Batman (1989)

Batman (1989)

Director: Tim Burton

Cast: Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Jack Palance, Billy Dee Williams, Michael Gough

Well, as I write this review, I’m right in the middle of Summer 2016 and I’ve decided to focus my attention as a movie buff on mind blowing Summer Blockbusters. You know, big budget, loud movies released in Summer time. Inevitably, my mind went to Tim Burton’s Batman (1989), one of the biggest Summer Blockbusters ever; period. Now every time I think about Tim Burton’s two Bat films, Batman (1989) and Batman Returns (1992) I go into this mental struggle as to which one is the better of the two. I ultimately end up using the argument that parents use to refer to their children “I love them both for different reasons”. A lot of kids growing up nowadays don’t realize the kind of phenomenon that the release of Burton’s Batman (1989) meant to the world. I mean this movie quite literally took over the world! “Bat fever” took over the nation, the bat insignia was on everything from t-shirts to sneakers and Prince’s monster hit “Batdance” played nonstop over the airwaves! There was video games, comic books, costumes, anything and everything based on the movie. I mean, I remember people getting hair cuts that resembled the bat insignia! It was crazy, but of course, it all came as a result of Tim Burton’s fantastic movie, which I must say still retains that sense of spectacle even by today’s standards.

The story revolves around Jack Napier, a gangster who is transformed into a freak when Batman throws him into a vat of toxic chemicals. The chemicals turn Napier’s skin white and leave a permanent smile on his face. From then on, he calls himself “The Joker”, to him life is now one big bad joke. He wants to take over Gotham by making a mockery of them first; he wants to kill Gothamites with a chemical that kills them from a laughing fit and leaves their corpses with a big fat grin on their face. What thrusts this films villain is his hatred of society, to him society is a joke meant to be laughed at and squashed like a cockroach. He uses society’s greed against them, criticizing a society that revolves around the love for money. To him their lives are “failed and useless” and they have to be relived of them. Moving the story forward is the classic good guy mirrors the bad guy motif, one created the other and vice versa. It’s the classic “freak vs. freak” storyline culminating on top of a gothic church, with a duke out between the two freaks. In the balance is the life of Vicky Vale, Bruce Wayne’s love interest and the life of all Gothamites.

At the center of this film’s success is director Tim Burton. Having directed two back to back box office winners: Pee Wee’s Big Adventure (1985) and Beetlejuice (1986) he was chosen to direct the new Batman film; which had been under development at Warner. Two comedies like Pee Wee’s Big Adventure and Bettlejuice don’t exactly scream “dark gothic comic book film!”, but we need to remember that Burton was gothic and dark from the very beginning when he was making short films like Vincent (1982) and Frankenweenie (1984). So in many ways, he was the perfect choice for taking on the rigors of directing a film that takes place in the ultra gothic Gotham City. Actually, Burton embraced that Gothic element of the comic books better than any director before or after him. Nobody has gone as gothic as he did, which is what sets his bat films apart from all others. Yet, on hindsight, and considering what the producers wanted to achieve with this movie, I think they chose him precisely because of the comedy. You see, the producers of this here film wanted to make a Bat film that was closer in tone to the television show, so I’m thinking that when they hired Burton, they thought they’d get this guy who’d make a campy film, a la the television show. What they got instead was the soon to be master of goth.

Having Burton as a director actually saved the film from campiness hell because producers were always pushing for the campy sense of humor from the television show because they thought that’s what people remembered about Batman, they thought that this is what people would want and would expect from a Batman movie. Yet for his take on Batman, Burton went for the darkness seen in Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns, a graphic novel that has gone on to influence almost every single Batman film to date. Hell, we even see images from Miller’s seminal graphic novel in Zack Snyder’s Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)! With his graphic novel, Miller stepped away from the campy vibe of the show and what DC had done with the character up to then to present us with a dark, aged, pissed off Batman. Burton latched on to that rather than the campiness and audiences loved it. Gotham City streets looked shadowy and dangerous, not colorful.

