JACKIE BROWN (1997) - Review

Jackie Brown

Crime/Drama/Thriller
2 hours and 34 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Quentin Tarantino
Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Produced by: Lawrence Bender & Paul Hellerman

Cast:
Pam Grier
Samuel L. Jackson
Robert Forster
Bridget Fonda
Michael Keaton
Chris Tucker
Robert De Niro

Six players on the trail of a half a million dollars in cash. There's only one question... Who's playing who?

The combination of Quentin Tarantino and Elmore Leonard is simply a match made in heaven. With wordy, well thought out dialogue, Tarantino's early crime films (even the ones he simply wrote and did not direct himself) had the feel of an Elmore Leonard storyline without actually utilizing an Elmore Leonard storyline. It's no surprise to learn that the author was one of Tarantino's favorites, and that he had planned a Leonard adaptation as far back as the early 1990s.

Several of Leonard's books were optioned, and at first Tarantino wanted to make Killshot into a major motion-picture (something that filmmaker John Madden did eleven years later with actor Mickey Rourke), but eventually Tarantino turned his sights on Rum Punch instead. With a plot line that follows the illegal exchange of money, and contains very little violence, Rum Punch may appear to have been an odd story for Tarantino to fall in love with. On the contrary, it was filled with rough, criminal characters, and blue collar people in tough situations, and Leonard's use of everyday but humorous dialogue is already enough for anyone who reads the novel to understand why Tarantino loved it so much.

Jackie Brown is one of those rare occurrences where the movie is actually just as good, if not better, than the book. Out of respect to Leonard, Tarantino keeps his story intact, but changes quite a great deal within. Many of the scenes are jumbled around, the Miami setting has been transposed to Los Angeles, the main character's name and ethnicity have been altered, and the ending is completely different. All of this being said, this is why Jackie Brown triumphs over its novel companion Rum Punch. It showcases Tarantino's own creativity without disrespecting Leonard's. It's no wonder Elmore Leonard referred to it as being his favorite film adaptation of one of his own works.

The characters within Jackie Brown are more clearly painted, and go much deeper than anything Tarantino had come up with before. Sure, films like Reservoir Dogs, True Romance, and Pulp Fiction had likable, and memorable characters - but the characters in Jackie Brown seem to be the filmmaker's most thought through. Perhaps having Leonard's characterization of them as a jumping off point helped him tremendously when portraying them in the script.

Like most Tarantino films, the cast is perfectly hand selected to tackle these incredible roles, and none of them lets down the filmmaker's vision. Pam Grier is truly amazing, and makes this rundown, criminal flight attendant truly relatable. In fact, it's almost impossible to cheer against her in the end when she steals money that isn't hers. Grier showcases her tremendous talent and proves that she's more than just something to gawk at or idolize for her cult performances in blaxploitation classics. Robert Forster is charming, and like Grier, shows that he is a truly gifted actor who perhaps is better than his body of work (Alligator) would suggest. Samuel Jackson is pure gold, and at this point it just seems that Tarantino writes dialogue simply so that Jackson can perfectly deliver it. Michael Keaton and Bridget Fonda are both good, but unfortunately neither have enough screen time. The characters are well showcased, and perhaps that's why viewers may feel cheated that they don't spend enough time with either of them. Robert De Niro expertly portrays an ex-con just out of prison. His mannerisms and lack of dialogue give him a truly believable performance. Despite very few lines, and his lack of an essential part in the story until the film's climax, De Niro delivers one of the best performances of his career in Jackie Brown.

The film's soundtrack is terrific. Tarantino's films always showcase wonderful and well-placed music. But Jackie Brown may showcase this best of all. With scores from Jack Hill blaxploitation staples such as Coffy and Foxy Brown, it is quite clear that this film is Tarantino's love letter to not just the films of Pam Grier, but the films of the 1970s in general. Soul classics from The Delfonics, Bobby Womack, and The Supremes certainly are appreciated as well.

