Jackie Brown (1997)

2.5 out of 4

Starring: Pam Grier, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert De Niro, Robert Forster, Bridget Fonda, Michael Keaton, Chris Tucker

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Time: 151 mins

You know, it's pretty hard, if not downright impossible, to make a follow-up to a movie like Pulp Fiction. Quentin Tarantino had set himself a tough task when he decided to film Jackie Brown, an adaptation of Elmore Leonard's novel, Rum Punch. Short of turning his hand to a G-rated comedy, or a flying turtle monster movie, or some genre that's a polar opposite to crime, there was always going to be the inevitable comparisons to the above-mentioned classic. Pulp Fiction was such a revelation, such a breath of fresh air, with its innovative use of multiple points of view, non-linear storytelling, music, violence, and swearing, that it became probably the most talked-about film in its year of release. It even went so far as to inspire an artistic backlash, as all successful ventures are wont to do (can we say, Titanic?). No wonder Tarantino took a 3-year break between directing duties. Jackie Brown is not as startling or as entertaining as Pulp Fiction (or even Quentin's original take on crime, Reservoir Dogs), but it contains glimpses of the Tarantino style and several top-notch performances that almost make up for the fairly leisurely pace.

Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) is a flight attendant who's illegally transporting money for gun dealer Ordell Robie (Samuel L. Jackson). When investigator Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) catches up with her, she sets up a complicated plan that will involve Ordell, Nicolette, her bail bondsman Max Cherry (Robert Forster), Ordell's partner Louis (Robert De Niro), and drug addict Melanie (Bridget Fonda). Throw in several shopping bags with beach towels, and a cool half million dollars, and you have one mighty game of cat and mouse.

The story is that simple, but it takes some 150 minutes to convey it. While not begrudging a film the time to develop story and, especially, characters, Jackie Brown still progresses fairly slowly during the first half. The title character herself doesn't appear in a major scene until some twenty-five minutes into the film. To be fair, the opening sequences involving Ordell, Louis, and a crim played by Rush Hour's Chris Tucker shows the ruthless character that Ordell is, but I'm sure there could've been some other, more "efficient", way to relay that. As a comparison, Pulp Fiction was approximately the same length, and yet it interwove several key characters and diverse storylines that kept moving and engaging the viewer's senses. Another example, Michael Mann's crime drama Heat (1995), is even longer at almost three hours, but it had three major action scenes and the delicious first-time, on-screen, face-to-face between De Niro and Pacino to look forward to, in amongst the multi-faceted character-building. (It also helps that Heat lacked the style overheads that Tarantino is expected to bring with him to each movie, however unfair that expectation is).

Pulp Fiction was also energised by sudden bursts of violence and comedy that kept the tension high and the laughs regular. Jackie Brown does have violence, but it's relatively subdued, and the razor-sharp, often funny, Tarantino dialogue is present but only employed occasionally. Of course, it's almost a lose-lose situation for Tarantino - veer in a different direction to his earlier work, and people will say his style has changed or disappeared; or, use the same elements that made those films such a success, and people will say he's unoriginal. He probably knew this, and decided to go for the middle ground. I think he should have gone for a more original approach, but it's easy to say that in hindsight. Having said that, Tarantino trademarks like filming a scene from multiple viewpoints (a technique that, while not strictly original, was subsequently used in projects like Doug Liman's Go and - of all places! - TV's Dawson's Creek) and his use of period songs are always a nice touch, though there aren't enough of these innovative flourishes.

OK, enough of the Pulp Fiction comparisons, inevitable though they are. Tarantino has always drawn excellent performances from his cast, especially his choice of veteran actors who may not quite be lead star material anymore. John Travolta and Bruce Willis were two waning actors who saw their stocks rise after Pulp Fiction, and the tradition is carried on in Jackie Brown with Pam Grier and Robert Forster. Grier, a star of blaxploitation films in the early 70s, delivers a strong, elegant Jackie Brown, who is determined she will not be used as a pawn in the struggle between law enforcer Nicolette and criminal Ordell. Forster was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar, though he's so low-key one wonders how he did so (not that potential award winners need to be showy, of course, but most awards tend to go to showy roles). It's a good performance, but one that doesn't stand out. Jackson is at his profanity-spewing best, though he sports hair so ridiculous (but, then again, I'm no arbiter of style) and a goatee-style wisp of beard so odd it almost detracts from his performance. Bridget Fonda surprises with her portrayal of a Californian beach girl who always seems to be smoking some sort of dope, but De Niro seems to be sleepwalking through his part, which is a shame. Yes, his lack of spark is a result of the drugs Melanie plies him with (there is one moment where De Niro seems to be snoring while Jackson is talking to him), and maybe his character was written that way, but it's still disappointing not to see more energy from Mr De Niro. A bit of trivia: Keaton's Nicolette is the same character he played in 1998's Out of Sight, another Elmore Leonard adaptation.

Quentin Tarantino survived the sophomore jinx with Pulp Fiction, but set himself a standard so high that he couldn't possibly equal, let alone top it, with Jackie Brown. While a reasonably entertaining and stylish film, with excellent performances and several Tarantino moments, it's let down by a leisurely pace that really only picks up in the second half. As a stand-alone, it would have been a good film, but next to the colossus that is Pulp Fiction, many fans will probably consider it a slight disappointment.

(c) Joe Wong (25 August 2000)