Quentin Tarantino Retrospective Jackie Brown Review

Hey, this is Steve Blum and you are listening

to the Geekcast Radio Network. Hello and welcome

to another special episode of Cinema Geeks as

we continue our look at the career of Quentin

Tarantino. Today, we will be looking at his third

feature film, Jackie Brown. Before we get started,

let's go over who is here. You have myself, of

course. We've revolved in. But joining me, as

always, is Kevin Optimus Solo. How's it going?

Too bad. Looking forward to another episode in

the retrospective. Yeah. Magic number three we

have so far. And this also marks an interesting

introduction into the career of Quentin Tarantino,

because this is getting into the portion of his

career. career that you haven't been privy to

previously, so that should be kind of interesting

to see what you think of his films from here

on out. I've been entering into the unknown for

a while here. Makes it interesting for me. I'm

actually excited to watch these films and especially

doing it in the order that we're doing it, obviously,

and kind of being able to witness them for the

first time, but also in the progression that

you should, you know, that you would have if

you had been watching him throughout his career.

It's like a little bit of a... movie time machine

in podcast for us, but we're not changing the

past. No, definitely not. We wish we could. Yeah,

for sure. But yeah, definitely looking and looking

forward to getting into this one as well as the

next three, which will all be films that I've

never seen before. So excited. Cool. I like to

start each piece retrospectors off with a with

a with a question. And this is a little bit of

maybe a wordy question. But bear with me, because

I think it's a good place to start with this

film, because Jackie Brown is an interesting

film in the history in the filmography of Quentin

Tarantino. Some look at it as a misstep, his

first big misstep. Some look at it as one of

his best or more mature films. So for his third

feature film, Quentin Tarantino did do something

that he's never did before and hasn't done since.

And that's adapt someone else's work as he transformed

Elmer Leonard's highly claimed novel Love Punch

into his own Jackie Brown. On paper, the matching

kind of makes sense when you look at both have

a handle on the crime genre like no other, crafting

both colorful characters that speak in a streetwise

dialogue uniquely their own, and design plots

that require their fair bit of unraveling. My

question for you is though, are two voices in

fact better than one in this situation? Does

Leonard's knack for gritty realism work in tandem

with Tarantino's highly sidelined cinematic choices?

Or is Jackie Brown bogged down with an inability

to choose its own identity, not knowing if it

belongs as a work of exploitation or as a piece

of serious new art? It's definitely an interesting

question and an interesting one to try to digest

and try to hit on. I think you can look at it

in a couple different ways. I think if you're

just looking at it as its own film, then I don't

think there's anything stopping. Someone from

saying that it that it works and that the match

the mash -up works together Both of someone else's

work and Tarantino's directing. I don't think

there's any I don't think you can necessarily

fault that Mixture as far as working as a as

a individual film. I Can see where some people

might look at it? and be taken aback maybe especially

in retrospective way I guess as much as what

we're doing if you're looking at the rest of

his filmography because there is there is a different

feeling with this film there's no doubt that

about that you can't deny the fact that this

film is clearly gonna feel different than almost

every other single film that Tarantino has obviously

the two films that he's done prior to this and

as we look into the future it's gonna be a different

feel from the ones that that we haven't seen

as far as the ones that I've seen So I mean,

I can see people saying it doesn't work because

it doesn't fit into what they expect or it doesn't

fit into the mold of all of his other films,

but I don't necessarily think that that's necessarily

a bad thing. So for me, it does work. The mashup

between the material and the director equates

with a product that I think is quality. So I

mean, I would say that it does work for that.

Yeah, I would definitely... agree with you because

there's no doubt Jackie Brown is unique when

it comes to a Quentin Tarantino film I would

say his style is probably the most muted when

looking at everything that's come before this

and everything that comes after but I don't necessarily

think that's that's a bad thing I think I heard

him say once that he he feels like Jackie Brown's

the movie he would make when he was older like

his more mature film and I think that's that's

certainly the case It has elements that you would

expect with a Tarantino film, you know, the use

of the matching of genres, using crime and black

exploitation, using actors like Pam Grier that

you don't necessarily see in everyday Hollywood

film as a feature actress, but it doesn't come

at you, I think, as aggressively as a lot of

other films. It allows the story kind of to take

center stage in the characters, of course, but

I think it's probably one of the more plot -heavy

films when looking at Tarantino. Yeah. No, I

would definitely agree with that But yes, I mean

I think it just depends on the perspective if

you're saying does it work or not Does it does

it work if you want the exact same thing that

they're the same feel and the same type of movie

that you get? From all of his other movies, and

I guess maybe it wouldn't work for that person,

but I think that's a silly way to look at it

myself So Considering this is his third film.

