Amazon.com essential video

The curiosity of Quentin Tarantino's Jackie Brown is RobertForster's worldly wise bail bondsman Max Cherry, the most alive character in this adaptation of Elmore Leonard's Rum Punch. The AcademyAwards saw it the same way, giving Forster the film's only nomination. The film is more "rum" than "punch" and will certainly disappoint those who are looking for Tarantino's trademark style. This movie is a slow, decaffeinated story of six characters glued to a half million dollars brought illegally into the country. The money belongs to Ordell(Samuel L. Jackson), a gunrunner just bright enough to control his universe and do his own dirty work. His just-paroled friend--a loose term with Ordell--Louis (Robert De Niro) is just taking up space and could be interested in the money. However, his loyalties are in question between his old partner and Ordell's doped-up girl (Bridget Fonda). Certainly Fed Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) wants to arrest Ordell with the illegal money. The key is the title character, a late-40s-ish flight attendant (Pam Grier) who can pull her own weight and soon has both sides believing she's working for them. The end result is rarely in doubt, and what is left is two hours of Tarantino's expert dialogue as he moves his characters around town.

Tarantino changed the race of Jackie and Ordell, a move that means little except that it allows Tarantino to heap on black culture and language, something he has a gift and passion for. He said this film is for an older audience although the language and drug use may put them off. The film is not a salute to Grier's blaxploitation films beyond the musical score. Unexpectedly the most fascinating scenes are between Grier and Forster: two neo-stars glowing in the limelight of their first major Hollywood film after decades of work. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (167)

Dynamite Cast + Good Fun = Excellent Film
First off: "Jackie Brown" is not a disappointment. After the surprise success of Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" in 1994, everyone was looking for him to fail on his next attempt. Sorry, friends, but this just isn't the case. In many ways, "Jackie Brown" is a more enjoyable ride. After repeated viewings of "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs," one can easily pinpoint the weaknesses in Tarantino's style. He uses similar references to '70s action and blaxploitation films, he uses relic music hits from the same era, and he even uses similar character names (Marvin with no ear, meet Marvin with no head). The violence is always there, and the incessant use of profanity is always there. But "Jackie Brown" is different from these previous efforts. There's no appearances by either Harvey Keitel or Tim Roth; instead, the film is headlined by the queen of the '70s blaxploitation flicks, the eternally sexy Pam Grier. The supporting cast includes Robert Forster, a staple of cheesy B-movies, Samuel L. Jackson in a return to the world of Tarantino, and the very interesting threesome of Michael Keaton, Bridget Fonda, and the ever-versatile De Niro to round out the cast. So what, besides the cast, makes the film such a knockout? While the profanity level has been toned down, Tarantino's script loses no edge and maintains a constant freshness and sense of humor. Grier has never been much of an actress, but she's always had a certain charm, and she uses this charm effectively in "Jackie Brown." Forster gives his most memorable performance here, playing the role of Max Cherry with complete control and positive cool. Fonda is great as Melanie, and Keaton has a blast playing ATF agent Ray Nicolet, but De Niro steals the show as Louis Gara. De Niro has one of his better supporting roles here, and he makes the most of it. Louis is something of a dimwit, but only De Niro could inject the character with as much humor as he has here. The film, at 154m, is probably too long and overindulgent, but Tarantino presents us with an interesting plot, and some equally interesting subplots to boot. The most effective of these is the relationship that builds between Grier and Forster; there is an attraction there, but the insecurities of each character prevents this from ever reaching a climax. The film is colorful, has solid (but not brilliant) direction, and, aside from some serious lapses in logic, the script flows seamlessly. And guess what? There's no guest appearance by the man himself, who must have realized after "From Dusk Till Dawn" that, while he may be a writer and a director, and actor he is not. "Jackie Brown" reveals the limitations of Quentin Tarantino, but the film is still a riot, and one of the most entertaining of 1997. That's more than I can say for James Cameron's "Titanic," which fails on all levels for me, despite what the critics say. "Jackie Brown" delivers a knockout punch. It's great to see that some Elmore Leonard novels are finally getting the big-screen treatments that they deserve.

Fond-a Weapons
Jackie Brown: rated R, 2 hours and 40 minutes

Jackie Brown is an incredibly well played movie about guns, drugs, and money. Half a million in cash is up for grabs, and the only way to obtain it is by figuring out who is playing whom.
When Jackie (a stunning Pam Grier) is caught at an airport carrying a veritably large sum of money and a bag of crack, the outline of the story is formed. Jackie is held in custody facing possible time in prison, when the deceptive Ordell, played by black talking Samuel L. Jackson steps into the picture. Ordell hires an honest bailbondsman, Max Cherry, to release Ms. Brown. While Ordell takes care of business, we see behind-the-scenes conversations between the spaced out Robert De Niro, as Lewis, and the dim-witted Bridget Fonda, as Melanie, two of Ordell's main connections. Jackie becomes caught between two sides, both with equal objectives. Ray (Michael Keaton), the cop that apprehended Jackie earlier is after small time arms dealer, Ordell, and Ordell is pulling Jackie into his scheme of acquiring the cash. Meanwhile, Lewis and Melanie have their own plans of taking the money. Jackie can't afford to get into any more legal trouble, and if she doesn't cooperate with the man she owes her freedom to, she will be killed, which sets the stage for the perfect swindle.
Quentin Tarantino, creator of Jackie Brown, is master of 'film noir', and adds an interesting perspective to one scene in particular. Jackie is forced by the feds to frame Ordell, and according to Ordell, she is supposed to double-cross them. Caught in the middle, Jackie must fake an exchange of marked bills, in order to seem loyal to both. The switch is shown through three different viewpoints, adding greatly to the effect. The first time, Jackie is shown leaving the bag of money in a dressing room. Next, Lewis and Melanie are shown actually making the exchange, with the real bag of money left behind in the dressing room, and a suspicious Max Cherry watching. Lastly, Max Cherry watches as Lewis and Melanie swap bags, and the actual bag of cash left for him to pick up. By doing this, the big picture is seen through bits and pieces. Tarantino deserves much credit for its ingenious execution, and Jackie Brown in its entirety is recognized as a success, with phenomenal acting by the whole cast, primarily Pam Grier.

