'90s Class: Jackie Brown (1997)

 Another Tarantino Film- why not?

At this point, the guy says that he's going to retire...but I'll believe it when I see it.  For now, he's supposedly got one last Film in him.

This, however, is his 1997 Film Jackie Brown.  It is apparently the only Film that is based on an outside source material- the Book 'Rum Punch' by Elmore Leonard.

Granted- ALL of his Films are based on outside source material, be them Kung Fu Films or a French Arthouse Film that nobody cares to remember.  They just aren't *specifically* based on one that he has to Credit.

Just in time to end February (where did the time go?!?), let's look at his love letter to Blaxploitation.

Since he had just made Pulp Fiction, everyone he wanted was pretty much available and willing to show up.  As such, he got a great Cast here.

Can they overcome the usual Tarantino issues?
Let's find out...

After a long intro seeing the Title Character go through the Airport, we meet Sam Jackson and Robert De Niro.

The former is a Gun Runner who loves to talk and say 'the N-word' as much as humanly possible.
The latter is a Bank Robber just out of Jail and kind of a dummy.

A convoluted scheme is hatched that is all about getting Jackson's money out of Mexico without catching any attention.

The scheme involves bailing out one guy (Chris Tucker!) with the help of Robert Forster (who earned that Academy Award nomination), killing the guy he just bailed out and then using Jackie to get the money in a bit at a time.

The problem- the Feds are onto this part.

They stop Brown as she leaves the Airport (arriving from Mexico) and arrest her for the money and some planted drugs.

She's pissed, but silent.

She's bailed out by Jackson, who then meets up with her with some ill intent on his mind.

He clearly was going to kill her if he thought that she'd talked, so she turns the tables on him.

She sets up the idea of a fake money drop for the Feds and a real one for him.

...while also working with the Feds to, well, do the opposite.

Notably Michael Keaton here plays the same Federal Agent in Out of Sight, another Elmore Leonard adaptation released in the next year.

After a Trial Run, they eventually get around to the real drop-off and switch.

However, Jackie works with Forster to *actually* steal the money.

This leads to us seeing the same Scene three times with more information each time- first Jackie, then De Niro and Bridget Fonda and finally Forster.

It's...very Tarantino.

Jackson does not take the news well, especially when he learns that De Niro both killed Fonda (who annoyed him) and did spot Forster there, but did nothing.

When I was getting this Screen Shot, I started the Scene and had to wait for AN ETERNITY for this to finally happen.

That's Tarantino Dialog Scenes for you!

Forster meets up with Jackson and sets up a deal to return the money.

The latter is understandably not trusting.

How will it all go down?

Brown- knowing that the Feds DO NOT know about the extra $450,000- sets up Jackson to be shot by the Feds when he enters and before he can bring it up.

In the aftermath, she keeps most of the money and goes to Spain alone...or does she?

The Movie acts vague at The End, because why not?

A good Film, as long as you know what to expect.

It is a Quentin Tarantino Film, so expect the following....

* Lots of swearing.
* Long, long dialog Scenes
* Random spurts of violence
* The N-word
* Pace as slow and steady as an IV Drip

If you're a Tarantino fan, this will be exactly what you want.
If you aren't, you'll possibly lose interest before the Film is half over.

It is never what I would call 'bad.'  It can be long and ponderous, but it is always well-acted and well-produced.

I'm glad that Pam Grier got a showcase role like this.  I'm also glad that Robert Forster got the respect he deserved thanks to this Film.

That said, the Film is all of his best and worst excesses on full display.  Of course, he's not the worst person here...

A Film that will 100% please fans of Tarantino and his auteur instincts.  For everyone else, its alright.

5,000th Post Celebration!!!: Pulp Fiction (1994)

***A big number deserves a big Film to Review***

A Film that is very iconic.  A Film that won many Awards.  A Film that got a standing ovation at Cannes.

So why don't I like it?

This is Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino's 2nd Film and arguably his most successful one.  The Writer-Director went over to Europe, partook in the local delights (it rhymes with hugs) and filled a notebook (or seven) with story ideas.

After Reservoir Dogs did so well, he got more clout, more money and a big opportunity.  This one was going to be a make or break for him.

He's been making Film whenever he felt like for the last 30 years, so I guess it worked out.

To see why I'm not a fan, however, read on...

The Film is about Hitmen/Go-fors Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield going to retrieve an item for their Boss- Marsellus Wallace.

They take the time to discuss what hamburgers are called in France, the politics of foot massages and the Bible.