But producers didn’t give up on the campy television show vibe. The finally found a director who gave them exactly what they wanted with Joel Schumacher, who made the franchise killing Batman Forever (1995) and Batman & Robin (1997). The death of that first run of Bat films proved that Burton had made the right choice in stepping way from the campiness. Without Burton’s creative force behind the films, they became exactly what the producers wanted: silly children’s films. We have to remember producers are more interested in marketing capabilities of a film, the deals, the toys, the cartoon shows, the action figures, which is probably why a lot of companies where upset at Burton’s film, they felt it was too adult to create merchandising for kids; though most companies later gave in due to the films gargantuan success.

After the films success, it was Bat everything! And it’s true, when we look at Burton’s Bat films, there’s something very adult about these movies, the themes, the dialog. In Batman, Bruce Wayne and Vicky Vale have sex, Jack Napier was screwing Grissom’s girl, there’s tons of double entendre, more so on Batman Returns (1992) .Yes my friends, this Batman film was a strange bird, though it seemed tailor made for kids, Burton gave it an adult twist. Sure Batman has its origins in comic books, which for the longest time were associated as something strictly for children, but to everyone’s surprise Burton’s film was dark, “adult” and sexual. What makes it a strange bird is that it didn’t lose that fun comic book vibe either. We still had the bat mobile, the bat jet and the utility belts! Usually films that defy their target audience end up as huge failures (The Monster Squad for example), but Batman walked that fine line and came out winning in the end.

The film has a violent edge to it, its heroes and villains were not squeaky clean, in fact, they were on the edge of insanity! For example, The Joker electrocutes someone to the point where he becomes a charred skeleton. Characters aren’t afraid to kill and be insane, I mean, villains like Nicholson’s The Joker are rarely seen in films these days, today studios prefer to be extremely politically correct, which is just a bore when it comes to a big bad villain. Back in the 80’s villains were over the top, sometimes taking over a film as was the case with Batman. It’s Nicholson who steals the show, who gives the stand out performance. Nicholson said on many occasions that this was his favorite character, and one can clearly see he is having a blast playing the clown prince of crime. It’s so refreshing to go back and see these films, villains feel more intense, more evil. Even Batman was a little more intense than expected, he actually tells The Joker that he wants to kill him; something that goes against what Batman is all about in the comics. Batman doesn’t kill villains, he brings them to justice, he sends them to Arkham Asylum. He doesn't end up killing The Joker, but you could hear it in his voice that that was his intended to do and he would've done it, had the Joker not done it himself.

Actually, many comic book fans were enraged with this film, starting with the choice to cast Michael Keaton as Batman. I have to admit, like most, at first I agreed. How the hell was Beetlejuice going to play Batman? The two didn’t go together in my mind. But then I saw the film and boom, Keaton is Batman, there was no doubt about it. Now, most people agree that Keaton’s take is the best. I screened both of these films (I screen movies at a local dive bar) and to my surprise, a lot of people came to see both of them. At a certain point in the night one guy said “that’s the real Batman!” We can’t forget Danny Elfman’s amazing music, which is just harrowing. It honestly is a huge part of this films success. We can’t leave out the art direction which is so gothic, so grimy! By the way, the art direction won the film an academy award! Who would’ve thought it right? A comic book movie winning an Oscar!

Since then, comic book films have come a long way. Today we get a comic book film every few months, but back then? A good comic book film was a rare thing! And we have two great films to thank for this, Richard Donner’s Superman (1978) and Tim Burton’s Batman (1989). Both of these films were two giant steps for comic book films! They showed that comic book movies, when done right, had huge money making potential. People embraced them. Between these two important comic book films, it was Batman (1989) that elevated things to another level, it was simply put an incredibly lucrative hit, the biggest comic book movie of its time, an incredible success all across the world. The phenomenon took a life of its own, but we need to remember that the phenomenon came as a result of an amazing movie, which remains, in the eyes of this comic book fan, a timeless film worth revisiting  time and time again.  