Do you feel it's a continuation quality wise

or do you think it does go down a few degrees?

Just considering what has come before being pulp

fiction and rose for our dogs. I mean those are

two hard films to compare to Yeah, definitely.

It's almost it's unfair almost to do it right

there. That would be like I don't know that'd

be like it's like Godfather 1 Godfather 2 and

then If you could take a director's best two

films and take any other film in their filmography

and say it came third, I mean, it's going to

be, yes, I'm going to say it's a couple of degrees.

It's a couple notches down maybe from the other

two films, but I don't think that it's not a

huge step backwards to me. I think it's still

a quality film. I think there's some of... some

of the elements that were most appealing in the

first two films may not be present in this one

to the same degree, so it maybe loses a little

bit of some of the magic those other two films

had for me, but I don't think there's a lot of

major flaws or faults in it either, so I mean,

I would say just a very small couple notches

back at the most. I would say it... Certainly

is not a level of us raw dogs or fiction But

I do think there are certain things that quit

Tarantino shows with this that are almost an

improvement or at least evidence to say that

Quentin Tarantino can make a good movie without

being quit in Tarantino As of this point, one

of the things we've always talked about was this

dialogue. It's you know, there's great dialogue

in this too There's no doubt one of the few things

that I feel Jackie Brown has that many maybe

none of his other films have or a lot of scenes

that stand out that have no dialogue or characters

that tell you a lot without really saying anything

and I think that to me shows he knows what he

does well but he also can do other things well

like he can Recognize good material or recognize

the talent of the actors that he has and realizes

Maybe they can just be like Robert De Niro and

give you everything you need to know simply through

his physical performance And I think that you

know, we've talked about a number of different

Trademarks, I guess you could call them for Tarantino

up to this point that we've seen in both of the

first two films and obviously not completely

ignorant of some of the films we've seen later

on in this filmography, but Specifically based

on those those first two you brought up one in

dialogue And there's been a couple of the other

elements that we pointed out and I think with

Jackie Brown What you have is you have a few

of those elements kind of fade into the background

a little bit And then you have a few of those

other elements that were still present in those

other two films that become a little bit more

highlighted in this film, at least from my experience

with this film. So what do you feel becomes more

highlighted this time around? I think the things

that were highlighted more for me this time around,

there's about two or three things. And the first

thing would be a little bit more of a highlight

on the camera work. Not saying it's not present

in those other two films, but because of some

of the other elements that I was more awed by,

maybe I wasn't noticing it as much, but I notice

all the shots and all the angles from the camera

much more in this film. And I think that's a

positive. As far as if I'm judging or critiquing

Jackie Brown overall, one of the highlights for

me is the camera work. Thinking of two scenes

in particular, and one of those would be... the

scene where you have one individual in a car

and the trunk of a car. Yes. And another individual

standing over top of it. And just the whole idea

that you basically have the camera in the trunk

of the car and looking up over, you know, so

you're getting it from his point of view. Not

saying that that's like the most creative, inventive

thing that someone could come up with, but I

just felt it really worked and it really made

that scene a lot more memorable for me. especially

considering what they were discussing. I didn't

realize it, but that is one of the motifs that

Tarantino has done so far in every film. Like

there is that and... in Pulp Fiction and Rose

of our Dogs, but not necessarily to the extent

of this and not necessarily as a reflection of

what's actually being talked about that makes

it really stand out. Yeah. So I mean, it was

something like you're saying, it's present in

the other films, but for me in this film, it

stands out more. And that's just one example,

thinking just off the top of my head of another

one that came to my mind would be the job that's

done. Now, obviously in The Exchange, the one

that's for real this time when they run through

that. They obviously show it from a bunch of

different perspectives and in the very first

perspective when we're seeing it from Jackie

Brown, I thought there was some very interesting

stuff done there too to show the frenetic -ness

of what that would be like for her and to really

up the ante as far as what he wants us to feel

in that time. that he wants us to feel anxious

along with that scene. He wants us to not have

that idea of not quite sure how this is gonna

go. And you have, especially towards the end

of it, where you have the camera kind of moving.

quickly in 360 type Movements and a couple other

shaky type movements where I think it really

puts you into that scene So those were two of

them that I can think of off the top my head

to highlight But just the camera work throughout

and the angles that you're getting and the different

things that they're doing with it I thought really

paid off in respect to what he was trying to

convey at that given moment Yeah, I have to have

to agree and I'm one Shot that's uh, that's very

related to when you're talking about where you

have Samuel Jackson Chris Tucker discussing Being

in the trunk and then there's a shot right after

that after they get into the car that the crane

shot and It's again one long take where you have

the car drives off to a distance to and then

the camera raises up and then it comes back in

into frame but kind of outside of perspective

kind of further away, but it's just one continuous

motion. And then you realize, you know, what

really was going on the entire time. I love that.