Great! Awesome! Fantastic!
Nobody and I mean nobody makes movies like Quentin Tarantino. JACKIE BROWN is one of the greatest movies of all time. Personally, This is my favorite of Quentin Tarantino's films. So get your copy of JACKIE BROWN today!

Not bad, De Niro is fun
Jackie Brown is certainly not Tarantino's best but it is amusing. As in pretty much every movie Samuel L Jackson plays a pretty important part as a gunrunner. He lives in a LA house with the very hot Bridget Fonda. A friend who just came out of jail lives with him and helps him. This is absolutely the funniest character in the movie, played by De Niro. He is a little dumb, lazy and slow but funnily played.

Key to the movie is Pam Grier as Jackie Brown, the smartest person in the movie because she can play both sides, the feds and the criminals and ends up with a lot of dough.

Not a super movie and with 150 minutes definitely too long, but still fun.

Not quite PULP FICTION, but certainly worthy Tarantino
I love Quentin Tarantino. You watch him speak about his art in interviews, and while I realize what I'm responding to might simply be a cleverly-wrought public persona, his energy and enthusiasm for his craft is just so infectious that one cannot help but be energized too. That energy certainly carries over into his movies, and while he may not be the most thrillingly visual director, his undeniable gift for dialogue more than compensates in his films.

PULP FICTION, as of now, is my favorite movie; the dialogue sparkles with wit, and I could hear those lines over and over again without ever getting tired of them. JACKIE BROWN, his follow-up to PF, is just as good as PF, if not quite its superior. Many complained upon its release that this movie was too sluggish and slow-moving (the above Editorial Review calls it "decaffeinated"). Sure, the plot of this movie certainly could become a taut, exciting thriller under another director's hands. But clearly writer-director Tarantino isn't aiming merely for action-movie thrills. He is also focused on his characters, particularly with the two older characters, Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) and Max Cherry (Robert Forster), two characters who have an unspoken attraction to each other that brings an intriguing undertone to a majority of the crime story. If Tarantino takes his time developing his characters and laying out the plot...well, the characters' dialogue is consistently full of life; the characters are interesting (and the performances terrific across the board, particuarly Forster's); and the convoluted plot, when it kicks into high gear, is a source of fascination as well. Watching it, I hardly ever felt that it was too slow for its own good: I was too fascinated by what I was seeing and hearing to notice any possible deficiencies in pacing. (Another Elmore Leonard adaptation, Steven Soderbergh's OUT OF SIGHT, took a similarly leisurely approach to its crime plot, and it worked just as well in that film, too.)

In short, JACKIE BROWN is an underrated Tarantino masterpiece. It may not be quite the film PULP FICTION is (since it had a more palpably energetic feel to it, despite both films' running 154 minutes), but it is certainly a worthy follow-up. ... Read more

Reviews (71)

Subject matter meaningful for some...not for all
In Hanging Up, the phone is the umbilical cord for the family in this story, three sisters and their dear old dad. While Hanging Up was touted as a comedy, at least that's the impression I got, I'm hard pressed to remember much about it that was funny, it's a drama if ever there was one.

We meet Eve, played by the effervescent Meg Ryan, the overwhelmed middle sister in a family of driven, slightly neurotic individuals. Oldest sister, Georgia (Diane Keaton who also directs) is typical oldest child, overachiever material with her own Vogue-esqe magazine, named Georgia. Youngest sister Maddy is a somewhat spoiled soap opera star played to whiney perfection by Lisa Kudrow. Last but not least, is the dying father, Lou, with the ever-grumpy and inappropriate Walter Matthau at the helm.

The film has woven together the present with a series of flashbacks to Eve's childhood as well as flashbacks during her time with her father in her adult life. Amidst all the flashbacks, is the busy, crazed daily routine of party planner Eve and her attempt to understand what is happening to her father. She must also deal with a level of resentment towards her sisters for being an interruption into her life with all their phone calls, but not being a shoulder to lean on for her where their father is concerned.

Hanging Up does a great job demonstrating just how stressed out people can get. There is regular day-to-day stress and then there is the stress you bring on yourself purely because of a basic personality flaw. I have firsthand knowledge of making stress out of things that don't have to be stressful. First ulcer at age fourteen, thank you very much. I can understand Meg Ryan's character and her propensity for making mountains out of molehills.

The most rewarding thing about watching a character like that is watching the "change". Let's not forget, folks, in a movie, the main character usually makes a personal change, has an epiphany, changes their life, or ends a destructive pattern. What is drama? Putting an ordinary person in extraordinary circumstances. What Eve does early on in the film is reach a level of frustration that is so high she makes a scene in the middle of a hospital corridor.

