Movie Review: JACKIE BROWN

JACKIE BROWN

1997

R

"Half a million dollars will always be missed."

-- Max Cherry

Jackie Brown is a 1997 crime drama written and directed by Quentin Tarantino that served as the follow-up to his 1994 smash hit, Pulp Fiction. When flight attendant Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) is stopped by A.T.F. detectives Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) and Mark Dargus (Michael Bowen), they desperately try to press her for information regarding a small arms dealer named Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson), for whom she traffics money. Initially, she gives them nothing in terms of intel, and the two men ensure she's imprisoned. Ordell posts her bail, and after meeting with her, the two devise a plan that will allow her to bring the rest of his money - over half a million dollars - back into the country from Mexico. At the same time, however, Jackie makes a deal with the A.T.F. agents that will keep her out of prison as long as she can give them Ordell. In addition, she teams with her bail bondsman Max Cherry (Robert Forster) so that they can reap the rewards and bring home the money for themselves. As all three factions put their plans into play, a number of things go wrong for each side, only leading to further complications.

If someone would have asked me my thoughts on Quentin Tarantino only a few years ago, I probably would have dismissed his work as ridiculous and too far off the mainstream. It took his 2009 film Inglourious Basterds to bring me around to his style of filmmaking, and after giving a few of his other ventures another viewing - namely, Pulp Fiction and 1992's Reservoir Dogs - I have to say that I've come full circle and can now call myself a full-fledged fan of the director. That being said, I had always wanted to give Jackie Brown a view, and I've only now been able to do just that.

The first thing I have to say is that one should not expect this film to measure up to some of Tarantino's greater films. As the first film post-Pulp Fiction, Tarantino had set quite a bar for himself, and it was going to be difficult to reach that lofty goal regardless of the type of film he created. It garnered generally positive critical reviews upon its release, and it currently holds an eighty-six percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, where one can find the following consensus:

Tarantino's third film, fashioned as a comeback for star Pam Grier, offers typical wit and charm -- and is typically overstuffed.

What comes out of Jackie Brown is a legitimate film that still stands head-and-shoulders over most of what hits theaters nowadays, but in relation to the director's other efforts, this one's definitely on the lower end of the spectrum. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have its merits.

The film's screenplay proves to be engaging and entertaining, and although it's lacking in the profundity that some of Tarantino's other films enjoy, it still offers a few twists and turns to keep the audience guessing. We're given our nearly-obligatory scenes of mixed-and-matched timeline, but it's not quite as fresh as it has been in other films. Still, I have to say that there were a few moments where I thought I knew what was going to happen and was quickly proven incorrect. And for that, I have to commend Tarantino for not falling into the rote ideas that Hollywood had by that time established. Instead, he made a realistic film in which the bad guy often manages to take home the cake.

The film's cast proves to be decent, but I think we could've gotten a little bit more from some of the stars here. Grier has never been known for her acting prowess, but she does well as our lead in this one. She managed to nab a nomination at the Golden Globes for her performance, so that's saying something, I suppose. Jackson is fine as our central villain, but he's definitely been better before and since. Robert Forster might be the best on the screen this time around, as is evidenced by his Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Also be on the watch for some bigger names like Keaton, Chris Tucker and Robert De Niro to offer some interesting turns.

At the end of the day, Jackie Brown is a serviceable film that proves to be entertaining, but it just doesn't quite have that Tarantino "feel" to it. In a way, Tarantino almost seems "Tarantino-esque" this time around, almost as though he's trying to mimic himself in the hopes of crafting something extraordinary. It doesn't quite fire on all cylinders, but you'll still manage to be entertained throughout. That's why I say it's worth a watch, if only if you need to kill a few hours.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You See It? Yes

Happy Birthday, Robert De Niro!

The second big-time birthday for today comes for two-time Academy Award winner Robert De Niro, who turns 68. De Niro has always by synonymous with great acting, and although he's dropped a little bit in the past decade or so, there's really no denying his presence on-screen. He's appeared in so many iconic films and has portrayed so many iconic roles that this was one of the more difficult lists for me to make. His consistent collaboration with Martin Scorsese alone would have made this an interesting group of films, but because his reach has extended so far, I had to increase De Niro's list to ten films rather than my usual five. Robert De Niro is a giant among men in the world of acting, and he should be treated as such. So join me as I celebrate the life and the birthday of one of the greatest actors ever to grace the silver screen!