I love that. It's actually one of my favorite

shots in all Quentin Tarantino's films. And honestly,

I forgot all about it and I didn't even until

rewatching this movie. It's one that I remembered

happening, but I couldn't remember which movie

it was. So I agree that his style here is not

necessarily with his cutting or his influx of

music, which is certainly here. There's no doubt

that he uses music, but I think it's allowing

the camera to tell more of the story than his

characters. Right. In certain instances. And

then you bring up kind of one of the other elements

that I think is highlighted in a way in this

film, and that would be the music. Obviously

not. saying that, ignorant to the fact that there

was obviously a lot of thoughts and attention

put into the music that's in the prior two films

that we've talked about already. But, I mean,

it was a major theme throughout this whole film.

You know, it's mentioned by the characters. You

have the bookends of the song where Jackie Brown

is driving the car at the beginning and at the

end of the film. Yeah, I mean, obviously you

have the whole, they're looking through. records

at one point, the Delfonics are always on the

radio. So, I mean, I really got a sense for that,

but not in a way that's distracting, not in a

way that took away from what's going on. I just

think something that added another layer that

I noticed even more so, not just one song like

maybe in some of the other films where I've noticed

one moment or one scene or one song, but from

beginning to end throughout, noticing it more

in this film, I guess, for me. And along with

the music too, he's always used soundtrack like

songs and that's always been the case but What

I didn't know until I was doing research was

this is one of the first times he used additional

score. But it wasn't a score that was designed

specifically for the film. He actually used scores

from another movie. I think it was Foxy Brown

because I think the Weinstein's told him he needs

more music and he didn't have enough time to

get someone to score it. So he was like, okay,

I'll just I'll go out and use a score of another

movie or I think Weinstein's advised him to doing

it. And it definitely works. especially using

music from previous films that Pamela Greer was

in, it stays within that style and it's within

that exchange that a lot of that score is used.

And I had no idea it was from a score from a

movie from the 1960s, but it makes sense. It

feels authentic to the film and authentic to

the style of what they're doing, which is something

he then repeats in later films. So those are

maybe two of the biggest elements I thought that

were a little bit more highlighted in this film

throughout compared to maybe highlighted in more

of an undertone in some of the other films or

maybe in more brief appearances. I don't know,

what other things do you think are Tarantino

-esque that you thought really came to the forefront

in this film? I definitely would say the performances

here are really great starting with Samuel L.

Jackson and Pam Grier. I actually have this question

for you, and his performance in Pulp Fiction

is no doubt more iconic. It's the performance

that's made Chamberlain L. Jackson's Chamberlain

L. Jackson. I do wonder, would you consider his

performance here, I don't know if better is a

stronger word, because they're vastly different,

but maybe more well -rounded, considering the

character he's playing, and the fact that he

has to be kind of cool, calm, and collective,

but you still have to be scared of him in certain

instances, or he's playing that antagonist, the

villain here, but in a way that... Is somehow

still somewhat likeable because he said yeah

I think there's two different ways to look at

that one and the first way would be if you're

looking at kind of like what you're getting at

a little bit is he definitely shows a wider range

of of emotions I think in this film and like

you said he you're presented with somebody that

At times you don't know how to interpret. You

don't know if you can trust what he's saying

if you can trust what he's doing you don't know

at what point he's being genuine, at what point

he's using somebody, at what point he's scared,

or at what point, you know what I mean? Like,

you get a wide range of not quite sure exactly

how he's feeling, where I think in Pulp Fiction,

it's a little bit more straightforward, where

you pretty much know what... He doesn't give

you a reason in Pulp Fiction to not believe what

he's saying. He tells you he's going to do something,

and he doesn't. He's a little bit more conniving.