Why is that so entertaining? Because she sort of freaks out and that's something regular people WANT to do, but CAN'T because we behave within the confines of societal norms. If I'm having a bad day, and I am in the middle of St. Anthony's and start yelling and flailing my arms, someone is gonna drag me to the fourth floor. In the movies you can scream and act like an idiot, in real life people look at you and say, "the cheese has slipped off her cracker".

Despite the frenetic pace of Eve's day to day routine and the frequent flashbacks, Hanging Up lacks the same gusto in its attempt to impact the viewer with the seriousness of a dying parent. Matthau's character seems to be little more than window-dressing with his scenes all virtually being nothing more than one-liners from the confines of his wheelchair or hospital bed. I guess I feel a dying parent would be a more significant story factor here than it seemed to be.

While I admit to becoming a little misty from time to time during the film, I was looking for gut-wrenching Terms of Endearment stuff. Hanging Up fell a little short for me but I'm sure people to whom a similar situation has happened may have a stronger emotional reaction.

However, there are two instances where Hanging Up was borderline daring, dealing with subject matter that I have seen little of, if ever. There is an obvious rift between Eve and her mother, from whom Lou was divorced many years before. We are given a taste of Eve's view of her mother from the flashback scenes, but the real drama comes when, in one of the flashback scenes Eve pays her mother a visit.

Eve goes to her mother (Cloris Leachman) to plead for her to return home because her father is so unhappy. Aside from that being a difficult confrontation for anyone to deal with, is the revelation that she's not all that satisfied with being a mother in the first place. Other girls couldn't wait to grow up and become mommies, so she thought she did too and it didn't take. The thought of hearing that coming out of a mother's mouth is almost like a kick in the stomach, which is exactly the reaction Ryan's character seemed to have. Talk about taboo, admitting to your child you wish you weren't a mother. Somebody call Jerry Springer, next topic, "I Wish You Were Never Born".

Another explosive element is the basis of the father's illness. His memory and clarity are more off than on. The sadness of a person slowly losing their mind, slowly forgetting everyone and everything dear to them is pathetic and emotionally charged. Hanging Up touches on this hopelessness in a moment of confusion, when Matthau's character confuses his daughter with someone else he used to know and basically, is hitting on her. Eve has to remind him that she's his daughter, not this other person and he becomes angry, stating he doesn't have any daughters. It's icky. But sometimes life is icky and this scene is a blatant reminder of just how icky things can get.

Hanging Up finally gets its message across when Ryan's character must basically get a grip and learn when to say when. She can't be superwoman, bearing the responsibility of what is happening to her father all by herself. I must also stress the importance of the sister relationships to the film as well, which I have no understanding of either since I have four younger brothers. I always wanted a sister, but with all those brothers, what I got instead was my own room. Women with sisters may take more away from this movie than any other viewer. Hanging Up isn't for some, great for others. This is one where your own life's experiences will impact your perspective on the film.

Better than the critics would have you believe
It seems the critics really hated this movie, but I found the premise one that really deserved addressing. The issue of one child being left to care for an ailing parent, while the other selfish siblings are heard from only if things aren't going their way, is an issue with which I'm sure many people have to deal.

In this movie, Meg Ryan plays the one that gets all the work and none of the credit. She does just a wonderful job, as does Walter Matthau as the father suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

Though I might question some of the casting, based on ages of the actors (17 years difference between the oldest and youngest children!), even Kudrow and Keaton play their parts well...as spoiled, self centered siblings.

I believe what may be a turn-off to some is the presence of TOO MANY obnoxious personalities. The movie would have been much better without the presence of Adam Arkin's or Jesse James's characters...and I probably would have felt more sympathy for Meg Ryan's character as well.

Though the movie was far from perfect, there were some emotional moments in the movie that made up for its shortcomings.

I think the biggest problem with the story line was the unrealistic unity of the sisters at the end of the movie. Self-centered individuals do not suddenly change their ways. Had Meg's character gone on her way, leaving the sisters to SEE the error of their ways, it would have been a much more effective ending.

As for the transfer....as usual, a fantastic anamorphic widescreen picture from Columbia. The special features are not great, but certainly more than one gets on most basic DVD's.

In the end, I would say this is an enjoyable...though not completely fulfilling movie. It could have been better, but it is definitely worth a rental...or if you can find it in the bargain bin as I did....a cheap purchase.

{As an added challenge....see if you can recognize the film error as the cars are racing to the hospital toward the end of the movie.)

Sometimes You Just Need to Hang Up
When I first saw this movie, I have to admit that I wasn't very impressed by it. You're going from sister to sister, scene to scene very quickly. I didn't have much time to understand what was even going on. So I decided to give the movie another chance, mostly because Diane Keaton is my favorite actress. So I did and as I watched, I became more aware of what was going on. Meg Ryan, Lisa Kudrow, and Diane Keaton all give stunning performances in this movie. Walter Matthau gave a great performance as the father. The sad part is, is that this was his final film before he passed away. Cloris Leachman has a very small part in the movie, but the parts that she is in are quite effective.

Many people view this movie as a comedy. It is definitely not a comedy. It is a drama. If you watch closely and really pay attention to what is going on, then you'll see the difference. Eve (Ryan) is trying to balance her son and husband and caring for her father. Something that Maddy (Kudrow), a soap star and Georgia (Keaton), the head of a magazine entitled 'Georgia' will not do. They are too wrapped up in their own lives to come and help care for their dying father. Yes, the ending is a little predictable, but it is also very touching. If you're looking for a movie that has everyone getting along all the time, don't rent this. But if you want to watch a movie that shows what true family can be, rent this. Granted, many families are not like this, but hey, you never know!