Rating:  5 out of 5

Birdman (2014)

Birdman: Or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance (2014)

Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu

Cast: Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, Naomi Watts, Edward Norton

I enjoy Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu films because of the level of realism they have, they have immediacy to them that attracts me to them, they feel like real life and not like many of today's color filtered, fake looking films. If you don’t believe me go rent Amores Perros (2000), a film that tells five stories that are all connected by one catastrophic car accident, an idea that Paul Haggis borrowed heavily from for his film Crash (2004). Amores Perros is shot in this hyper realistic documentary style that just blows me away every time I see it, actually all of Iñarritu’s films are shot this way which is what I like about them. So anyways, I always look forward to Iñarritu’s films, because he is one of those few directors with a pitch perfect record, he hardly ever makes a disappointing film. The only time I wasn’t blown away by one of his films was with Babel (2006), and even that film has its merits. Iñarritu’s the kind of director that even when he makes a “bad” film, it’s still good. When I heard about Birdman I was immediately attracted to it because of its premise, I thought it was a novel idea, but I have to admit I was more than a bit curious as to what Iñarritu was going to say with this film. What would it be about? 

Birdman is all about Riggan, an aging actor trying to gain the respect of an audience that has forgotten all about him. You see, at one point in his life Riggan was the biggest star on the planet when he starred in a series of comic book films called Birdman; a series of films about a super hero with wings, which by the way is a pretty cool looking character. Point is Riggan stopped making Birdman movies and is now fading away from the spotlight. His plan to regain the audiences approval and attention is putting on a play called ‘What we talk about when we talk about love’.  When the movie begins, the play is days away from premiering in a theater in New York City and he is all kinds of nervous looking for a new actor to take the lead role. Will he get to premiere his play successfully? Does he still have what it takes? Will the audience accept him once again?

Various elements make Birdman one of the best films of 2014, but let’s start with its obvious technical prowess. Here’s a film shot in a way that makes it look like its one long continuous shot, and though this might fly undetected by the common moviegoer, those with a more keen sense of observation will realize just how difficult it is to make a film this way. The big problem is that when an actor messes up a line, you have to start filming the shot all over again. Also, shooting a film with long continuous shots proves difficult in the editing room, because through editing you can establish certain beats in the rhyme of the visuals and the storytelling, you can even add comedy through editing, but if it’s all one continuous shot, things become just a little more demanding. Performances and shots have to be incredibly well choreographed and timed in order for this technique to work well, so this is why I applaud Iñarritu for achieving this technique so well.  Alfonso Cuaron also used this technique effectively in Gravity (2013). And it’s not that they don’t ever cut, they do, but the cuts are placed in a way that you hardly notice them, and they are very few. Entire sequences will go on and on and on without cutting, it’s quite amusing for those interested in filmmaking. It certainly makes things more demanding for everyone involved. Some shots are amazing, keep your eyes peeled for them, there’s quite a few of them.

Iñarritu directs a scene

Another area in which this film excels is in its themes, you see this is one of those films that’s about film. It’s not unlike Hugo (2011), The Big Picture (1989) or Shadow of the Vampire (2000), which are films that explore the nature of filmmaking both from the filmmakers view point and from the actors view point. On Birdman filmmaking is explored from the point of view of the actors, it’s all about the never changing fact that “Hollywood takes you in, chews you up and then spits you out”. There’s a reason why that saying hasn’t faded away and it’s because it still remains true. Hollywood caters to the young, the beautiful, the ‘now’, what’s in and what’s hot is what matters. You get old, suddenly you’re not getting as many roles as you used to. The movie addresses this idea that in Hollywood, unless you become a raging icon to the masses, you are more than likely going to fade away, quietly into the night. And sometimes that “fading away” ain’t a pretty sight because it’s hard for actors to let go of the fame and the spotlight. The film focuses on that frustrating moment when the actor simply doesn’t like the fact that he or she is no longer “popular”. What makes things even more interesting is the fact that Michael Keaton used to play a comic book character himself, same as the character in Birdman. It’s no wonder Keaton’s performance rings so true, I’m sure a lot of his own frustrations were channeled into his performance, because while Keaton has never stopped working, he isn’t as popular as he was when he made Batman (1989) or Bettlejuice (1988). There’s this amazing moment when Riggan is locked out of the theater by mistake and he’s in his underwear, the scene comments on how acting is a very vulnerable profession, you expose your soul to others through your performance, so I loved the metaphor there, an actor desperately baring his naked soul to his audience, humanity, the masses. You can expect a real heartfelt performance from Keaton. Could the critical success of Birdman spell a comeback for Keaton? It certainly feels like it, from what I hear, he’s gonna be reuniting with Tim Burton for Beetlejuice 2 next! It will be interesting to see how they make that one work after so many years have passed.   