He's definitely a little bit of a harder read

based on his character in this film. However,

I guess if you were going to look at it from

a different standpoint and look at the actual

arc of the character... Obviously, I think like

we talked about pulp fiction that character to

me has a has a little bit bigger of an art where

From beginning to end you actually get to see

the development of that character Whereas I think

in this film a little bit more. It's it's the

same character at the beginning It is the same

character you get at the end And I would say

that's almost a fault for a lot of the characters

in this I think maybe the one exception to that

might be proper forces character max I do think

he probably has the most a change from who he

has at the start to who he is at the end, but

It seems to me that, like, these characters are

all kind of set into who they are. I think that

could be a lot of just the age, you know, something

like Jackie Brown being a middle -aged woman

who has gone through this system and has been

within this game for such a long time. I find

it intriguing that her biggest weapon in here

is her wit, and her just seems like her experience

in knowing how to get out. I was waiting for

like the gimmick or the what's going to save

her what's going to be the thing that you know

what's going to be the thing that kind of gets

her free and it's really herself in a lot of

ways which I found is kind of empowering and

and I think a smart way to go because it it makes

her that much more interesting of a character

because there's so much more to her than this

40 year old airline stewardess who apparently

is going nowhere in life, but you can tell that

there's a lot more there than maybe she's even

let herself become. No, you brought up Robert

Forrester's character, and obviously he was the

only one that received any love from the Academy

with a supporting actor nomination. Is he the

best performance in the film overall? I love

this performance. I think he's... I kept hearing

him talk and his look. He feels like the guy

from Dragnet. He just feels like a cop. I would

say if I was going to go with a performance that

feels the strongest, I'm inclined to go with

Pam Grier. It's not necessarily one that has

those Oscar moments he would anticipate or some

really hefty acting. I think she carries the

film and it's just her presence and her ability

to feel authentic that makes it work. And if

you don't have that, I don't think Jackie Brown's

at all successful. Right. And not to sell the

other one short, I mean, Samuel L. Jackson and

Pam Grier both got nominated for awards as well,

just not from the Academy. That was only Robert

Forster. And I think it kind of brings up another

point that we talked about in... the other two

films as well, going back to the casting. Something

again that Tarantino seems to knock out of the

park. I think performances from top to bottom,

I don't know if there would be a single performance

I would say is bad. Maybe, maybe if I was stretching,

I'd say my least favorite performance would have

been Michael Bowen, who was the other cop alongside

of Michael Keaton. Okay, but maybe he was a little

he was a little cartoony. Yes Yeah, or maybe

it was just because I felt like that was like

a minor league version of Christopher Maloney

It took me a second to figure out that that wasn't

actually who it was But that was maybe the only

one that I thought yeah It was a little bit a

little bit stereotypical type of type of performance

But outside of that when you're looking at all

the other characters, I mean there wasn't a bad

performance that I saw Do you feel Robert, knowing

that you have someone like Robert De Niro in

this? My first inclination was like, well, it's

Robert De Niro and he just doesn't really do

much. You need Robert De Niro to be in that role.

But the more I thought about it, I maybe thought

maybe I was wrong. I don't know. Like, how do

you feel about like him in this film? I don't

necessarily think he's not necessarily needed.

I think a lot of other people could have played

that role and we would have got just as much

out of them. So I mean, does he bring something

unique to the role? I don't know. I don't know

if it was more so. a relationship between him

and Tarantino and De Niro wanted to be in the

film and Tarantino had already decided on the

other parts. I don't know what was behind the

scenes of it, but in doing a little bit of research

it seems like this trend continues where part

of the reason the casting just seems to always

be right so much is because a lot of the times

there's at least one, two or three roles that

have been specifically crafted by Tarantino for

a specific person. and that would have been the

case specifically in this film with Robert Forrester

if everything I've read is correct where according

to the trivia I read that this was basically

obviously I know it's based on material but the

way it was crafted in this film was Tarantino

specifically crafting it for Robert Forrester

who not to get off on too many tangents but like

you brought up a couple times is an example of

Tarantino taking someone that no one else was

hiring, nobody else was interested in. His career

was basically on the downhill side, if not in

a comatose state. And Tarantino comes by and

boom, you know, crafts this for him because of

whatever he's seen in this guy and bam, you have

someone that's nominated for an Academy Award.

Yeah, I know I heard him. when he was reading

the book, like he had the movie in his mind,

and when he first was crafting it, he didn't

necessarily have anyone prepare for Jackie Brown,

but eventually he got to the idea of changing

the race, because in the book, the race of Jackie

Brown, she's white, I don't think she's actually

not even called Jackie Brown, I forget her name.

I think Burke. Yeah, and then she he kind of

changed it and then he thought of someone who

would could be that age and have that presence

and the person that came to his mind was Pam

Greer who you know similar to you know was in

a similar situation where her career came and

went I mean she had some bit parts here and there

she was in Mars attacks not to not to Uh, not

too soon before this came out and uh, which is

I think my first in uh introduction into the

life of pangrear so um, but I just wanted to

backtrack a little bit to robert de niro the

what I asked you and I I see that point a lot

in with robert de niro in this film because it's

it's such a I mean, it's a wallflower of a character

where I mean you can probably argue I mean Sorry,

I didn't get to say that. I do still like him

in that role, and I think he does pull off the

fact that you've got someone representing someone

who's been in prison for four years, has that

edge, and that type of thing. So I think it is

a good choice to pull that off. I guess I would

just say that could someone else have done that?