Not that bad, not great, either
I just watched this film on DVD, and to a regular guy like myself (I think I'm pretty regular), it was not a bad experience. Maybe it's because my mom and her siblings are currently dealing with their mother right now, and the movie struck a chord...

Anyway, I thought Meg Ryan was terrific in this film. In her other films she always tried to be cute and funny. When I was younger I liked that, but then I found her boring. But she's good in this one as the middle child who has the (mis)luck of caring for her dying father. Keaton, on the other hand, is totally unconvincing as either a magazine mogul or first daughter, and she had no screen presence at all; plus her outfit and makeup, which are meant to make her character look younger than the actress herself, are a disaster. Kudlow does what she does best: playing a dumb, clueless blonde.

As for the story, it has certain charms, but ultimately falls apart because it's confusing and melodramatic. (Be sure to watch a deleted scene on the DVD.) As some reviewers pointed out all too often the movie seems directionless, and the on-screen chemistry of the three sisters is rather lacking. Funny Evie keeps asking about the name of a "bland" actress from the 50s; the movie just gets more and more bland. But Ryan is good enough that she keeps the film moving and makes me like her again.

How could it be THIS bad?
Damn, with this cast, and with Nora Ephron, how could they make a movie that's this terrible? And the saddest thing is that it turned out to be Walter Matthau's last movie cuz he died shortly after the filming. I figured the negative reviews might be wrong, that it really couldn't be all THAT awful - but I didn't finish watching it. Clicked off the TV and went to bed with a good book. Sheesh, what a shame. ... Read more

Reviews (101)

A cult film fave
This is a stunning movie, simply overshadowed by the realease of "Matrix" about the same time. Not that "Matrix" wasn't great, but "Thirteenth Floor" deserved a lot more attention. Maybe just too cerebral for some--this is thought provoking and requires astute attention. While others have mentioned "Dark City" and "eXistenz," this is my favorite of the three. The photography is stunning, the production values make "eXistenz" look like a student film, and 1930's Los Angeles is beautifully realized. The use of color palette to distinguish the different realities is more effective on DVD than VHS tape. Craig Bierko, Armin Mueller-Stahl, and Vincent D'Onofrio (who is unrecognizable from his stint in "Men in Black")are all riveting. I found the ending to be clever, staying true to the theme of the movie while playing out the love affair. This warranted a satisfying second viewing to assure that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. Give it a try.

I rented it; I bought it!
By the time I had seen this film on video, I had already seen the two films it is often compared to, THE MATRIX and DARK CITY, and although I have enjoyed both of these motion pictures on numerous occasions, I still find that I can always watch THE THIRTEEN FLOOR and get drawn back in.

It could very well be that what other reviewers are critical of about this movie is what actually makes me like it all the more; namely that science fiction that makes up a large part of the story line is not so complicated as to overpower the film noir-like quality this movie also possesses. The plot remains simple yet provocative, particularly after one encounters the plot twist near the end of the movie.

And it is that plot twist that provides one of the reasons why I slip this DVD of this movie into my player twice as often as I do those other two films..... With The Matrix and with Dark City, I am made to question the reality of the environment I live in; with The Thirteenth Floor, I am forced to examine the very foundation of my own existance. Deep concepts indeed...and from such a simple movie too!

Besides that, I loved Fuller's 1937 simulation world, from the slightly sepia cast that colored everything, to the slightly edgy quality of the music in the cabaret (The program, like all computer programs, still had a few bugs in it....).

OK...I will agree that the plot, though simple, still managed to show more depth than any of the characters within it ....and the scene at the very end of the film could have been fleshed out more. BUT with that one star taken away, I still would recommend this movie....

Rent it and see it and find out I mean. Get a copy for your collection when you want to see it again.....I did.

Awesome
Why do people keep saying this is a MATRIX ripoff? This movie is based on the novel SIMULCRON-3 that was written in 1962!!

I think that predates the MATRIX by a few years. Plus, the MATRIX isn't all that original anyway as even communicated by the screen-writers. Can you say PKD?

The movie that keeps you wanting more
If you haven't seen the film then go out and rent it first because it's not for everyone, espicially if your very much a matrix fan because this film doesn't go as deeply as you'd like it.
The reason I gave this film a 4 star is because it's gengre is rarely done well or for that matter done right. Like the matrix, it travels deep into the human mind to create a feeling of unease and distrust. In that I mean that one shouldn't believe what they see all at once until they've seen it all. Although the film doesn't have that element of serious intrigue like the matrix it still in it's own way gives you just what your looking for in terms of a sci-fi film without all the special kick ass moves that matrix is so well known for. Instead the film deals with how a good technological invention can turn deadly then moves into a field of smoken mirrors in which what you've seen has completely changed it's meaning and once again you are forced to replay the story line in your head to understand how it all works.
By the end of the film (which I will not tell you because that would be wrong) you are left with this sense of "awww" in which you think "geeez, I would have never guessed" which is just what the Matrix did for most people. Of course, I shouldn't be comparing two (as far as I'm concerned) completely different types of sci-fi films but these days if you haven't seen the matrix and your interested in this film then go out and rent it. Besides it does you no good to be out of the loop.
Anyway, to get the point across thier are some great performances in this film and often your left wondering where the next plot twist will lie. Although their were other wonderful actors in the film, I loved espicially Vincent D'onofrio just because he's the perfect villian and innocent bistandard all in once. Truely this film is as much a mystery of the sci-fi gengre as the Matrix is to Neo so do try to rent it and if you like it think of buying it. It never hurts to have a wide variety of sci-fi films at home!
Thank you! enjoy!