There is one major issue with the film, which is rather unfortunate. By its third act, Jackie Brown begins to run out of some serious steam and drag to the point that it becomes a test of will for a viewer to finish it. After the film's exciting climax, its conclusion is rather ... well, frankly its dull. Most of Tarantino's films finish in a grandiose moment, but Jackie Brown ends on a sour note. It's unfortunate seeing as how maybe had Tarantino left the original Elmore Leonard ending in his film it could've been a lot better.

With some of the best characters that the filmmaker has ever written, all portrayed by an incredible cast of extremely talented actors, Jackie Brown is a damn near perfect film that is fun, hilarious, and entertaining for anyone who watches it. And despite a slow and somewhat dissatisfying ending, it may very well be Quentin Tarantino's greatest movie.

9.5/10

TIME LOCK (1957) - Review

Time Lock

Thriller
1 hour and 13 minutes
Not Rated

Written by: Peter Rogers
Directed by: Gerald Thomas
Produced by: Peter Rogers

Cast:
Robert Beatty
Betty McDowall
Lee Patterson
Vincent Winter
Sean Connery

An Inpenetrable Vault Becomes A Clockwork Tomb!

The 1950s was a wonderful time for what has become known as "B films". The drive-in/grindhouse culture saw that these films not only had a venue in which they could be screened, but that they also had an audience. Interestingly enough, these B films didn't survive as well outside the US market since foreign theaters were more inclined to show studio pictures made in America. Not surprisingly, B films were shot in nearly every country that had low budget filmmakers/studios on hand. And whether or not these films were screened in their own country of origin was not a matter of concern. Just as long as a few US theaters (drive-in or not) picked up a film it was considered a big deal, especially for films made from mere peanuts.

Such was the case with the British-made thriller Time Lock. Surprisingly, the film did actually do better in its nation of origin - screening all over the UK for several months in various theaters before fading away into obscurity. Time Lock did have a US theatrical release, but it was incredibly spotty and lasted much shorter than its UK run. For decades after its initial release, however, Time Lock did air on US and UK television every once in a blue moon.

Time Lock has perhaps earned most of its notoriety (and trust me, it doesn't have much) among cinephiles for being one of Sean Connery's earliest films. The film was in fact Connery's third motion-picture, and compared to the two films that he starred in prior, it was a step back for his career - for it was the smallest role he had seen up until that point.

The film has a wonderfully engaging premise, and it engulfs its viewer into the action almost immediately. The title refers to a lock set within a bank vault that won't allow said vault to open until a designated time. Trouble is encountered after the small child of a bank manager is trapped inside a vault whose time lock has been set to open three days from it being shut. It is engaging, it is thrilling, it is harrowing, it is simple, but above all else it is entertaining.

Despite having an incredibly strong premise, Time Lock does have a few issues that it can't overcome. For starters, the film is much too short. The audience is told that the rescuers only have ten hours to get the child out before he suffocates. From the start of the film, until the final opening of the vault, the story moves much too quickly. While there is never a dull moment, there needs to be more thrilling moments added to believe that the final seconds before opening the vault are really quite in fact the final seconds. Because of the film's short and fast pacing, the film leaves its viewers wanting more. Perhaps a few more botched rescue attempts could have filled in the gaps giving the film additional length.

Another issue with the film is the performance of Vincent Winter, who plays Steven - the young boy trapped inside the vault. The story stays with Steven in the beginning, but quickly abandons him after Steven fails to open the time lock from the inside. This may seem foolish, but it isn't. It allows more tension to build as the story grows and the audience can speculate if the heroes will find Steven alive or dead once the vault has been opened. But the time spent with Steven is unconvincing. His dialogue would give the impression that Steven should be panicked, but unfortunately its delivery is all too calm which creates an almost comical undertone that most definitely hurts the overall suspense that the film is trying to create. Luckily, Winter's scenes are kept brief.

