Hacker Cinema
Jackie Brown
1997 · Film · 154 min
Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Jackie Brown is a flight attendant who gets caught in the middle of smuggling cash into the country for her gunrunner boss. When the cops try to use Jackie to get to her boss, she hatches a plan — with help from a bail bondsman — to keep the money for herself.
3 positive1 mixed5 neutralfrom 9 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
9 comments on Hacker News
It's so strange sometimes watching tv shows and movies from the 90's where you see characters smoking indoors in public places.
Like in Seinfeld you will have episodes where Kramer is smoking in offices....and even in the doctor's clinic! There was an episode where Kramer took out a cigar and smoked in a doctor's waiting room. I thought he would immediately get in trouble but none of the other characters cared.
And then you got movies from back then like Jackie Brown (which is a great movie by the way) where you see character's smoking in a mall cafeteria. A mall! A family friendly environment! And it's considered normal!?!?!? Blows my mind.
I might independently invent a cartoon character of a black mouse with a tan face that wears white gloves and red bibs and wish to publish a comic book featuring that character on the cover, but I'll never be able to do that -- no matter how long I wait: We have trademark law in the way.
Trademarks can go away by various mechanisms, but they never automatically time out as a mere function of the calendar. As long as Disney keeps using Mickey Mouse, they will retain and defend this well-known trademark and others will most assuredly be forbidden from using it. It will be impossible for me to outlive The Walt Disney Company.
The addition of copyright makes it all a double-whammy. Trademarks can already last as long as time itself; copyright doesn't also have to be that way at all.
14+14=28 years is a Really Long Time to exclusively control a work. Would films like 1997's Donny Brasco and Jackie Brown really have never been made, do you suppose, if the creators knew that by the end of 2025 anyone would be able to copy them freely? I remember 1997 very well, and at that time 2025 seemed like something in the impossibly-distant future -- a lot like 2053 does today.
(Also: Thanks for the reminder. I've independently invented a small (but non-zero) number of physical things that I've subsequently found to be patented. It's annoying when that happens, but I manage. I think one of those is timing out soon and I really should check on it.)
1997 was an absolutely phenomenal year for movies. Life Is Beautiful, Boogie Nights, Jackie Brown, Titanic, Donnie Brasco, The Fifth Element, Good Will Hunting, As Good as It Gets, Austin Powers International Man of Mystery, Gattaca, LA Confidential, Men in Black, Liar Liar, Amistad, The Game, Con Air, Contact.
There was a lot to do in 1997, just not as much to do without leaving home. We went to movies because they were affordable and great movies were being released.
Also, that was the era where new multiplex theaters were being built with great sound systems, so it was worth going to a theater for the high-quality experience. While quality consumer electronics are more readily available today than ever before, I feel like the vast majority today only watch media with headphones, TV speakers, or maybe a 2.1 stereo+sub setup.
I'll concede Tarantino films are a good example. I think maybe the difference is that Hateful Eight, Jackie Brown, Pulp Fiction, and Django aren't comedies, and it tends to be a lot less casual. I recall most cases in Django being very hateful, used for a purpose. BS dropped it very casually, as if the characters were normal people talking that way every day (which is pretty accurate).
I'm not claiming anything should be whitewashed or censored at all, just that language in a modern context has an effect on how a movie comes across to the audience. I don't think that a modern audience would find it funny without the social atmosphere of the 1970s. I'm making no claims about the quality of the movie itself, as it actually was made. Similarly, if Huck Finn was written today, I do think it would have a really hard time. It works because of the place it has in history.
I'm sorry for the miscommunication but I thought we were comparing exploitation and porn. Tarantino was able to make very obviously, almost "cringely" exploitive movies like Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, Death Proof, Inglorious Basterds and somehow gained the title of one of the most influential directors ever. I understand that this is N=1 data -- and certainly Tarantino is an artistic genius -- but the fact that this single data is so worthwhile and that there is no porn director who even remotely came close to Tarantino, it seems to me exploitation films are not less regarded than porn.
It's from Jackie Brown. An excellent, vulgar, Quentin Tarantino movie with Pam Grier and Robert De Niro.
Edit: and of course Samuel L. Jackson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Brown_(film)
That's Elmore Leonard, recently deceased, and author of some of the best crime noir and westerns ever written.
Specifically, this looks like it's from "Rum Punch", which was later co-opted into the movie "Jackie Brown" by Quentin Tarantino, who is a huge fan of Leonard's.
Leonard is most famous for his movie adaptations of "3:10 to Yuma", "Get Shorty", "Out of Sight", etc.
As has already been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, most of Neil Stephenson's work is just great. Cryptonomicon is my favorite, but The Baroque Cycle (three books) is very good as well.
If you're into crime/mystery fiction, the recently deceased Elmore Leonard was one of the best. A few of his books have been made into movies (Get Shorty, Jackie Brown, The Big Bounce) with mixed results, but I do I highly recommend reading the books, which are numerous.
For a different sort of fiction, James Clavell's Shogun, Taipan, and Noble House are great. In fact, Noble House very well be my favorite book. It's a long (~1400 page) book about business dealings, political intrigue, and more. All set in the context of 1963 Hong Kong.
Those who like a touch of historical fiction could take a look at Conn Uggulden. One of his series, The Conqueror, which is about the rise and fall of the Mongol empire is pretty interesting. The books are a light read, and not particularly complicated, but it's entertaining and has some neat historical bits.
That movie list is a pretty good snapshot of movies I HAVE watched more than 5 times. I wonder, though, would I be inspired to watch them that much if I didn't have physical media of them lying around? The ease with which I can throw one on while I am doing scut work or something kind of lends them a tendency to be played more, I think.
For example, I just downloaded and watched "Jackie Brown" in a window while I was fiddling with Python stuff for work. My "Jackie Brown" urge is pretty much satisfied, to the point where it is unlikely that I will want to watch it again in the next year or so. For "Jackie Brown", it is simpler for me to just snag it off a tracker than to purchase a copy, since I have no interest in watching it all that often.
Interesting read. Definitely made me think about what films I have on disc, and which ones I download, and what delineates the two.