IIG

I can't wait for whatever it is. With guys like Tarantino, Scorsese, PT Anderson, Nolan, etc. it's no questions asked.

Hokeyboy

Perhaps it needed more 'splosions for you? Guess you'll have to play victim elsewhere Shufro.

inri222

His best, most mature and yes different. Different because it is the only one of his movies not filmed in scope & the only one with an adapted screenplay.
He needs someone to collaborate with whether it's adapting or finding a writing partner like Roger Avary to keep him in check from over indulging.

hanshotfirst1138

Parts of JB almost feel like a Wenders movie or something, they're more reflexive and give time to breath, he really captures that Elmore Leonard feeling, and there a melancholia about the film that his other rock-star movies lack. QT has said that while he and a great experience making it, he doesn't want to do another adaptations again, however.

Hokeyboy

JB was QT's most, for lack of a better term, "mature" film. It wasn't about the pop culture references, or a hip quirky soundtrack, the snarky one-liners or insta-catchphrases that people were expecting from him. He made a thoughtful character piece woven around a crime drama with a more deliberate pace and a profound sense of age and weariness. Definitely what people WEREN'T expecting after Pulp Fiction changed the film landscape in 1994, and myopic attitudes about what a QT film was "supposed to be" really hurt the film's chances with people who expected more of the same "formula".

I think Jackie Brown has aged better and become more rewarding over time than any other of Tarantino's movies. It's a bit disheartening how Tarantino has stuck to genre flicks since then, as much as I have loved some of his followups.

Paff

Yeah, if there's anything about Tarantino, is that he loves so many different kinds of movies, always talks about them, and always talks about making one genre or another. Whether or not he actually FILMS what he's talking about is a coin flip. Plus, I've always felt that everyone is trying to get the "scoop" on his next picture, so they glom onto one of his throwaway asides and rush to post about "Next Tarantino movie confirmed!"

Well, I wouldn't be that harsh, but I do think that Jackie Brown went from very underrated to very overrated. I fully admit I was late to appreciate it (I too rushed to the first showing on Christmas day 1997, expecting another movie as crazy as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and was disappointed that it was such a slow-paced, reflective piece). Some people saw it, immediately liked it, and now want to do an "I told you so" to the mouth-breathing non-cinephiles.

After realizing what it's not (I.E., another fast-paced genre re-defining thrill rid like his previous two films), I came to appreciate it much more. But it's not without it's flaws. And the big one is the pacing of the final third of the film. In all fairness, a lot of that has to do with Elmore Leonard, as Jackie Brown's plot is pretty close to Rum Punch, which I've since read. The pace builds to a fever pitch, all leading to the money exchange at the mall. Unfortunately, there's about 40 more minutes of film left! Everything grinds to a halt, and worse, there's no more of the great dialogue exchanges between Jackie and Max until the very last scene. The shooting of Ordell is very anti-climactic, and really just seems like it's there to tie up loose ends.

Crocker Jarmen

The characters in Jackie Brown are real people. Everything that happens to them is more interesting, funny and suspenseful to watch because of that.

I love Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained because of how outlandish, cartoony and fucking FUN those movies are, but the one Tarantino film I can't bear the thought of never watching again is Jackie Brown. It doesn't mean anything to me that the Bride kills Bill, but I'm so excited to watch Jackie Brown get the better of Ordeal and the police, and when Max lets her walk out of the office I want to shake him and yell, "You dummy!"

Paff

One of the ways I enjoy Jackie Brown now, is that I ask myself "What would 70s blaxploitation characters do in 20 years?"

I'm pretty sure QT thought the same thing, and it's probably a key reason he changed Jackie from a white character to a black one. I think he always saw the Rum Punch characters as older versions of the people from movies like Coffy, Foxy Brown, Black Caesar, etc. Not just a gimmick to cast Pam Grier. You see a movie like Coffy, and wonder what happens down the line. Either they get crap jobs (Jackie, stewardess for a cheap airline) because they have no education or legitimate workplace experience (well, Coffy was a nurse...), or they stay on as small time hoods like Ordell. Probably in and out of the prison system, as it's the only life they know.