They shoot two of the men and...

We now follow a different Story.

How about a brief aside about this Boxer named Butch (Bruce Willis) who takes a bribe from Wallace.

We'll cut back to him later for an entire Story about him.

Just keep waiting for the rest of that first Story.

The most famous part of the Film involves Travolta and Wallace's Wife- Uma Thurman- hanging out at a '50s Diner and dancing.

The dance is iconic, but 24 pages of rambling Tarantino dialog are what you have to live through before it.

As part of the Willis Story, we get this completely random Flashback.

Christopher Walken appears as a guy who gives a watch to young Butch.  It was stored in a dark place that rhymes with 'his bass.'

This explains why the watch is important...but, it is still random AF.

Butch's Story involves him actually winning his fight (not shown) and running off with the money.

His exit is delayed and he ends up with Wallace in the Basement of a Pawn Shop.

It's famous...but, again, it is random AF.

We finally get to see the end of the story of Jules and Vincent after about 90 minutes or so.

We see a sudden death (another one), a small role for Harvey Keitel, Tarantino himself saying the 'N-word' 4x and they end up at the Diner from the beginning proper.

The Robbers we saw first are now back.  Yep, that part was happening later...or earlier.

Look- time is a relative thing, especially here.

The Film ends with a redemption arc for Jules, but we also already know that Vincent dies later, so...hurray?

Is this Film worthy of its reputation?

Most people say 'Yes.'

I get why.  If you view the Film segments on their own, they are mostly quite good.  Some of them are paced terribly- like the Travolta/Thurman Diner Scene- and others go in strange directions- the Butch/Wallace Story.

Like many 'greatest of all time Films,' most people don't actually watch the whole Film in one sitting.  That or if they did, it was 20+ years ago.
The reputation is reinforced over and over again until the actual Film doesn't matter.

I liked many parts of this.  
Jackson, for one, earned his Oscar nomination.  Travolta was good too.
The Finales of most of the Stories are memorable, whether it is for a good reason or a bad one.

In summary, I get why people love it.
For me, however, it is too long, it didn't need to be shown out of order and it has all of Tarantino's vices.

I'm not going to 'do the dance' here and tell you that I love it if I don't.

Next up, let's look at a classic John Carpenter Film.  Let me make up for lost time by watching it now.

Lost in Translation?: Reservoir Dogs

 A Poster and alternate Title that makes me wonder something for the first time...

What does the Title even mean?

As someone who just knew the Film as 'that cool heist Film with the Ear Scene,' it never occured to me that I should wonder what the Title even meant.

Well, in Italy, the Film has a different Title...

According to Google (so it must be right!), it means 'The Hyenas' or 'Hyenas.'

I guess if a 'Reservoir Dog' is one you can't trust at all- which I think is the idea- then I guess this Title gets the same point across.

Plus, it avoids an American Idiom...assuming that it even is one.

Here's another one (since I couldn't decide which to use)...

Okay, so truth time...

I'm not the only one to never bother wondering what the Title meant, right?  Right?!?

Poor Bastards of Cinema: Reservoir Dogs

 Before I get to some more Quentin Tarantino stuff that I've got planned, let's wrap this one up.

I neglected to highlight this rare case (not a Rare Case though) of a Poor Bastard who goes out in a blaze of glory.

Given the context, they still qualify for this.
You'll see...

In Reservoir Dogs, late in the Film we see the tail end of the infamous heist gone wrong.

Our Heroes (?) are making their escape, but lose their car (and driver).
As such, they try to stop a new one...

This woman, however, is not just going to let this happen.

She goes for a gun she keeps in her car (this is 1990's L.A. after all)

She shoots Mr. Orange- who spends half of the Film bleeding out from said wound- as he goes for her door.

He...gets his receipt seconds later though.

A true pyrrhic victory.

At least she goes out with a great face of death (and a great bump- as she is a Stunt Woman).

So, to review, a random woman is just driving somewhere.  People try to car jack her.
She fights back and dies.

She has no name- thus a Poor Bastard.

With that out of the way, let's see if I can get regular updates going on this Segment again...

4,900th Post Special: Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Another plan that didn't come to fruition- getting this out before October.
It is still a celebration!

Reservoir Dogs is one of the biggest Movies that people think of when they think of the '90s.  

Well, that and Pulp Fiction, but I have reservations- no pun intended- about watching that for the first time in *does the Math* 26 years or so. (UPDATE from the Future- I have the Blu-Ray and it will happen)

How do you make a Heist Film without showing the Heist?
How do you make a Film without putting it in order?
How do you make a Film with no Black Leads, but lots of people saying the 'N-word?'