What is impressive about the film is that it doesn't appear to be a cheaply made B movie. While there are few locations, the picture itself is one that wouldn't require much money to be made, studio financed or not. This helps with the overall tone, since cheaply made films can sometimes be more distracting than anything else. What is also impressive is that the film was shot entirely in England, but was set in Canada. All of the film's actors, with the exception of Sean Connery, deliver performances in perfect Canadian accents. Several of the key leads were either Canadian or American, but many of the minor parts that play pivotal roles were British, Scottish, or European of some sort.

The performances, minus Winter's, are all truly believable - an impressive testament to a cast of mostly unknowns. Alan Gifford, who plays the bank manager, gives an incredible performance as a man struggling to keep his mind on freeing the boy, while attempting to come to terms with the fact that he is ultimately responsible for the boy's condition. Lee Patterson and Betty McDowall give moving performances as the boy's parents - although they both fit gender stereotypes a little too neatly. The boy's father never once loses his cool, while the mother is reduced to hysteria by the film's climax. A showcase of 1950s gender roles, I suppose, but nevertheless none of this really hurts the film overall. Sean Conney handles his few lines of dialogue well, and although it is an incredibly minor role - Connery's role is pivotal to the story, and he is given quite a bit of screen time despite very little dialogue.

While it may not be the most impressive movie ever made, and it certainly isn't perfect, Time Lock is an entertaining example of a B movie made correctly. And if one ever does have the distinctive pleasure of viewing this obscure gem, chances are it isn't a film they'll likely forget and push to the obscure regions of their mind in the way it has been pushed into obscurity over the course of cinematic history.

6/10

HALLOWEEN 5 (1989) - Review

Halloween 5

Horror/Thriller
1 hour and 38 minutes
Rated: R

Written by: Michael Jacobs, Dominique Othenin-Girard, and Shem Bitterman
Directed by: Dominique Othenin-Girard
Produced by: Ramsey Thomas

Cast: 
Donald Pleasence
Danielle Harris
Ellie Cornell
Beau Starr
Wendy Kaplan
Tamara Glynn

He's Back With A Vengeance

While they're never, creatively speaking, a particularly good idea, horror film franchises are an unwelcome inevitability in life that we all just have to hold our breath and accept. Most of us, myself included, are completely guilty of badmouthing the entire concept of sequels/prequels/remakes and still shelling out the money to go and see them - 99.99% of the time being totally disappointed as was to be expected. The Halloween franchise is no different than any other, in that it has its highs and it has its lows (most sequels proving to be more low than high). Halloween 5 should've been another warning indicator to the producers of the franchise (specifically executive producer Moustapha Akkad who is the only man to be involved with all of the Halloween films) that perhaps this cash cow wasn't worth milking anymore.

Halloween 5 is a bridge movie through and through. What is meant by this is that it serves the purposes of being a sequel for another sequel to follow immediately. It picks up where its predecessor, Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers, left off - which makes about as much sense as Halloween 4 picking up where Halloween II left off .... slim to none. One of the brilliant factors to Halloween 4 (and Halloween II while I'm at it) is that it has a nice, solid, conclusive ending. One that assures its viewers that this is it concerning the conclusion of Michael Myers. Unfortunately, as horror fans know all too well, nothing is conclusive in successful horror franchises, and more sequels are waiting to be made upon the immediate release of their predecessors.

Halloween 5 is a jumbled, chaotic mess, and the story is so ridiculous at times it is comically painful. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the film was entirely rushed. After the major success of Halloween 4, Akkad was so eager to get Michael back up on the silver screen that filming of Halloween 5 began before a script had even been finalized! This is absolutely noticeable and detrimental to the film and its legacy in the Michael Myers cannon. The story has too many subplots to count and none of them are ever fully explained (perhaps intentionally so). Jamie Lloyd's telekinetic link to Michael, for one, is really quite an embarrassing subplot. While supernatural elements were previously present in other Halloween films, this telekinesis story is so ludicrous it is abandoned completely halfway through the second act of the film. Jamie's mute condition is also irritatingly unexplained and abandoned altogether.