The film also speaks about how aging actors have to adjust to the changing of the times, and the way things are marketed nowadays. For example, there’s a moment when a video of Riggan becomes popular on You Tube and is ‘trending’ and his daughter shows him how many people have viewed it and tells him “this is power”, a fact that Riggan is completely clueless about. The film also talks about how a lot of Hollywood films are aimed at a young audience and that what the masses love is action, blood, explosions and special effects. Which is true, just ask Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich. The masses don’t want “philosophical bullshit” and the filmmakers behind Birdman are obviously frustrated by this.  I agree with them to a certain extent, because while I enjoy big fx spectacles, I also love brainy, artistic films. In my book there’s space for both types of films; the escapist summer movies as well as the more philosophical, story driven films. But of course, what the masses like, which is to say what the grand majority likes is brainless action and effects like the next Transformers movie, this in turn speaks volumes about the kind of people that make up the majority, which in turns is a sad state of affairs. When we get down to it, I think what the filmmakers behind Birdman are really frustrated with is the level of education of the majority, in other words, if we’re to read between the lines, there’s a genuine frustration with how many brainless zombies exist in the world. So yes my friends, we have an amazing film here, certainly deserving of being called one f the best of the year and one that I’m sure will garner Michael Keaton an Oscar nod, and quite possibly an Oscar win, here’s hoping.

Rating: 5 out of 5 

Batman Returns (1992)

Title: Batman Returns (1992)

Director: Tim Burton

Cast: Michael Keaton, Michelle Pfeiffer, Christopher Walken, Danny DeVito

Review:

I watched Batman Returns back in 1992 when it first hit theaters and was wowed out of my skin by it; my teenage mind couldn’t take so much coolness! Watching it today, I still think it’s a fantastic film that is in many ways superior to the first one. And that was no easy task either, the first one has a magic all it’s own. But this sequel was a bigger production with a bigger budget. I mean for it’s time, this film was huge! For Batman Returns, the budget was doubled, which gave director Tim Burton an even bigger arena to play in then he had with his first take on the character in Batman (1989). This doubling of the films budget is understandable; it is actually standard operation procedure for Hollywood. When a film makes it ultra big (the way Burton’s first Batman film did) then Hollywood is programmed to automatically give audiences something bigger and better the second time around. An example of this would be Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), a film that ended up being bigger and louder then its predecessor; and this was certainly the case with Batman Returns, the sets they built for this film took up 50% of Warner Bros. studio lots! Taking in consideration how sometimes huge productions can become huge disasters as well, did lightning hit twice this second time around?

I’d say that yes, this film is as good as its predecessor, and maybe even superior to it. A lot of that has to do with the fact that Tim Burton was given way more creative freedom with this second film. Considering how well Burton did with the first film, and how much money it made, Warner Brothers let Burton do whatever the hell he wanted with this sequel. They even pronounced him full on producer. In fact, Burton accepted to work on this sequel only if his specifications were met, and they were. Whole characters were completely exorcised from the script and many re-writes were made. For example, the character of Harvey Dent (a.k.a. Two Face) was taken out and replaced by an entirely original character called Max Shreck, a millionaire tycoon/business man who wants screw Gotham City over. The inclusion of Batman’s sidekick Robin was supposed to happen on this film, but at the request of Burton he was taken out because there were too many characters on the film, a smart move on Burton’s part if you ask me. This could have easily turned into another Batman and Robin (1997) But under the able hands of Tim Burton, it was smooth trails for this film. By the way, did you guys know that Marlon Wayan’s almost played Robin on this film? He even tried the suit on, but eventually it was a no go and it was Chris O’Donell who ended up playing the character on Batman and Robin. Ultimately, these Burton made changes only helped the film, making Batman Returns the most ‘Burtonesque’ of all the Bat films.