10. Al Capone
The Untouchables (1987)


----------

9. Donald 'Shadow' Rimgale
Backdraft (1991)

----------

8. David 'Noodles' Aaronson
Once Upon a Time in America (1984)


----------

7. Jack Byrnes
Meet the Parents (2001)


----------

6. Neil McCauley
Heat (1995)


----------

5. James 'Jimmy' Conway
Goodfellas (1990)


----------

4. Sam 'Ace' Rothstein
Casino (1995)


----------

3. Vito Corleone
The Godfather: Part II (1974)

----------

2. Leonard Lowe
Awakenings (1991)


----------

1. Travis Bickle
Taxi Driver (1976)


----------

Awards
2000: Nominee - Best Supporting Actor, Comedy

Movie Review: FRANKENSTEIN

FRANKENSTEIN

1994
R

Frankenstein is a 1994 dramatic horror film directed by Kenneth Branagh, who also stars as the film's titular character. The film opens on a ship lost at sea as it nears the Arctic Circle. When it strikes an iceberg and runs aground, the ship's crew find a lone figure roaming among the ice. This man claims to be Viktor Frankenstein (Branagh), and he soon recounts the story of his coming to such a place. When he was younger, Viktor suffered the loss of his mother (Cherie Lunghi) and vowed to find a way to keep people alive for eternity. He goes away to school in order to study and develops a working relationship with Professor Waldman (John Cleese) who takes a liking Viktor's enthusiasm. When Waldman is murdered by a passing bum (Robert De Niro), Viktor decides to continue his unfulfilled work of creating life. He steals the corpse of the bum and places Waldman's brain inside of it. Through a sophisticated experiment, Viktor brings the creature to life with dire consequences. He believes it to be dead, but the creature escapes and hides in a countryside cottage. Armed with Viktor's personal journal, the creature learns to read and speak. When it learns that Viktor is responsible for his hideous condition, he vows to exact his revenge.

Branagh's vision of Mary Shelley's novel is not your standard "Frankenstein" fare. I haven't seem much in terms of Branagh's filmography - either acting or directing - but from what I've come to hear, he tends to place his own stamp on the work he adapts. That being said, I'm not quite sure the Frankenstein story was really the best story to try to make his own. For the most part, it sticks with the general story: Frankenstein has a desire to create life; he creates a creature from the parts of corpses; the creature is born and retaliates against its creator. The basic storyline is there. However, one of the biggest parts of the original story is that the creature is accidentally given an abnormal brain, thus leading it to acts of menace and mayhem. In this version, however, the creature is given the mind of an intellectual. Although he seems like nothing more than a brute just after his creation, he quickly learns the ways of men. In a way, Branagh humanizes the creature in very rapid fashion, and I'm not quite sure whether this is a good thing or not. If you look at the original 1931 film, the creature was simply a brute force of nature. It wasn't until the 1935 sequel (Bride of Frankenstein) that the creature began to accumulate a vocabulary and a personality, and the slow progression of character made the transformation more believable. In this version, I just couldn't find a way to believe it. On a separate note, I found the dialogue to be a little mundane and childish, and it's definitely not realistic. I was rolling my eyes at some of the lines.

Because the dialogue was so bad, it's hard to bash the actors entirely. Considering they're working with drivel, you kinda have to give them the benefit of the doubt... to an extent. Branagh hams it up to the best of his ability, delivering a series of over-the-top emotional scenes that really just made me want to laugh at him. That does not bode well for the dramatic lead of any film. Maybe he should've listened to his director's advice a little more often... Wait, nevermind. I forgot. Helena Bonham Carter plays Elizabeth, Viktor's adopted sister and ultimate wife - yes, wife - a relationship that makes for a few awkward scenes of affection. She's probably the most believable character in the film, but even she has a few moments where I was questioning why she chose to act in the way she did. I'd only heard good things about De Niro in the role of the creature, but I couldn't really see just why he'd been given any sort of accolade. He channels Boris Karloff a little bit, but he's nowhere near as good as he was back in the '30s. With the pounds of makeup he had to apply (the film nabbed an Oscar nom for makeup, by the way), there's really no room for De Niro to show any real emotion. It's not his fault. And I couldn't help but hear the De Niro of Scorsese flicks past come out in the creature here and there. I just couldn't get it in my head that De Niro could actually be this monster.

