Jackie Brown vs Pulp Fiction

Just saw Jackie Brown the other day and without thinking I'd pick Pulp Fiction. The characters were much more diverse and interesting - the situations more unique and intense - and while I loved the cast in Brown , I still give it to Pulp Fiction.



I summarize my argument by stating Keitel was not in Jackie Brown.

__________________

I would quote your post Holden but itd be too damn long. Basically what Ive gathered is you felt Pulp Fiction was more style than substance, and Tarantino didnt lean on cheap elements (pop culture) to the point of distraction. You do know if youre a big Pan Grier fan theres nothing wrong in mentioning that.

"First of all to the last point there: I don't see what a movie did or didn't do for somebody's acting career has to do with its quality or my enjoyment of it. It's a nice footnote, especially if you're in one of their wills, but gets no extra points for career building from me when trying to determine which I think is the better movie."

Acting can carry a film all by itself, and could have with Pulp Fiction but there were other great elements too. You'll LOL at me but I just finished watching for the first time the original 1974 The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three. What I quickly realize watching a film made before 1980 is being beautiful wasnt important in acting, and everybody in the film can act, and act good! The action was ok, the production laughable (truly so much time was spent in the subway car they could have made a stageplay), but the acting is the only thing that assured its longevity. Imo.

Youre one of the types that wont mark-out to Tarantino, and all his nuances. Thats cool. Sometimes a directors ego gets too big, and the style overcomes the story. I know Tarantino isnt immune, nor Stone, Lynch, Bay, etc... Still liking a Tarantino movies void of pop culture is like saying you only like Woody Allen movies not based in New York. To each his own.

Nah I think he just picked apart your reasons for backing Pulp Fiction

I thought the actors in both were very naturalistic , they both had similarly detailed mannerisms - what made Pulp better for me was the more outlandish situations the people ended up in , not only that but how it was more a web of stories loosely attached to each other and it had an awesome effect when you saw them connect for a brief moment.

Jackie Brown was much more linear (more so than any of his other movies) , not to knock this approach as I thought the entire idea behind it just wasn't nearly interesting for me.

My main problem with Jackie Brown was that it was just as long as Pulp Fiction but probably should have been an hour shorter. I also cannot go into depth about why I think this now because it's been awhile since I saw Jackie Brown, but I strongly recall the entire finale being flawed. The actual filmmaking and what is shown in the film when Jackie does her thievery near the end is so blatantly obvious and ridiculous that she could never have gotten away with it in the light of day. As far as the acting goes, Forster is excellent and can stand in for Keitel, and De Niro can stand in for whoever you want, but it's not the acting I'm complaining about (if I'm actually complaining), it's the characters. The charscters in Pulp Fiction are far more original and entertaining, especially in the context of their environment, even if Tarantino did prepare for some of those characters with his second best script a year earlier, True Romance.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Michael Bay, really?