Burton talks out a scene with Pfeiffer and Keaton

And that’s basically what sets this one apart, that it’s Tim Burton’s world, he effectively turned the Batman franchise into his own, gothic, dark, grotesque, slightly sexualized universe; all without forgetting that this is Batman were talking about here. We get the batcave, the batmobile and even a bat glider! Plus, there’s all those cool Bat gadgets! We also see Batman getting a new love interest. Apparently, Vicky Vale couldn’t deal with Bruce Wayne’s dual persona. But no worries! Bats is now interested in Selina Kyle a.k.a. Catwoman. One of the most interesting aspects of the film is how Bruce Wayne deals with falling in love for someone who is a mirror image of himself. Selina Kyle also leads a double life; she also puts on a costume and fights evil, in her own twisted, angry way. Pfeiffer’s Selina is the voice of the angry woman saying “I’ve had enough!” And that’s one of the things that make Tim Burton’s Batman films so damn good; he always handled the villains so exquisitely well. They were always bigger than life; and were always, to a certain extent treated with sympathy. There’s no better example than Batman Returns to show this.

On this film Batman goes up against three villains, and though in the hands of a lesser director  this could have become a hindrance (Joel Schumacher?) Burton handled all three villains very well, giving each the screen time they deserved in order to become fully fleshed out characters. This probably explains why out of all the Bat films this is the longest one clocking in at 126 minutes. I say that’s no problem, I’d rather have a slightly longer film that truly fleshes out it’s characters, then a badly edited one where things apparently happen at a blink or you’ll miss it pace. Another reason why the villains in Batman Returns worked so well is because they were so well casted! Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman, wow, I mean, many actresses were rumored to play the character, but I’m glad it was finally Pfeiffer who ended up donning the cat costume, she’s so freaking sexy on this film. In fact, she was part of the reason why the film got a lot of heat. The sexual innuendoes are all over the place on this one! At one point Catwoman tells Batman and The Penguin “You poor guys, always confusing your pistols with your privates!” Unfortunately the general population didn’t take a sexualized Batman film in a good way, so much so that McDonald’s had to put a stop to their Batman Returns promotional happy meals, which of course made all the sense in the world. After all, this was not a children’s film and neither was the first film for that matter, Burton’s films were made for adults. I mean, sure they were about comic book characters, but they had an adult like sensibility to them. This of course was something that the studio quickly changed for Batman Forever (1995) and Batman and Robin (1997) two films that were obviously aimed at a more infantile audience and were decidedly campier. It’s no surprise that these two films are the most despised in the whole franchise and the ones that killed it.

Catwoman steals the film; she’s the epitome of feminism. She’s the secretary who is stepped on (literally!) by her boss. She’s not paid enough; she lives alone, in an extremely crappy apartment, in a child like environment. The film comments on how women are treated in this world, and she’s a character that’s here to show the anger felt towards the machismo, the chauvinistic pigs of the world. She’s sexy yeah, but she’s not to be taken for granted! She matters! And she will be heard! “Life’s a bitch and now some am I!” Pfeiffer’s portrayal of this character was so successful that the studio squeezed in an extra scene in the last frames, where we see Catwoman re-emerging, still alive. The studio planned to give the character her own film, but it took then more then ten years to finally release Catwoman (2004), one of the worst films ever made. By then everybody involved with the first film had moved on to other things and so the magic went with them. The character would emerge again in TheDark Knight Rises (2012), portrayed by Anne Hathaway in a less sexy, yet still effective form. In my opinion, Pfeiffer’s take on the character is still unrivaled.

Then we have the awesomeness that is Max Shreck, a character brought to life by the one and only Christopher Walken, through this character Burton and his writers wanted to show that the “real villains of the world don’t always wear costumes”. Walken was the perfect choice for Shreck, scary, intimidating, yet completely diplomatic when he has to be. Reportedly Walken even scared Burton himself! This theme of costume less villains was a great theme to explore, the film was criticizing big money and how they often times sacrifice the interests and well being of the people in order to maximize their profits; a theme that is still relevant in our modern times, in fact, maybe even more so. Out of all the villains in the film, Shreck is the baddest of them all. He lies through his teeth; he portrays himself as a true Gothamite, while he stabs the city in its back with his proposed power plant that will suck the city dry! He has one of the best lines: "Who would have though Selina had a brain to damage? Buttom line: she tries to black mail me, next time I throw her out of a higher window! In the mean time I have bigger fish to fry!" Damn, so cold. Finally we have DeVito’s The Penguin, an outcast of society, who lives in the cities sewer system. And here is the villain whom we can feel some amount of sympathy for, he’s simply an angry man because everyone rejects him, even his own parents who have no problems in throwing him into the river. Interesting tid bit of information: The Penguins parents are played by Pee-Herman and Diane Salinger, two actors  who worked together before on Burton’s first film: Pee Wee’s Big Adventure (1985)!