It was OK
I saw the Matrix and Reloaded before viewing this movie (just to clear the air). I liked it but it was very predictable. One other reviewer mentioned that this film left out the FX in order to be more of a thinking film. Think about what? The Matrix was rich in philosophical, theological, psychological, mathematical, and spiritual content. This movie had dablings, but not much. My wife absolutly HATED this movie. I though it was ok. There was no real "AHA!" moment (though I know where the directors wanted you to say AHA!). Perhaps I'm a bit biased to the Matrix, but this movie did not go as deep and simply skimmed the surface of "what is real". Next on my list is eXistenZ. ... Read more

Reviews (167)

Dynamite Cast + Good Fun = Excellent Film
First off: "Jackie Brown" is not a disappointment. After the surprise success of Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" in 1994, everyone was looking for him to fail on his next attempt. Sorry, friends, but this just isn't the case. In many ways, "Jackie Brown" is a more enjoyable ride. After repeated viewings of "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs," one can easily pinpoint the weaknesses in Tarantino's style. He uses similar references to '70s action and blaxploitation films, he uses relic music hits from the same era, and he even uses similar character names (Marvin with no ear, meet Marvin with no head). The violence is always there, and the incessant use of profanity is always there. But "Jackie Brown" is different from these previous efforts. There's no appearances by either Harvey Keitel or Tim Roth; instead, the film is headlined by the queen of the '70s blaxploitation flicks, the eternally sexy Pam Grier. The supporting cast includes Robert Forster, a staple of cheesy B-movies, Samuel L. Jackson in a return to the world of Tarantino, and the very interesting threesome of Michael Keaton, Bridget Fonda, and the ever-versatile De Niro to round out the cast. So what, besides the cast, makes the film such a knockout? While the profanity level has been toned down, Tarantino's script loses no edge and maintains a constant freshness and sense of humor. Grier has never been much of an actress, but she's always had a certain charm, and she uses this charm effectively in "Jackie Brown." Forster gives his most memorable performance here, playing the role of Max Cherry with complete control and positive cool. Fonda is great as Melanie, and Keaton has a blast playing ATF agent Ray Nicolet, but De Niro steals the show as Louis Gara. De Niro has one of his better supporting roles here, and he makes the most of it. Louis is something of a dimwit, but only De Niro could inject the character with as much humor as he has here. The film, at 154m, is probably too long and overindulgent, but Tarantino presents us with an interesting plot, and some equally interesting subplots to boot. The most effective of these is the relationship that builds between Grier and Forster; there is an attraction there, but the insecurities of each character prevents this from ever reaching a climax. The film is colorful, has solid (but not brilliant) direction, and, aside from some serious lapses in logic, the script flows seamlessly. And guess what? There's no guest appearance by the man himself, who must have realized after "From Dusk Till Dawn" that, while he may be a writer and a director, and actor he is not. "Jackie Brown" reveals the limitations of Quentin Tarantino, but the film is still a riot, and one of the most entertaining of 1997. That's more than I can say for James Cameron's "Titanic," which fails on all levels for me, despite what the critics say. "Jackie Brown" delivers a knockout punch. It's great to see that some Elmore Leonard novels are finally getting the big-screen treatments that they deserve.

Fond-a Weapons
Jackie Brown: rated R, 2 hours and 40 minutes

Jackie Brown is an incredibly well played movie about guns, drugs, and money. Half a million in cash is up for grabs, and the only way to obtain it is by figuring out who is playing whom.
When Jackie (a stunning Pam Grier) is caught at an airport carrying a veritably large sum of money and a bag of crack, the outline of the story is formed. Jackie is held in custody facing possible time in prison, when the deceptive Ordell, played by black talking Samuel L. Jackson steps into the picture. Ordell hires an honest bailbondsman, Max Cherry, to release Ms. Brown. While Ordell takes care of business, we see behind-the-scenes conversations between the spaced out Robert De Niro, as Lewis, and the dim-witted Bridget Fonda, as Melanie, two of Ordell's main connections. Jackie becomes caught between two sides, both with equal objectives. Ray (Michael Keaton), the cop that apprehended Jackie earlier is after small time arms dealer, Ordell, and Ordell is pulling Jackie into his scheme of acquiring the cash. Meanwhile, Lewis and Melanie have their own plans of taking the money. Jackie can't afford to get into any more legal trouble, and if she doesn't cooperate with the man she owes her freedom to, she will be killed, which sets the stage for the perfect swindle.
Quentin Tarantino, creator of Jackie Brown, is master of 'film noir', and adds an interesting perspective to one scene in particular. Jackie is forced by the feds to frame Ordell, and according to Ordell, she is supposed to double-cross them. Caught in the middle, Jackie must fake an exchange of marked bills, in order to seem loyal to both. The switch is shown through three different viewpoints, adding greatly to the effect. The first time, Jackie is shown leaving the bag of money in a dressing room. Next, Lewis and Melanie are shown actually making the exchange, with the real bag of money left behind in the dressing room, and a suspicious Max Cherry watching. Lastly, Max Cherry watches as Lewis and Melanie swap bags, and the actual bag of cash left for him to pick up. By doing this, the big picture is seen through bits and pieces. Tarantino deserves much credit for its ingenious execution, and Jackie Brown in its entirety is recognized as a success, with phenomenal acting by the whole cast, primarily Pam Grier.