It is Tarantino- love it or hate it!

To see how this often-overshadowed Film plays out, read on...

A Cold Open gives us a long discussion between a bunch of guys in matching suits (well, save for Chris Penn) discuss such important things as Tipping Waitresses, the 'true' meaning of Like a Virgin and other filler.

Weird filler conversation, pedantic arguments and pop culture- is there a question about which one of the people in this shot Wrote this?

They create the Crime Film Cliche by walking out together and drawing all sorts of attention.

Even if this Heist goes well, it would be easy to identify them later, no?

We suddenly cut to two of the men- Mr. White and Mr. Pink- trying to figure out how everything went wrong.  Mr. Orange is bleeding out.

Things went poorly.

Well, we hear about the Heist.  We hear about a shooting.  We hear about the Cops.

We do- eventually- see how Mr. Orange was shot (no SPOILERS) and a brief bit with some Cops.

Mr. Blonde shows up with a surprise.

We get more flashbacks in random order.  

Most of them aren't better shown this way, but whatever.

We eventually get the Scene that chased off Rick Baker and Wes Craven at Cannes.  It also ruined one song for a generation.

We finally get to see who the Cop is via a prolonged flashback and then the end comes.

For once, no SPOILER there either.  If you haven't seen it and want to, go for it.

A good Film for the most part and worthy of lots of praise.

Let's be clear- if you don't like Tarantino Films, this won't convert you.  

You get the usual- lots of swearing, lots of overlapping dialog, the n-word, lots of blood and lots of violence.  

Also, Tarantino himself monologues and is the worst Actor there.

Still here?  Good.

I think the 'let's deconstruct the Genre' approach works better here than most of his later stuff, if I'm being honest.  As someone who logged way too many hours in Payday 2 (yes, even the RD content), the Genre can be overdone.

I don't mind missing out on the Heist. 
I don't mind the sudden jump cut to 'what the hell happened?!?' and all that.

That said, Pacing is all over the place and giving us all of the story content later is mostly kind of pointless.  

Obviously the one section with the reveal of the Cop is key, so there is an exception.

It is as good as people say. 
Is it better?  Meh, that depends on you.

Now, is it or me, or do you sometimes feel like someone is watching you?

NOW let's begin October properly!  Let the Horror begin!

'90s Class?: Desperado (1995)

 Let's make that Movie again, but now we'll spend 1,000% more money.  This is Desperado, the semi-Remake, but mostly Sequel to  Robert Rodriguez's first Film.

Since he spent $7,000 for El Mariachi, he got a big deal to make Films with *gasp* a real Budget.  Now he's got $7,000,000 to make this one.  What's changed?

Well, he's not doing 80% of the work, having separate Cameraman, Stunt People and isn't being pushed around in a wheelchair to do tracking shots.  It's the sweet life!

Desperado is most known for being the break-out Films for its Stars- Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek- and for showing what Rodriguez can do in the Hollywood System.  The result was a big hit that I definitely rented from a Blockbuster at some point.  Good times.

Is bigger better or is the Indy original the best?  Let's find out...

A man- Steve Buscemi- goes into a Mexican Bar and builds up the legend of The Desperado.

Who is this mysterious, gun-toting Mexican badass?

He's the Lead from El Mariachi, as seen in this reenactment of the Ending of said Film.  This also gives us the one-off appearance of that Film's Villain.

Since she was never trying to be an Actress, this is the 2nd and last Credit held by this Actress.

The new Villain is supposedly the big Boss that was over him in the last Film, but I don't really recall that being a thing.

He's played by a great Character Actor here, but was originally going to be Raul Julia, but his health got too bad for him to do it and he died before Production started.

Man, that would have been a helluva better Final Film than Street Fighter, no?

Banderas here is playing doing the same thing he- as a different Actor- saw Azul doing in that Film.

Of course, that ended with his sudden, violent death, so...why not emulate someone better?

On the plus side, these shoot outs are still fun and physics-defying after 25 years.

He gets wounded in that fight, but manages to keep going.

His action put enough pressure for Not Raul Julia to send more people in AND for his Boss to do the same.

He saves Hayek from being stuck in the middle of a shoot-out, so she takes care of him...kind of like that lady in the last Film.

Oh right- she runs a Bookstore here and not a Bar.  It's totally different.