Possibly. Yeah, I don't disagree. I don't necessarily

think it's a role that has to be De Niro, but...

I think the benefit of having someone of the

caliber of an arrow, when you have a character

like that, that is a ball -thrower type of character,

doesn't say much. You need someone who can convey

being in prison or, you know, having that sense

that, okay, that's a guy who's clearly in a world

he doesn't really feel like he fits into quite

yet. Right. De Niro fits that without really

saying much. Even like his look, his shoveled

look. There's probably not an actor in the world

that can say more without saying anything than

De Niro. So I get why that's okay. I'm gonna

put De Niro in this role. What I wish that if

we see De Niro in another film by Tarantino that

maybe has a more showy role, I think that would

be great. I would love to see Tarantino try to

give... De Niro a character like Travis Bickle

for one of his films that would be fantastic,

but for this role and what it is I think it It

makes sense It may be not as high profile as

you would think considering you have this huge

director and one of the most iconic actors of

all time and and really in what ends up being

more of a Very much a side character in all this

I think also though I think that choice does

pay off in a way in the film as I'm thinking

more about it because in a scene towards the

end of the film when you have Samuel L. Jackson

and De Niro in the bus together, the VW bus,

I think the fact that it is De Niro adds more

intrigue to that scene. Makes it on a first watch

not as obvious as far as what's going to happen.

Even though you've seen how Samuel L. Jackson

has acted up to this point in the film, you're

still questioning the fact that is this going

to possibly play out that way? I mean, that's

Robert De Niro. I'm trying to say in a way to

not necessarily, I guess, spoil an 11 -year -old

movie or 21 -year -old movie. Yeah, 1997. So

we're getting younger and younger. Yes. But I

mean, I think that adds a little weight. It's

not just some shalom that you're just like, well,

you know. Yeah, and I think to the the sudden

violence that character goes to it's just and

then that's when I think you get that because

it's just it's like, oh geez, okay, that's that

is a guy who is You almost he's almost like a

teddy bear before that. He's like, oh, he's kind

of like, you know, he's just he's a little bit

likeable He's a schlub, but then it's like Yeah,

exactly. And then it's like, oh no, this guy

is, he's a psychopath and he probably should

be in jail. There's a reason he was in jail for

four years. Yeah. And we mentioned this being

an Elmore Leonard film based upon an Elmore Leonard

book. And I don't know if that's why Tarantino

stuck with the linear storyline here. You only

maybe get one brief, the one scene where it's

still kind of linear, but you just get the the

exchange from all the different perspectives,

which is to me one of my favorite scenes in the

film, but it is linear in that way. And I don't

know if it was because of that, but I don't know

how you felt, but it did cause the movie, I think,

in my eyes, not to have the peaks and valleys

I expect with a Tarantino movie. It almost took

on the... The mood of its title character Jackie

Brown is always cool is always kind of cool comic

collective and almost like in the middle and

Whether you're not really getting the highs the

lows and I felt that way with the narrative you

do have certain scenes that that do stand out

like we mentioned with the infamous crane shots

or with Chris Tucker's little sequence here and

there but overall narratively that the drama

aspect of it is really a steady line like I don't

necessarily it doesn't necessarily pick up or

or have those moments that are just like oh okay

like those aha moments you expect with a Tarantino

movie it's you get there eventually but it almost

because of that it almost like dragged a little

bit like it's a two and a half hour movie and

I'm not necessarily one to complain about running

time but I don't necessarily think this is a

movie that needed to be that long. And I do think

maybe Tarantino maybe got in love a little bit

too much with some of his dialogue and he could

have made a stronger film if maybe he just cut

it down just a tad. I think you hit that one

on the head. I couldn't agree with you more.

I too, I don't mind watching. I could watch a

four -hour movie, I don't care. If it's something

that I feel like was necessary and it's good

and I'm entertained, so be it. I mean, I obviously

have to carve out that much time to watch it,

so sometimes that can be an issue. But for me

though, the real, if you want to pinpoint what

you're talking about, I think it comes in the

second 30 to 40 minutes of the film. Had no issues

like that for that first little bit when we're

learning them You know we're being introduced

to the characters and whatnot and honestly in

the last about hour to hour 15 minutes I really

did I felt like it did I mean I still think it's

a steady line But I think it's it's somewhat

starts to slope a little bit and you somewhat

somewhat get the you know the building Yeah,

it's good. It's not necessarily a line that it's

the being That being steady necessarily is a

bad thing, but it's just like it doesn't Actively

go out and grab you like you have seen previously

with her right and I think that second half like

I said the second half hour the second 40 minutes

is definitely the time where you're gonna feel

that that's it, you know if If someone's not

a huge into it, that's gonna be the time where

someone's looking at their watch That's gonna

be the time where someone's like how long has

this film or something like that? You know, so

someone does have pacing issues or like you said

senses some dragging. I think it's really kind

of highlighted in that little Like I said, second

30 to 40 minutes where you kind of feel that.