What is also irritating about Halloween 5 is the open-ended conclusions to the characters and the film itself. Many of the main players, Jamie, Dr. Loomis, Tina, Sheriff Meeker, etc., all are left in situations by the end of the film where it becomes unclear as to whether they are dead or alive. This is intentionally poor film-making at its finest, with the producers clearly using it as a gamble. They're unaware if Halloween 5 will be a success, so if it bombs and there's no sequel, they can say the characters died; the opposite for if the film succeeds. Although, less of a gamble is the film's cliffhanger conclusion. Regardless of Halloween 5's success or failure, Akkad was clearly already planning Halloween 6 before Donald Pleasence was even out of his makeup chair.

The kills within the film seem rather tamed down. This is shocking giving the nature of 1980s horror films, and in particular horror film sequels. Surprisingly, the effects were handled by the masters at KNB EFX Group! It makes one wonder why they were even called? It'd be like hiring Michelangelo to do a paint-by-numbers portrait. Though its predecessors were less gory, Halloween 5's deaths feel more dull and stale, and certainly less imaginative.

The acting is handled decently enough. Beau Starr is terrific as Sheriff Meeker once again, but unfortunately is given perhaps ten minutes of total screen time, and his character plays no significant role in the film's climax. Danielle Harris is kept mute throughout the first half of the film, and it's rather embarrassing to watch. When she's not allowed to scream and cry, Harris becomes a much less convincing performer. Besides, who the hell wants to see a scream queen not screaming? Donald Pleasence proves he is the strongest actor in the entire Halloween franchise yet again, however, the character of Dr. Loomis feels mistakenly written here. In previous films, it is the impression of the audience that Loomis feels obligated to stop Michael before he hurts anyone else. Because he fails so many times, and ultimately feels he failed Michael as a patient, Loomis can't rest until this obligation is fulfilled. In Halloween 5, however, Loomis is a reckless lunatic who has become obsessed with the cat-and-mouse game between himself and Michael. He still wants to stop Michael, but ultimately doesn't seem to care who gets hurt in the process (he even blatantly offers up Jamie to Michael just so Michael will walk into his trap).

The film does have a nugget or two of decently written, suspenseful moments. There are a few good jump scares, and Donald Pleasence's performance alone is engaging enough to keep anyone interested. The film's climax does build some nice tension, although the conclusion to this is dull and once again unexplained. Somehow Michael is caught in a trap that was never mentioned previously in the storyline at any given time. When Loomis literally throws the switch, viewers are just as confused as Michael as to what the hell just happened.

While it has its moments of pure entertainment, Halloween 5 struggles to overcome its many problems that began with its hasty conception. The returning actors do their best, and Pleasence still appeases, but the storyline of the film is so messy that the performances are not strong enough to hide it from its own mediocrity. More annoying is its clear placement in the Halloween franchise as a "bridge" or "filler" sequel, and it is because of this that Halloween 5 has become, deservingly so, one of the more forgotten films within this iconic franchise.

3.5/10

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2 (1986) - Review

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2

Comedy/Horror
1 hour and 41 minutes
Rated: X

Written by: L. M. Kit Carson
Directed by: Tobe Hooper
Produced by: Yoram Globus, Menahem Golan, and Tobe Hooper

Cast:
Dennis Hopper
Caroline Williams
Bill Moseley
Bill Johnson

After a decade of silence... The buzzz is back!

The 1980s became a prominent decade in the history of the horror genre mainly because it was the decade that dismantled exploitation cinema. Prior to the 1980s, exploitation and horror often leaked into one another, a perfect example of this is Tobe Hooper's original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre from 1974. But by the end of the 1970s, young Hollywood filmmakers like Steven Spielberg and George Lucas began blending the exciting elements of exploitation films into their large-budget Hollywood mainstream blockbusters (Jaws and Star Wars are really nothing more than big budgeted versions of Roger Corman's films).