There's also never really a clear sense as to what genre this film actually falls under. You could consider it a dramatic film, but there's also some essences of horror (and the occasional bit of gore). Normally, this wouldn't really pose a problem for me, but with this particular film, I think there needed to be a set direction. They could've gone for the horror - De Niro's creature isn't all that pleasant to look at - and it could have been more effective. Or they could've gone straight drama, making the character development a little more believable. But as it stands now, it's a mix between the two, and Branagh frantically tries to give both genres their equal due within a mere two hours running time. He just throws too much on the screen in too short a time, and it gives the film a very manic and bouncing feel that generates more laughs than concern or fear.

I simply cannot recommend this film and feel okay about telling you to watch it. It's no NetFlix Instant Watch until this Saturday, so if you're lucky enough to have NetFlix and you REALLY want to waste two hours, now would be the time to do so. Otherwise, I'd say you should probably try to avoid this one. I have yet to find anything truly redeeming about it, and I'm not sure whether I'd ever be able to do so.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: D-
2 Thumbs Down

Movie Review: LIMITLESS

LIMITLESS

2011
PG-13

Limitless is a 2011 dramatic thriller directed by Neil Burger. It follows Eddie Mora (Bradley Cooper), a down-on-his-luck writer who's struggling to make his deadlines. When he randomly meets his former brother-in-law Vernon (Johnny Whitworth) on the street, Eddie receives a new type of drug that allows a person to access one-hundred percent of their brain capacity rather than the supposed twenty percent. After reluctantly taking one pill, Eddie immediately understands its power and needs to have more. When he goes to visit Vernon, he finds him dead in his apartment in what appears to be murder. Eddie searches the apartment and finds a massive stash of the pills and takes them for himself. He starts to take them once a day, and the changes are drastic. He finishes his book in four days, learns new languages, and so on and so forth. Eddie finally decides to make some money off his newfound brilliance, entering the world of stock broking. When he amasses over two million dollars in a matter of days, he catches the attention of Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro) a major player in the stock market scene. Van Loon signs Eddie onto his team as they're attempting to merge with another company. Around the same time, however, Eddie's stash starts to run low, and he starts to have problems focusing and maintaining his high level of function. He learns that if he stops taking this drug, he'll die, so his life quickly becomes a race to finding any possible means to stay alive.

I'm not really quite sure where to start with Limitless. I went into the film not expecting a whole lot, but I thought I'd get a little bit more than I was ultimately given. The issue wasn't really the acting. I mean, there's nobody that's standing out. I think Cooper does enough to prove that he can hold his own as a leading man - such a statement has been up for debate as of late - but I'm not sure that Limitless is really going to be the final proving point for that argument. De Niro is decent in a limited role, but he hasn't been stellar since the mid-1990s, in my opinion. Abbie Cornish is also okay in her supporting role as Eddie's girlfriend Lindy, but she isn't really given much room to work with her character. I could go on for a while about each individual character, but it would ultimately be fruitless. This movie is really Bradley Cooper's vehicle, and he does well, but there was no way he could've ever done enough to make this a winning flick.

The basic storyline behind Limitless is actually a rather intriguing idea. To think that a drug could allow a person to access their entire potential brain activity is an astounding thought indeed. However, there would have to be consequences to such activity, and that's addressed within the film. The reason that people on this drug tend to get sick and die is because their brain simply cannot handle that much time functioning on such a level. So, although the whole idea may seem a little far-fetched, it's an interesting idea nonetheless. The issue, however, comes with the screenplay, which proves to be confusing and convoluted. Early in the film, I chalked my confusion up to the filmmaker's attempt for the audience to feel the same emotions as Eddie, and confusion seemed the most logical. As time went by, however, I found myself still unsure of just what was going on. Time bounces around a lot in this flick, and it was difficult for me to keep up with everything that was happening. In addition, the visual effects - which tie into the screenplay, in case you're wondering - prove to be a little bit of a sensory overload and only add to the confusion. While on the drug, Eddie will go hours and even days without recalling what had happened, but it happens so often that it seems like there's just too many holes within the actual story.

I could probably talk about this movie for a little bit longer, but I don't really think it deserves my time. It wasn't really a film that appealed to me. All of the visual effects seemed a little too trippy, and it all only added to my overall confusion with the entire film. It's not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's nowhere near redeemable, in my opinion. Perhaps if you're a fan of Bradley Cooper, you'll be able to stomach it all; otherwise, I'd avoid this one if you can.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: D
1.5 Thumbs Down