But I do think it does pick up, thankfully, right

after that. And I don't think you feel that again

for the whole last hour. But yeah, I definitely

had that. It was like one of those notes that

I kind of like wrote down was the pacing. And

then like towards the second half of the movie,

I almost wanted to go back and scratch it off.

Like, no, it's not that big of a deal. But for

that moment, you do feel that. And I think it

kind of goes back into hand in hand with a little

bit of the dialogue. There's some great lines.

and there's some great dialogue, but what you

don't get is you don't get the extended or prolonged

back and forth sequence like we got with Reservoir

Dogs and with Pulp Fiction. There's not those

discussions between two people that are just

off the wall or intriguing or interesting or

something like that. Instead, it's more like

a one line here and a one line there, and I think

that might... make that even more, like you said,

seem like this more drawn -out line. Yeah. Yeah,

definitely. Because look at some Samuel L. Jackson's

character. He's talking at a lot of people. He's

a lot of great sequences himself. Like his first

sequence when they're watching the chicks who

love guns, and he's talking, and he's kind of

going through everything. That's great, but he's

also not playing off of anyone. Robert De Niro's

character, and that's just, again, just kind

of listening, and agreeing, and nodding, and

not saying much. You don't get those exchanges

nearly as much. There's a lot of unspoken...

dialogue, especially with Robert Sack, or not

Robert Sack, that's not... Also could have been.

Robert Forrester. Especially with, yeah, Robert

Forrester and Pam Greer, their story and their

interaction, a lot of it's unspoken. That's again

Robert Forrester giving a great performance,

just showing, he has this enamored look from

him from the beginning, and you can get what's

going on. but then you do glues out of that,

those exchanges that would become such a linchpin

to what makes it tintier, such a standout director.

There were a few lines that definitely caught

my ear that I did like, though, that I jotted

down. I don't have the whole sequence, but probably

the best exchange that you get between two characters,

honestly, for me, that's the closest thing to

something like we got with Paul Fichtner, Reservoir

Dogs, is between Samuel L. Jackson and Chris

Tucker, again, that scene in the trunk. That's

probably the best exchange, and I like that at

one point. I believe Samuel L. Jackson's saying

something about it's only going to be 10 minutes

or something like that. And Chris Tucker says,

for no minute. Just the way he said that was

classic. I think I've heard a lot of people use

that same phrase since then. I like it towards

the end where Samuel L. Jackson says, my ass

may be dumb, but I'm no dumbass. And then there's

also a good line in there from Bridget Fonda

about people who move their lips when they read.

I thought that was funny. I mean, I do it sometimes

too, but she was questioning the intelligence

of anybody that moves their lips while they read.

I mean, there is some good one -liners in there,

here and there, but I think I was missing that

memorable set of dialogue that I kind of got

spoiled with on the other two films. Yeah, and

it's surprising because like Elmer Luttern and

Tarantino are both known for that and which is

why I think is Jack Ronson such a an enigma of

a movie just execution because it doesn't give

you maybe what you expect in a lot of ways It

definitely emphasizes more of the mystery and

a little less of the humor Yeah There are laugh

-out moments, but necessarily not net not as

a to the extreme of his other films I do have

kind of some some other like random non -sequitur

questions that are not nearly as serious and

that is I know when I first watched this I had

no idea what Bill Bondman was I don't know about

you but like I didn't know that was a thing until

like I don't know like 10 years ago yeah I don't

think if I would have seen this in 97 I would

have known what they were talking about necessarily

myself now just being older and I guess more

knowledgeable about the world. I didn't have

a problem all the all the time Yeah, all the

times i've been in jail a lot And had max cherry

help me out Um, no, but uh, yeah, if I would

have seen this in high school I would have no

idea what they were talking about at all I remember

the first time I saw an ad for bales wadsman.

I was like wait, they have an entire company

based upon See I got I got savings bonds when

I was a kid every once in a while from like my

grandparents like for Christmas I thought I had

something to do with that. I think originally.