Critics were divided by this film; some felt it was a combination of art film and film noir, while others felt it didn’t give enough screen time to Batman or that it was too dark or sexual. Some said that The Penguin was a poor substitute for Nicholson’s Joker. I say the film is a big budget art film, it is dark and sexual. It feels a lot like a big budget film noir. And it’s gothic, and grand in scale, and grotesque and all of these elements add up to a great Batman film that never bores. A gigantic dark carnival! Seeing all these great actors having fun together on the silver screen is fantastic and personally, I love the fact that it’s a Bat film that’s heavy on themes. I can agree with some critics that said that Batman/Bruce Wayne is a bit eclipsed by the villains of the piece, but honestly, the villains are so interesting and the world they inhabit so lush and gothic that I had no real problem with this. It does feel like the stars of the show are actually the villains, and that’s okay in my book because, hey, at least Burton and his crew had something to say through them, this isn’t some empty spectacle. In my opinion, Burton created two very unique bat films, he did what every director should do with their films, make ‘em their own.

Rating: 5 out of 5  

Jackie Brown (1997)

Title: Jackie Brown (1997)

Director/Writer: Quentin Tarantino (Based on the novel ‘Rum Punch’ by Elmore Leonard)

Cast: Pamela Grier, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Deniro, Robert Foster, Bridget Fonda, Michael Keaton, Chris Tucker

Jackie Brown is one big, gigantic, bombastic love letter to blaxpoitation films of the seventies. But of course, a film like Jackie Brown, coming from Quentin Tarantino, makes all the sense in the world. If I didn’t know any better, I would say that Tarantino was black. But he isn’t, Tarantino is a whitey. Still, he may be white on the outside, but his soul is blacker then James Brown on the inside! Tarantino has had a love affair with blacksploitation films for the longest time, it’s evident in many of his films, most notably Pulp Fiction (1994). There’s always a nod to some obscure blacksploitation film in his own films. But Jackie Brown takes the taco as the biggest, baddest and blackest of them all.

On this film we follow the life of Jackie Brown, a stewardess of the skies who likes to make a little extra on the side by smuggling money from Mexico to the United States for a gun dealer. Problem is she’s been caught with some cash and some cocaine on her, so she gets sent to jail. When we first meet her, she is just getting out of jail and trying to pick up the pieces of her life. Trying to start anew; this means of course pulling off one last score that will set her up for the rest of her life. Will she be able to pull it off and live a worry free life? Or will she continue to live the life of a hustler, always looking for the next ‘get rich quick’ scheme?

How black is this movie? This is how black: there is no musical score for this film; instead, Tarantino chose a bunch of songs he liked from a bunch of blacksploitation films from the seventies. The soundtrack plays like a blacksploitation compilation of songs from films like Coffy (1973), Foxy Brown (1974), Across 110th Street (1972) and black artists like Bobby Womack, The Supremes and The Delfonics. The most notable song in the film is “Across 110th Street” which appears in the opening and closing credits of the film as a way to introduce and say good bye to the character of Jackie Brown. And as it usually happens in Tarantino films, the song fits perfectly with the character and situation. If we analyze the lyrics to this song, we can get to know who Jackie is, what she’s living through and her state of mind. Let’s analyze the song for a moment shall we?

Song starts out by saying “Doing whatever I had to do to survive, I’m not saying what I did was alright, trying to break out of the ghetto was a day to day fight” which perfectly describes who Jackie Brown is. She’s planning her way out of poverty and she’s willing to take some risks if she has to. She’s even willing to do illegal things like smuggling money from one country to another. She may not be doing something honest, but hey, this is a dog eat dog world, and she’s doing what she’s gotta do to survive. She’s looking out for number one; herself. Gotta give it to her, she’s putting all that’s street smart to good use!

