Look, I'll be frank: I'm just not very impressed. It took me me more than five hours, collectively, to get through a movie that's only ninety minutes long, and that should just never happen. I recognize very well why it's regarded so well, and the important place it has with regards to blaxploitation flicks specifically and cinema generally. The story in and of itself is dark, violent, and compelling, with appreciable and relevant themes. This is well made, from stunts and effects to costume design, hair, makeup, art direction, and Willie Hutch's catchy music. The details that flesh out that story, however, are weak and questionable. It took me two or three times of backing up the video to make sure I didn't miss something in the first half, where the connective threads between ideas and beats are the thinnest of all, and the pacing in that first half is also meek and troubled. Things do pick up in the second half as the title character takes action, but still the pacing is variable. The broad strokes and basic ideas of the plot, and the scene writing, are mostly outstanding; the dialogue is much less sturdy (mind a content warning for wholly unnecessary, tawdry homophobic language, in addition to the racism that's inherent to the narrative), and beyond its root thoughts the writing often feels halfhearted, or incomplete, like filmmaker Jack Hill just didn't finish those thoughts. And Hill's direction - well, the action sequences look fantastic. Any quieter moments that require nuance and acting to carry the day come off much the same as Hill's writing does.
I don't dislike 'Foxy Brown,' and I think it ends up better than not. I think issues that come across with the acting are concerns of Hill's direction, and not the cast's skills. Nevertheless, I finally get around to watching a picture that I've been aware of for many many years, with a reputation that I've been aware of for many many years, and I'm nonplussed. It wasn't necessarily ever going to blow my socks off, but I assumed I'd enjoy it, and instead I'm just left with a noncommittal "I watched it, and it was fine." It's possible that something was off about the conditions of when I watched, and with another go I'd get more out of it. For as unexceptional as it feels just once, however, I'm in no real rush to try again. Maybe like some other features I'll revisit this one in twenty to thirty years and have a blast. In the meantime, while I do think it's worth watching - both on its own merits, and for the place it holds in cinema at large - I'd be lying if I said 'Foxy Brown' wasn't a bit of a letdown. Good, yes, but not all that I was led to expect it would be.
I don't dislike 'Foxy Brown,' and I think it ends up better than not. I think issues that come across with the acting are concerns of Hill's direction, and not the cast's skills. Nevertheless, I finally get around to watching a picture that I've been aware of for many many years, with a reputation that I've been aware of for many many years, and I'm nonplussed. It wasn't necessarily ever going to blow my socks off, but I assumed I'd enjoy it, and instead I'm just left with a noncommittal "I watched it, and it was fine." It's possible that something was off about the conditions of when I watched, and with another go I'd get more out of it. For as unexceptional as it feels just once, however, I'm in no real rush to try again. Maybe like some other features I'll revisit this one in twenty to thirty years and have a blast. In the meantime, while I do think it's worth watching - both on its own merits, and for the place it holds in cinema at large - I'd be lying if I said 'Foxy Brown' wasn't a bit of a letdown. Good, yes, but not all that I was led to expect it would be.