Great! Awesome! Fantastic!
Nobody and I mean nobody makes movies like Quentin Tarantino. JACKIE BROWN is one of the greatest movies of all time. Personally, This is my favorite of Quentin Tarantino's films. So get your copy of JACKIE BROWN today!

Not bad, De Niro is fun
Jackie Brown is certainly not Tarantino's best but it is amusing. As in pretty much every movie Samuel L Jackson plays a pretty important part as a gunrunner. He lives in a LA house with the very hot Bridget Fonda. A friend who just came out of jail lives with him and helps him. This is absolutely the funniest character in the movie, played by De Niro. He is a little dumb, lazy and slow but funnily played.

Key to the movie is Pam Grier as Jackie Brown, the smartest person in the movie because she can play both sides, the feds and the criminals and ends up with a lot of dough.

Not a super movie and with 150 minutes definitely too long, but still fun.

Not quite PULP FICTION, but certainly worthy Tarantino
I love Quentin Tarantino. You watch him speak about his art in interviews, and while I realize what I'm responding to might simply be a cleverly-wrought public persona, his energy and enthusiasm for his craft is just so infectious that one cannot help but be energized too. That energy certainly carries over into his movies, and while he may not be the most thrillingly visual director, his undeniable gift for dialogue more than compensates in his films.

PULP FICTION, as of now, is my favorite movie; the dialogue sparkles with wit, and I could hear those lines over and over again without ever getting tired of them. JACKIE BROWN, his follow-up to PF, is just as good as PF, if not quite its superior. Many complained upon its release that this movie was too sluggish and slow-moving (the above Editorial Review calls it "decaffeinated"). Sure, the plot of this movie certainly could become a taut, exciting thriller under another director's hands. But clearly writer-director Tarantino isn't aiming merely for action-movie thrills. He is also focused on his characters, particularly with the two older characters, Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) and Max Cherry (Robert Forster), two characters who have an unspoken attraction to each other that brings an intriguing undertone to a majority of the crime story. If Tarantino takes his time developing his characters and laying out the plot...well, the characters' dialogue is consistently full of life; the characters are interesting (and the performances terrific across the board, particuarly Forster's); and the convoluted plot, when it kicks into high gear, is a source of fascination as well. Watching it, I hardly ever felt that it was too slow for its own good: I was too fascinated by what I was seeing and hearing to notice any possible deficiencies in pacing. (Another Elmore Leonard adaptation, Steven Soderbergh's OUT OF SIGHT, took a similarly leisurely approach to its crime plot, and it worked just as well in that film, too.)

In short, JACKIE BROWN is an underrated Tarantino masterpiece. It may not be quite the film PULP FICTION is (since it had a more palpably energetic feel to it, despite both films' running 154 minutes), but it is certainly a worthy follow-up. ... Read more

Reviews (101)

A cult film fave
This is a stunning movie, simply overshadowed by the realease of "Matrix" about the same time. Not that "Matrix" wasn't great, but "Thirteenth Floor" deserved a lot more attention. Maybe just too cerebral for some--this is thought provoking and requires astute attention. While others have mentioned "Dark City" and "eXistenz," this is my favorite of the three. The photography is stunning, the production values make "eXistenz" look like a student film, and 1930's Los Angeles is beautifully realized. The use of color palette to distinguish the different realities is more effective on DVD than VHS tape. Craig Bierko, Armin Mueller-Stahl, and Vincent D'Onofrio (who is unrecognizable from his stint in "Men in Black")are all riveting. I found the ending to be clever, staying true to the theme of the movie while playing out the love affair. This warranted a satisfying second viewing to assure that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. Give it a try.

I rented it; I bought it!
By the time I had seen this film on video, I had already seen the two films it is often compared to, THE MATRIX and DARK CITY, and although I have enjoyed both of these motion pictures on numerous occasions, I still find that I can always watch THE THIRTEEN FLOOR and get drawn back in.

It could very well be that what other reviewers are critical of about this movie is what actually makes me like it all the more; namely that science fiction that makes up a large part of the story line is not so complicated as to overpower the film noir-like quality this movie also possesses. The plot remains simple yet provocative, particularly after one encounters the plot twist near the end of the movie.

And it is that plot twist that provides one of the reasons why I slip this DVD of this movie into my player twice as often as I do those other two films..... With The Matrix and with Dark City, I am made to question the reality of the environment I live in; with The Thirteenth Floor, I am forced to examine the very foundation of my own existance. Deep concepts indeed...and from such a simple movie too!

Besides that, I loved Fuller's 1937 simulation world, from the slightly sepia cast that colored everything, to the slightly edgy quality of the music in the cabaret (The program, like all computer programs, still had a few bugs in it....).

OK...I will agree that the plot, though simple, still managed to show more depth than any of the characters within it ....and the scene at the very end of the film could have been fleshed out more. BUT with that one star taken away, I still would recommend this movie....

Rent it and see it and find out I mean. Get a copy for your collection when you want to see it again.....I did.

Awesome
Why do people keep saying this is a MATRIX ripoff? This movie is based on the novel SIMULCRON-3 that was written in 1962!!

I think that predates the MATRIX by a few years. Plus, the MATRIX isn't all that original anyway as even communicated by the screen-writers. Can you say PKD?