The song continues “Been down so long, getting up didn’t cross my mind, I knew there was a better way of life that I was just trying to find” This line lets us see that she’s tired of the hard life. She’s sick of working on a low paying job in the bad side of town, she wants a better life for herself and she’s going to do whatever she has to do to get it. Basically, she’s planning this huge heist so that she can finally stop struggling to survive. She continuously complaints that because she went to prison, she hasn’t been able to get any good paying jobs. Best she could do was flight attendant. And since she just got out of jail again, she thinks it will only get worse. So she plans her big get away.

Then the song says “you don’t know what you’ll do under pressure, 110th is a hell of a tester” which is exactly the situation she is in. She is under pressure for two reasons, the cops are on to her, and they want to use her to catch the big fish. So she’s under pressure from both camps; the good guys and the bad guys. Another line of the song says “Pimps trying to catch a woman that’s weak”. Notice how that line says “trying to catch a woman that’s weak”, but Jackie Brown aint weak! She’s one tough cookie mama! They can’t catch her no matter how much they try, she’s too smart for them, too slick. You get the feeling while watching this movie that Jackie is always one step ahead of everyone on the film. The song continues saying “Woman trying to catch a trick on the street” which explains what she is doing by pulling off this one final trick. In other words, Jackie Brown is willing to do whatever it takes to get out. “You got to be strong if you want to survive” says to the song to Jackie as she sings it driving in her car. I love how Tarantino had Jackie actually sing the lyrics to the song, showing us how much she identifies with it, how much it means to her. The song perfectly embodies her whole struggle, which is genius on Tarantino’s part. Plus, its such a damn good song, I havent been able to stop humming it for the past few days!

Tarantino enjoys working next to one of his favorite movie Icons of the seventies, Pamela Grier!

Best thing about this movie is watching Pamela Grier enjoying her big come back and making the most of it. She really pulls off this street smart, lonely chick trying to outsmart the world type of character. She’s a loner, looking out for no one else but herself. And well, maybe her bail bondsman Max Cherry, an old dude that’s kind of got the hots for her and decides to help her out. I love the fact that there is some sexual tension between them, but nothing ever comes of it. Max is just a good guy who is smitten by this street smart girl and wants to help her out. I guess he kind of gets how much of a struggle her life is, and also, I think he admires how much of a fighter she is. He quickly sees that she aint any ordinary lady, she’s a fighter who’s lead a tough life. Foster plays it cool, as if he knows he is probably too old for Jackie, but he still finds her incredibly attractive. Cant blame the man, Grier looks great for her age on this film. Her character perfectly walks the line between good girl and bad girl, you never truly know what to expect from her.

Tarantino made sure that the rest of the cast was equally amazing. Samuel L. Jackson plays a villain who goes by the name of Ordell, but he isn’t a likable villain. No, this guy has some evil in his eyes. Deniro plays Louis Gara, an ex-con who just got out of jail. He plays it cool for most of the film, smoking weed with Bridget Fonda’s Melanie, Ordelle’s brain dead girlfriend. The cast is rounded out by Michael Keaton who plays the cop who’s trying to use Jackie Brown to get to Ordell. So all in all, we have another star studded cast from Tarantino, gotta hand it to him, he really does find the right actors for the right roles.

Finally, this is the only film that isn’t 100% pure Tarantino because the script he wrote was based on Elmore Leonard’s novel ‘Rum Punch’. Maybe thats why some people get turned off by this film, but in all honesty, this is very much a Tarantino flick. What Tarantino did was he basically took Leonard's novel and made it his own. He made the main character black, added some soul to the whole thing and gave it the Tarantino stamp. That means an awesome soundtrack, girls walking around barefoot, long shots that don’t cut for a long time, scenes shot from the trunk of a car, and finally, that awesome blacksploitation vibe, no doubt derived from years and years of watching groundhouse films. Thank the movie gods that these films keep inspiring Tarantino through out his career! There are lots of in-jokes on this movie, if you are a Tarantino fan, and a fan of grindhouse films, you’ll probably catch them. (Hint: Sid Haig plays a judge!) So anyways, all in all, I enjoyed this flick a whole lot more watching it after all these years, turns out this is yet another great Tarantino film. Don’t know why it gets labeled as the one that people like the least; Pamela Grier is so damn likable on this flick.

Rating: 5 out of 5

This is a Tarantino film alright!