Because of this new blending of exploitation to mainstream, horror films of the 1980s saw a wonderful new exploitable element given to them: gore. Not that gore hadn't been around prior to this - but for the most part it was really only present in those lesser seen exploitation flicks. By the 1980s, studios like New Line and Canon were cranking out gore-fests like A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Evil Dead, Hellraiser, Demons, Day of the Dead, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. These splatter-fest films brought the joy of ultra-gory horror films to the mainstream fold for new found audience members to enjoy, and will forever remain important in the discussion of horror cinema.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is an interesting film mainly for what it tries to accomplish. Whether it was successful in accomplishing its goals remains completely debatable and both arguments could be made coherently. To decide whether one actually enjoyed this schlock sequel or found it to be an unbearable entry to the Leatherface saga, one first has to understand what was going on and why this film was made.

For starters - this is the only Texas Chainsaw sequel, prequel, or remake to date to be directed by Tobe Hooper, the visionary auteur who gave audiences the original fright fest that was 1974's The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. You would think that this could give Texas 2 some credit over its followers. And with the landing of cult stars Dennis Hopper as a derranged Texas Ranger hellbent on revenge, and Bill Moseley as Leatherface's lunatic brother Chop-Top, all tied together with the special effects work of Tom Savini, one of the greatest masters of practical effects, what could go wrong?

Well, unfortunately, a lot goes wrong. For starters, the script is a mess. The film moves so fast that there isn't enough time to breathe. While this fast-paced formula works well for most splatter films - including the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre - it doesn't work for Texas 2 mainly because Texas 2 more than anything else tries to be a comedy. Feeling he wouldn't be able to match the level of shock and horror that the first film generated in audiences, Hooper (either foolishly or heroically depending on your take of the film) decided to go for campy, comedic elements within this sequel. What's unfortunate about this is that the comedy, as dark as it is, takes away from the shock value that needs to be present within this film. With gore effects cranked up all the way to eleven by Savini, it's disappointing that by the end of the film they hardly remain memorable in one's mind. If comedy had been toned back, and horror really emphasized, Texas 2 could have been almost as good as Texas 1 ... key word there is "almost".

The actors handle their roles well enough, but unfortunately most of them treat the movie like a comedy too (most likely they were told to do so by Hooper). This has them camping it up in scenes that really ought to be generating fear. This is especially prevalent in the scene between Caroline Williams and Bill Moseley. Moseley is a creepy looking guy, in her office after hours, who won't leave. She should be terrified and the audience should be terrified. And yet what follows is a rather buffoonish exchange of dialogue that undoubtedly has most people who see this film shaking their heads. The saving grace of this film is the presence of Dennis Hopper. Hopper puts forth a performance so serious in this film that it's enough to have me believe he saw the movie for what it should've been: a gut-wrenching, splatterfest, horror flick. Watching him is really the only thing of entertainment value within this film. Unfortunately, Hopper is given very little screen time, and his deranged, yet lovable, Texas Ranger character is hard to sympathize with once his moment of revenge comes. More screen time would have allowed Hopper's character to show the audience just how personal stopping these crimes are to him. This is touched upon when Hopper finds the corpse of his nephew, but again the sequence is much too brief.

Overall the film feels campy and expensive, mainly because it was campy and it was expensive. Even Tom Savini's gore effects at times look like second rate Halloween store props. Texas 2 may be on the list for Savini's worst gore effects of all time. They're not bad, mind you, they're just not what you'd expect from the man who gave us the blood and guts of Dawn of the Dead. This campy and expensive atmosphere is a dramatic turn away from the gritty, cheap and harrowing atmosphere of the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and fans of the original will no doubt at first be completely upset by it all.

While it was a valiant effort to bring back a phenomenon by a more than capable filmmaker, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is an unfortunate, campy, schlockfest mess that in the end produced more laughs (intended and unintended) than scares. 

4.5/10

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (1971) - Review

Diamonds Are Forever

Action/Adventure/Thriller
2 hours
Rated: PG

Written by: Richard Maibaum and Tom Mankiewicz
Directed by: Guy Hamilton
Produced by: Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman

Cast:
Sean Connery
Jill St. John
Charles Gray
Lana Wood
Jimmy Dean
Bruce Cabot

BOND IS BACK - Sean Connery is BOND

It's not surprising that many list Sean Connery's name when asked who played James Bond best. As the man who first put on the tuxedo and wielded the Walther PPK - he was the one who truly breathed life into the character. While Ian Fleming had his reservations about Connery playing James Bond - even he too came around to accept that Sean Connery was the man born to play his iconic character. And despite all their differences, Bond producers Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman knew this as well.