The movie that keeps you wanting more
If you haven't seen the film then go out and rent it first because it's not for everyone, espicially if your very much a matrix fan because this film doesn't go as deeply as you'd like it.
The reason I gave this film a 4 star is because it's gengre is rarely done well or for that matter done right. Like the matrix, it travels deep into the human mind to create a feeling of unease and distrust. In that I mean that one shouldn't believe what they see all at once until they've seen it all. Although the film doesn't have that element of serious intrigue like the matrix it still in it's own way gives you just what your looking for in terms of a sci-fi film without all the special kick ass moves that matrix is so well known for. Instead the film deals with how a good technological invention can turn deadly then moves into a field of smoken mirrors in which what you've seen has completely changed it's meaning and once again you are forced to replay the story line in your head to understand how it all works.
By the end of the film (which I will not tell you because that would be wrong) you are left with this sense of "awww" in which you think "geeez, I would have never guessed" which is just what the Matrix did for most people. Of course, I shouldn't be comparing two (as far as I'm concerned) completely different types of sci-fi films but these days if you haven't seen the matrix and your interested in this film then go out and rent it. Besides it does you no good to be out of the loop.
Anyway, to get the point across thier are some great performances in this film and often your left wondering where the next plot twist will lie. Although their were other wonderful actors in the film, I loved espicially Vincent D'onofrio just because he's the perfect villian and innocent bistandard all in once. Truely this film is as much a mystery of the sci-fi gengre as the Matrix is to Neo so do try to rent it and if you like it think of buying it. It never hurts to have a wide variety of sci-fi films at home!
Thank you! enjoy!

It was OK
I saw the Matrix and Reloaded before viewing this movie (just to clear the air). I liked it but it was very predictable. One other reviewer mentioned that this film left out the FX in order to be more of a thinking film. Think about what? The Matrix was rich in philosophical, theological, psychological, mathematical, and spiritual content. This movie had dablings, but not much. My wife absolutly HATED this movie. I though it was ok. There was no real "AHA!" moment (though I know where the directors wanted you to say AHA!). Perhaps I'm a bit biased to the Matrix, but this movie did not go as deep and simply skimmed the surface of "what is real". Next on my list is eXistenZ. ... Read more

Reviews (71)

Subject matter meaningful for some...not for all
In Hanging Up, the phone is the umbilical cord for the family in this story, three sisters and their dear old dad. While Hanging Up was touted as a comedy, at least that's the impression I got, I'm hard pressed to remember much about it that was funny, it's a drama if ever there was one.

We meet Eve, played by the effervescent Meg Ryan, the overwhelmed middle sister in a family of driven, slightly neurotic individuals. Oldest sister, Georgia (Diane Keaton who also directs) is typical oldest child, overachiever material with her own Vogue-esqe magazine, named Georgia. Youngest sister Maddy is a somewhat spoiled soap opera star played to whiney perfection by Lisa Kudrow. Last but not least, is the dying father, Lou, with the ever-grumpy and inappropriate Walter Matthau at the helm.

The film has woven together the present with a series of flashbacks to Eve's childhood as well as flashbacks during her time with her father in her adult life. Amidst all the flashbacks, is the busy, crazed daily routine of party planner Eve and her attempt to understand what is happening to her father. She must also deal with a level of resentment towards her sisters for being an interruption into her life with all their phone calls, but not being a shoulder to lean on for her where their father is concerned.

Hanging Up does a great job demonstrating just how stressed out people can get. There is regular day-to-day stress and then there is the stress you bring on yourself purely because of a basic personality flaw. I have firsthand knowledge of making stress out of things that don't have to be stressful. First ulcer at age fourteen, thank you very much. I can understand Meg Ryan's character and her propensity for making mountains out of molehills.

The most rewarding thing about watching a character like that is watching the "change". Let's not forget, folks, in a movie, the main character usually makes a personal change, has an epiphany, changes their life, or ends a destructive pattern. What is drama? Putting an ordinary person in extraordinary circumstances. What Eve does early on in the film is reach a level of frustration that is so high she makes a scene in the middle of a hospital corridor.

Why is that so entertaining? Because she sort of freaks out and that's something regular people WANT to do, but CAN'T because we behave within the confines of societal norms. If I'm having a bad day, and I am in the middle of St. Anthony's and start yelling and flailing my arms, someone is gonna drag me to the fourth floor. In the movies you can scream and act like an idiot, in real life people look at you and say, "the cheese has slipped off her cracker".

Despite the frenetic pace of Eve's day to day routine and the frequent flashbacks, Hanging Up lacks the same gusto in its attempt to impact the viewer with the seriousness of a dying parent. Matthau's character seems to be little more than window-dressing with his scenes all virtually being nothing more than one-liners from the confines of his wheelchair or hospital bed. I guess I feel a dying parent would be a more significant story factor here than it seemed to be.

While I admit to becoming a little misty from time to time during the film, I was looking for gut-wrenching Terms of Endearment stuff. Hanging Up fell a little short for me but I'm sure people to whom a similar situation has happened may have a stronger emotional reaction.

However, there are two instances where Hanging Up was borderline daring, dealing with subject matter that I have seen little of, if ever. There is an obvious rift between Eve and her mother, from whom Lou was divorced many years before. We are given a taste of Eve's view of her mother from the flashback scenes, but the real drama comes when, in one of the flashback scenes Eve pays her mother a visit.

Eve goes to her mother (Cloris Leachman) to plead for her to return home because her father is so unhappy. Aside from that being a difficult confrontation for anyone to deal with, is the revelation that she's not all that satisfied with being a mother in the first place. Other girls couldn't wait to grow up and become mommies, so she thought she did too and it didn't take. The thought of hearing that coming out of a mother's mouth is almost like a kick in the stomach, which is exactly the reaction Ryan's character seemed to have. Talk about taboo, admitting to your child you wish you weren't a mother. Somebody call Jerry Springer, next topic, "I Wish You Were Never Born".

