer, so Odell bails Jackie out, by means of the bail bondsman Max, played by Robert Forster.  Now, Michael Keaton's character wants to make a deal with Jackie to get to Odell.  Oh, and don't forget Robert De Niro (Heat, Ronin) who plays a burn out employee of Odell's, not to mention Bridget Fonda, the surfer girl who's ambitions are to get high and watch TV.

    I can't really say much more about the plot without giving things away, and that's not what I'm about folks.  So I'll just continue on with the review.

    With a cast as talented as this one, it's hard to go wrong.   Samuel L. Jackson, Robert De Niro, Robert Forster, Pamela Grier and Michael Keaton are all perfect.  What more can I say really?

    With so many characters in a single film, it's important to establish them all.  But Tarantino has never really had only a couple of characters, so he's already pretty good at that.  He does it nicely once again, so I guess I'll move on.

    The story, although slow at times, is captivating.  I was nothing less than interested the entire time.  I won't lie to you, it's not Pulp Fiction.  It's more of a drama than an action.  Not as many people die, and there isn't as much violence.  But this film doesn't have to be Pulp Fiction to be good.  I do admit that the dialogue isn't as catchy as Tarantino usually writes it.  Which sucks because I really like the way he writes. 

    Bottom line...it's a good movie, it may not be as good as Pulp Fiction, but would you please stop comparing the two?  Aside from some slow scenes, I can't really find anything wrong with the film.  I would say that De Niro and Keaton are underused, but although they don't have a great deal of screen time, they are used to their fullest.  I might also say that more people should have died, but not many more people could have died.

    I give up, go see it yourself.

80% = B+