Yeah So are you also surprised that Since then

we have yet to get a TV show called chicks who

love guns Amanda walked into I don't know what

she was doing. She was in the kitchen or something

and she came back and she hadn't seen the introduction

of that scene where it said chicks who love guns

and she was very concerned about what was going

on. She's like, what is the point of this? I'm

like, no, no, it was like a whole thing. I almost

got it. And it's so weird how authentic that

is. It's like I could see this happening. I think

there's probably a magazine at least at some

point that happens. Some VHS in the 90s or something

like that. Some dad somewhere had under his mattress

or something, I don't know. And one last question

I have. Considering this was like the first time

Tarantino has adapted anyone else's work and

he hasn't done it since then, would you ever

be interested in seeing him adapt something else

from another person's work? And if so, does anything

come to mind? I think I would. I definitely would.

And the reason being is because, number one,

this was so long ago. This is two decades ago

and I'd be interested to see, with that many

more years under his belt and that many more

films under his belt, what he would do with something

that was adapted. Because I think this is still

a good film. I think this is good on many levels

and it was a success. So I don't see... I just

would find it interesting. I don't have necessarily

something picked out. You know, obviously he's

been doing a lot of the western scenes lately.

So I don't know if it would be something along

those same lines or if it would be... I'd honestly

be interested to see him go back into some type

of crime detective type story. I think that would

be fun. Yeah, one thing that kind of came to

my mind that I would like Tarantino hasn't done

science fiction, right? That's like the one genre

he hasn't done yet so maybe with something like

Philip K Dick who kind of has a meshing of both

genres and considering Tarantino that Seeing

him try to take on one of his stories that could

be interesting or Horror like something like

a Stephen King novel even if it's like a short

story or something like that or a short film

I think that would be kind of cool say there's

no doubt that Tarantino strength is his writing

but Sometimes a great writer is also someone

who can adapt something else and I would be interested

in seeing. I do wonder why he has not done that

since then, but maybe it's just he has other

stories he wanted to write. But I would definitely

be for it. Anything else you wanted to bring

up before we finish? I just had two questions.

One is a completely stupid question and one I'm

a little bit more interested in your answer,

but first question is when they're at Samuel

L. Jackson's... Place of residence and that's

the beginning of the film. They show a shot of

his fridge with various pictures on there One

of the pictures on his fridge is I don't know

if it's him or another African -American gentleman

and it appears that it's just a picture of him

sitting in a tub on his fridge I almost had to

rewind it and say did Why was there a picture

of some dude in a bathtub? And I did like the

New York undercover reference because I had definitely

watched that show back in that time period. I

assume it's the same show that I'm thinking about

or maybe it's a different reference. But my question

for you here is a lot of times, especially in

present day with Mad Max and some of these other

things with the Terminator reboot, et cetera,

there's been a lot of discussions about badass

female characters. Why is Jackie Brown never

mentioned in that discussion? I Think maybe because

she's not badass in the sense of kick -ass, you

know She's not fighting and she's not a chick

with a gun like as this movie has pointed out

so and I think too like Going back thinking Jackie

Brown for my for my mind. I thought okay There's

a scene where she has a shootout or something

like that and that doesn't happen It's just again

her her which so maybe that's because it's not

It's not her being kick -ass and I think that

somehow gets incorporated with the character

being bad. I think anybody that gets away with

that much money and somehow pulls it one over

on the character that Samuel L. Jackson is playing

in that film deserves to be in that discussion.

Yeah, anyone who can use books to steal nearly

half a million dollars. And my last question

for you would be what is your opinion on Sam

Jackson's hair in this film? Man wow and it was

his idea of the hair in the goatee That one scene

when he actually lets it all down For someone

you know who was trying to be this like undercover

or at least you know not get caught as a gun

smugglers you think you would be a little bit

more incognito with his look so it's he just

he just looks like a criminal or at least looks

shady probably one of the creepiest hairdos that's

almost worse than the comb over of some like

yeah i don't know middle -aged to old creepy

guy like it's just especially the goatee because

it's almost it's just such a like it's there's

so little of it yet it goes on forever It's just

like, why both choices? It's just weird. It certainly

stands out. It's almost as distracting as his

lisp in Kingsman the Secret Service. It does.

Yeah, yeah. He does have a lot of... That's the

thing. Tamriel Jackson certainly has some odd

choices for his characters. And last thing, because

I could just thought of it, but have you ever

heard a message on an answering machine sound

like Quentin Tarantino before? This is the fake

answer machine I've ever heard in my life. Or

voicemail or whatever it is. I'm like, there's

no way this would ever sound like this. Siri

has more of a range than that did now. Definitely

not. So then the ultimate question becomes where

do we rate this? The infamous 1 through 10 rating.