Another explosive element is the basis of the father's illness. His memory and clarity are more off than on. The sadness of a person slowly losing their mind, slowly forgetting everyone and everything dear to them is pathetic and emotionally charged. Hanging Up touches on this hopelessness in a moment of confusion, when Matthau's character confuses his daughter with someone else he used to know and basically, is hitting on her. Eve has to remind him that she's his daughter, not this other person and he becomes angry, stating he doesn't have any daughters. It's icky. But sometimes life is icky and this scene is a blatant reminder of just how icky things can get.

Hanging Up finally gets its message across when Ryan's character must basically get a grip and learn when to say when. She can't be superwoman, bearing the responsibility of what is happening to her father all by herself. I must also stress the importance of the sister relationships to the film as well, which I have no understanding of either since I have four younger brothers. I always wanted a sister, but with all those brothers, what I got instead was my own room. Women with sisters may take more away from this movie than any other viewer. Hanging Up isn't for some, great for others. This is one where your own life's experiences will impact your perspective on the film.

Better than the critics would have you believe
It seems the critics really hated this movie, but I found the premise one that really deserved addressing. The issue of one child being left to care for an ailing parent, while the other selfish siblings are heard from only if things aren't going their way, is an issue with which I'm sure many people have to deal.

In this movie, Meg Ryan plays the one that gets all the work and none of the credit. She does just a wonderful job, as does Walter Matthau as the father suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

Though I might question some of the casting, based on ages of the actors (17 years difference between the oldest and youngest children!), even Kudrow and Keaton play their parts well...as spoiled, self centered siblings.

I believe what may be a turn-off to some is the presence of TOO MANY obnoxious personalities. The movie would have been much better without the presence of Adam Arkin's or Jesse James's characters...and I probably would have felt more sympathy for Meg Ryan's character as well.

Though the movie was far from perfect, there were some emotional moments in the movie that made up for its shortcomings.

I think the biggest problem with the story line was the unrealistic unity of the sisters at the end of the movie. Self-centered individuals do not suddenly change their ways. Had Meg's character gone on her way, leaving the sisters to SEE the error of their ways, it would have been a much more effective ending.

As for the transfer....as usual, a fantastic anamorphic widescreen picture from Columbia. The special features are not great, but certainly more than one gets on most basic DVD's.

In the end, I would say this is an enjoyable...though not completely fulfilling movie. It could have been better, but it is definitely worth a rental...or if you can find it in the bargain bin as I did....a cheap purchase.

{As an added challenge....see if you can recognize the film error as the cars are racing to the hospital toward the end of the movie.)

Sometimes You Just Need to Hang Up
When I first saw this movie, I have to admit that I wasn't very impressed by it. You're going from sister to sister, scene to scene very quickly. I didn't have much time to understand what was even going on. So I decided to give the movie another chance, mostly because Diane Keaton is my favorite actress. So I did and as I watched, I became more aware of what was going on. Meg Ryan, Lisa Kudrow, and Diane Keaton all give stunning performances in this movie. Walter Matthau gave a great performance as the father. The sad part is, is that this was his final film before he passed away. Cloris Leachman has a very small part in the movie, but the parts that she is in are quite effective.

Many people view this movie as a comedy. It is definitely not a comedy. It is a drama. If you watch closely and really pay attention to what is going on, then you'll see the difference. Eve (Ryan) is trying to balance her son and husband and caring for her father. Something that Maddy (Kudrow), a soap star and Georgia (Keaton), the head of a magazine entitled 'Georgia' will not do. They are too wrapped up in their own lives to come and help care for their dying father. Yes, the ending is a little predictable, but it is also very touching. If you're looking for a movie that has everyone getting along all the time, don't rent this. But if you want to watch a movie that shows what true family can be, rent this. Granted, many families are not like this, but hey, you never know!

Not that bad, not great, either
I just watched this film on DVD, and to a regular guy like myself (I think I'm pretty regular), it was not a bad experience. Maybe it's because my mom and her siblings are currently dealing with their mother right now, and the movie struck a chord...

Anyway, I thought Meg Ryan was terrific in this film. In her other films she always tried to be cute and funny. When I was younger I liked that, but then I found her boring. But she's good in this one as the middle child who has the (mis)luck of caring for her dying father. Keaton, on the other hand, is totally unconvincing as either a magazine mogul or first daughter, and she had no screen presence at all; plus her outfit and makeup, which are meant to make her character look younger than the actress herself, are a disaster. Kudlow does what she does best: playing a dumb, clueless blonde.

As for the story, it has certain charms, but ultimately falls apart because it's confusing and melodramatic. (Be sure to watch a deleted scene on the DVD.) As some reviewers pointed out all too often the movie seems directionless, and the on-screen chemistry of the three sisters is rather lacking. Funny Evie keeps asking about the name of a "bland" actress from the 50s; the movie just gets more and more bland. But Ryan is good enough that she keeps the film moving and makes me like her again.

How could it be THIS bad?
Damn, with this cast, and with Nora Ephron, how could they make a movie that's this terrible? And the saddest thing is that it turned out to be Walter Matthau's last movie cuz he died shortly after the filming. I figured the negative reviews might be wrong, that it really couldn't be all THAT awful - but I didn't finish watching it. Clicked off the TV and went to bed with a good book. Sheesh, what a shame. ... Read more