In a neat bit of misdirection, we get Danny Trejo as a Mob Hitman that is actually taken down by the Mob Boss' own men.

Of course, they telegraph this twist by asking what the 'hired gun' looks like to avoid this happening...and then it happens.

It's almost a really clever idea.  Almost.

Here's a Scene where we learn about how Not Raul Julia is bankrolling Hayek's Book Store, but this time it's not about romance- it's about transferring drugs.

After he figures out that she was hiding Banderas, however, he turns on her like his lower man did in Mariachi.

This time, however, we get a big shoot out, since Rodriguez now has money to spend on this.

Banderas finally sees Not Raul Julia and realizes a big twist- it's his Brother.

So, to be clear, that random Mariachi guy was secretly the Brother of a Drug Czar in the last Film?  Okay...

He calls in his two friends- one of whom was the Lead in Mariachi- for a big shoot-out.  You will believe that you can fire rockets from a guitar case!

After that, he...calmly enters his Brother's Ranch and lets himself be outgunned?  Okay.

He tries one last (or first) time to talk him down, but eventually shoots the villain dead...and then the Film cuts to the next Scene.

This was done to cut the Film from an X-Rating to an R... but at least is a unique flourish.

Time to be in that 3rd Film that even I barely remember (and I saw it in Theaters!).  The End.

A fun, vibrant Film that doesn't exactly have alot of depth to it.  Desperado is full of big Action Set Pieces, explosions and the like.  That's all good.

If you need more than that, you might find it a bit lacking.  You get hints of a stronger Story with Hayek essentially reprising the role of the Female Lead in the last Film.  It just kind of stops right before the end though, so...no such luck.

For his part, Banderas plays a cocky, but also fallible Hero.  He's not always great at his job.  He sometimes gets lucky.  He always gets away with things though.  Like Hayek, he gets a little bit of depth, which is also rehashed from El Mariachi.  This one at least has a payoff and we're spared the Dream Sequences from the last Film.

As a fun, '90s Action Film that can be a bit unconventional, the Film delivers.  If you just so happen to need more than the outline of a real Story, Desperado might be a bit shallow.  Like all '90s Indie Films, it does also have Quentin Tarantino for no discernable reason...

Next time, random DVD drawing got me a Chinese Film that owes a bit to Seven Samurai.  Hey, if America can milk that Story, so can the Chinese.  Stay tuned...

Quick Reviews: The Hateful Eight

As long as it exists online, it is fair game, right?  

Let's see if the 8th time is (still) the charm...

A lawman (Kurt Russell) delivering a woman to justice meets a man (Samuel L. Jackson) along the way...

Oh, and pretentious Title Cards also found their way on the journey. 

 Hurray?

The group- along with a new Sheriff- end up staying at a Cabin during a Blizzard.  

Russell is super-suspicious, but is he right to be?

With a group of disparate strangers (all with some shared past) in one space, what is going to happen next?

If you guessed 'lots of Monologues,' you'd be right.

Sadly, you'd be right.

Also murder.

To find out what happens, watch the Film.  

The End.

Lots of talking and a little bit of Plot.  

One person has described the Film as 'A series of Monologues in search of a Plot.'  I wouldn't necessarily go that negative, but I see their point.  

The Film really feels like a Play that was turned into a Movie.  Of course, it was actually a Screenplay that was nearly turned into a Novel and then *back* into a Screenplay...which is confusing enough in its own right.  

Tarantino has said that the two inspirations for the Film were Reservoir Dogs and The Thing (the good version).  I'm not a Film Historian, but do most Directors base their new Films on their old ones?  It seems strange to more than just me, right? 

 Another thing to note is just how gory the Film is.  Don't get me wrong- I'm not bothered by the stuff, but I can certainly see how many people out there might be.  

I guess that is what happens when you hire Greg Nicotero for your Western.  

Here's the other thing: everyone is kind of an asshole here.  Admittedly, some of them are actual Criminals, so that is to be expected.  Even the people we are supposed to at least respect are not exactly likable.  

It sure was nice of Russell to stand up for Jackson when he's called the N-word...but then he calls him that like six more times in the Film.  Logic!  

I like having complex Characters, but I just wish that the people were not all assholes, that's all.  

As Tarantino's longest official Film (not counting Kill Bill originally as one Film), it could use alot of cuts, but I think that there is enough overall content to make it worthwhile.  It is a conditional recommendation, in spite of this awesome Credit...

Long, bloody Film full of generally unpleasant people.  An interesting Film exercise if nothing else.