I know you gave Pulp Fiction a 9. I think you

gave First War Dogs an 8 or 7 .58. Where would

you where would you rank? I like to just keep

everything all my ducks in a row here So I'll

go with the pulp fiction is my nine film reservoir

dogs is my eight and I'm honestly I think Jackie

Brown's a seven for me. Yeah, man I'm right there

with you. I am on the bachelor gave a pulp fiction

of ten and I'm around the same way with Resort

dogs. Yeah, that might even be a nine for me

the more I think about it I might change once

we're done with this whole thing. We have to

give like our ultimate rankings I I reserve the

right to change things. I think time is definitely

Does this make you rethink? This is a solid seven

still. I don't think there's anything wrong with

it No, I agree. I think I'm right. There are

seven seven point five is simple if I was about

where I'm at and like I said There's nothing

that stands out. That's that's bad. It's just

it doesn't Have the I was expecting though with

simply people talk about this film and the way

People seem to just write it off I was expecting

to watch something that was gonna be like in

a four or five material or something like It

was nowhere near as bad as I thought people made

it out to be and I think that that in a lot of

ways is just when you consider what everything

like came before and then suddenly Jackie Brown

and And we all get to this when we get to Inglourious

Basterds, but I know I remember having a really

negative reaction to Inglourious Basterds the

first time I saw it because I was thinking it'd

be like the Kill Bill version of a World War

II film, and it's not at all. So it went in one

of that expectations and ended up not really

liking it the first time. So I wondered if that's

kind of what happened here where people were

expecting more of the same. Got something different

and then I mean I did get some attention I know

Roger Ebert had it in his top ten for that year

and some overall it is rated well, I mean Rotten

Tomatoes is 87 % for critics and 85 % for audience

so But it's not it's not talked about that much

among Tarantino fans or even Tarantino himself

I've tried to find like interviews with him talking

about it and I don't know if it's just because

people don't freaking up as much, but I don't

necessarily see him talking about this movie

nearly as much as everything else he's done.

It did hold steady to his... He seems to have

released a lot of films in December. It was a

Christmas... He loves Christmas Day. Christmas

Day was released in 1997 and it opened with...

Well, it had a budget of 12 million and it made

just about 40 domestic, so... Yeah. Which is

not too bad for 1997 numbers considering it's

two and a half hour movie that... Right. No,

I mean, they had an opening weekend of 9 million.

That's respectable. Yeah. That's the one thing

I guarantee now definitely has a guarantee. He's

never going to give you the top 10 box office

movie of all time, but his movie will be profitable.

There you go. All right. And it'll probably just

make you tons of money later on as people try

to adapt it and all that other stuff. All right,

but anything else before we begin this episode?

My last notes would be I didn't ever realize

until this time that Robert De Niro was in a

Quentin Tarantino film. You do forget that. My

ignorance on that one, or Michael Keaton for

that point. And then just the last couple pieces

of trivia, I don't know if you saw this or not,

but something Tarantino loves to do is he loves

to connect his films. I don't know if you recognized

or saw in your research that the white civic

that Jackie drives is the same car Butch was

driving when he knocked down Marcellus Wallace

in Pulp Fiction. No, I did not. Yeah. And in

the first mall scene, we see Max Cherry exiting

a movie theater while the music for the ending

credits is playing, which is also the closing

music of the actual film. Yeah, yeah. There's

all kinds of fun tidbits and easter eggs in Tarantino

films. Yeah, it's funny because like Tarantino

tends to know the songs he's playing gonna use

in his music before the movie ever made So I

think he lets to play with things like that a

lot. No fun fun I was pleasantly surprised with

how much I enjoyed this Yeah, and what's gonna

be intriguing about our next movie as we get

into Kill Bill volume one and volume two is that

Tarantino will now be stepping away from the

crime genre and entering into the realm of martial

arts. And the question is, is he nearly as successful

with that as he's been with these last three

films? So far we've all given positive ratings

to everything we've seen up to this point. So

the question is, does that ball keep rolling

in that same direction? We'll see. As we talk

about Kill Bill both Volume 1s and Volume 2s

next week. But if you want to get in contact

with us, there's a lot of different ways. You

can do so by emailing us at feedback at geekcastrader

.com. We're on Twitter at cinemageekcast, and

you're also on Twitter. Kevin, what's your Twitter?

My Twitter is at OptimusSolo. And I am at in

revolt. But that will be it for this week, and

we'll see you next week as we talk about Kill

Bill, the whole bloody affair. Well, catch you

next time.