After the Bond series saw disastrous, but unfair, box-office returns with the exceptional 1969 George Lazenby Bond film On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Broccoli and Saltzman began to wonder where they went wrong. To find answers they turned to the past and noticed OHMSS, as far as the story was concerned, was the most serious Bond film that they had made to date. They also took notice that Goldfinger was the first in the series to give them enormous success. It was therefore decided that the next Bond film, Diamonds Are Forever, must return to the formula set in place by Goldfinger.

And who better to carry out this mission than Goldfinger director Guy Hamilton? Hamilton with his input had essentially created the successful Bond formula. He carries that exact same formula through again here in Diamonds Are Forever, although not as successfully. Also, returning from the Goldfinger fold are composer John Barry to provide the excellent score and Shirley Bassey to sing what would become one of the more iconic Bond theme songs.

The film's script is a jumbled mess. The plot jumps from here to there and by the time we end up there we wonder how we ever left here. Starting as a mission to stop diamond smugglers from stockpiling and ending up with a full on weapon of mass destruction story, it's complete madness, but nevertheless it remains entertaining. Bond is given more punchlines in the way of dialogue than in any of the previous films in the series, and in many regards this set the overly-comedic tone of the 007 films to follow during the Roger Moore era. (One could easily argue that the first Roger Moore Bond film is actually Diamonds Are Forever). It's really these humorous moments, and Connery's and St. John's excellent abilities to deliver them, that help make Diamonds more entertaining and less of a mess.

The cinematography and editing are handled both expertly well as is often the case with Bond films. Less expertly handled is the set design. Ken Adam, who had offered some of the most spectacular Bond sets in previous films and would go on to offer more in later ones, hardly delivers one set worth mentioning. The most impressive set wasn't even designed by Adam, but rather was a location found in pre-production! Perhaps the enormous amount of money given to Connery for his return to the role caused funds to be pulled from Adam's department.

Diamonds' action sequences are incredible and many of them standout in the annals of Bond history. This is largely due to Connery's physicality within the role, and his willingness to perform most of his own stunt work. The hand-to-hand fight sequence between Connery and Joe Robinson set in a tiny glass elevator is amazing to behold. Watching these six foot two inch giants go at it in the moving glass cage is more entertaining than any cage match ever offered on television. A car chase through the Las Vegas strip is also wonderful to behold, even if it does produce possibly the most blatant continuity error in cinematic history. Less impressive is the film's oil rig-set climax. The sequence is much shorter than most Bond climaxes and offers little more than a few explosions here and there. Even Bond plays no significant role in it, and dispatches maybe only two bad guys.

As stated previously, Connery and St. John deliver wonderful performances that charm and have us believing in their characters all the way through. Jimmy Dean - the sausage king - is surprisingly no different. It's entertaining to see this country-boy take on a Howard Hughes billionaire character. It allows Dean to go over the top in circumstances and scenes that normally wouldn't call for it, and still get away with it. Less inspired a casting choice is Charles Gray as Bond's archenemy Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Gray already has the disadvantage of not looking anything like the two previous actors - Donald Pleasance and Telly Savalas - who played Blofeld, but his main issue is he just isn't menacing. This is a character that is pure evil, has killed many of Bond's cohorts - including his wife - and Gray foolishly turns up the charm and goes for the humor, probably based on the direction of Guy Hamilton. A bad call that only adds to the film's over-the-top campy tone.

Despite being a lower ranking Bond film, Diamonds Are Forever still manages to deliver the goods: exciting action sequences, humorous - if albeit sometimes ridiculous - dialogue and double entendres, and of course brilliant performances, especially by the man born to play the role of James Bond 007: Sir Sean Connery.

6.5/10

Ranking among other Bond films: 19 out of 26