So I do like it in that sense. But dammit, I still hate the last 40 minutes!

story

Agreed. I like to pretend Jackie Brown is a direct sequel to Foxy Brown, that Foxy cleaned up her act, changes her name, and starts a new life. Meanwhile, Hays the character Sid Haig plays in FB also cleans up his act, becomes a lawyer, is elected a judge, and he recognizes Foxy after all these years as she stands mute in his courtroom.

d2cheer

Jackie Brown is awsome if you don't like it give the fuck out...and yes QT best.

Hokeyboy

I'd like to think every Sid Haig character is the same multi-dimensional being traveling the cosmos, taking on multiple personas and traveling to the next existence post-quantum meruit actualization.

This cosmic being's only REAL personality is Hawk, Haig's character from Jack Hill's Pit Stop...

story

You mean...?

=

Hokeyboy

=


Whatever happened to Mario van Peebles? There's a career resurrection QT could pursue...

Paff

And I know I'll start a major shitstorm with this, but it boggles my mind how people can call themselves Tarantino fans, and yet read the scripts of the movies before they come out. It's not like a book, where you read the book in the author's voice, then see the movie with the screenwriter's take on it. The script is pretty much what you're going to see on the screen. And I like to have that unfold in a dark movie theater. I want the first time I hear the words to be from the mouths of the actors Tarantino has selected. As much as I can try to imagine the actors saying it (if I know who's being cast in certain roles), it's still not the same as actually hearing them deliver the lines.

I try not to see any prefilm buzz, not even a trailer if I can avoid it (I saw the trailer for Django Unchained a grand total of once before seeing the film). If the memory eraser from Men in Black or Eternal Sunshine really existed, I'd have it erase all of Tarantino's films just so I could see them again for the first time. Even though his films are infinitely rewatchable, there's something about hearing that dialogue with no preconceived notions nor knowing what's gonna happen next, that is among modern cinema's greatest pleasures. And there's so many "fans" who deliberately and intentionally avoid that pleasure. I'll never understand that. Never.

Hokeyboy

"Major shitstorm"? I think most would probably agree with you here.

Mondo Kane

Kudos to other guy here who has seen Pit Stop.

bluetoast

This comes up every time, with the requisite undue hostility, but the simple reason is that they are interested in the transformation process from script to screen. There is no one "true" way to be a fan, which is an utterly ridiculous notion; as if one holds the pure definition of "fan" and doles the title to those who obey.

Not sure if I'll do it this time, but it was a rewarding experience for the last two movies, especially when appreciating IB and wondering "Who the FUCK are they gonna get to play Landa?"

Osiris3657

I can't believe DiCaprio was once set to play Hans Landa.

bluetoast

Yeah, that was definitely a head scratcher. I could picture him as a villain in general, but not this character, especially with all the languages. Adam Sandler was rumored to be the Bear Jew from what I recall, interesting notion.

Hokeyboy

I think Sandler would have been a better Bear Jew than Roth.

sauce07

I think I went over this in the DU thread when the script was getting passed around. By reading the script, 20 months before the movie came out in theaters, all I did was slightly spoil my first viewing of the movie. It didn't spoil the entire movie because many parts of the DU script were changed or omitted before it came out in theaters. I loved Pulp Fiction the first time I saw it, but that doesn't mean that the second time sucked because I already knew what was going to happen. If a movie can't entertain after reading the script, then it should never be made. I can't wait to sit down and read The Hateful Eight and transported off to a Tarantino world without casting decisions made, without an actor putting their stamp on it. I get to experience Tarantino the way he wants to be remembered, as a writer.

Toddarino

Those scenes with Roth almost ruined that movie for me.

islandclaws

The scenes with Roth more or less do ruin the movie for me. As if he isn't a bad actor, the guy is such a raging douchenozzle in person that you can't help but hate him.

Rival11

I'm really digging that the title is the flipside to "The Magnificent Seven" - good stuff.

Maxflier

He wasn't saying that the movie would suck or not entertain, just that it wouldn't have the same impact if you already know what is going to happen.