Jackie

I'm surprised to see so many bad reviews of this film on IMDb. I would be interested to know how many of them came from people who are too young to remember the Kennedy assassination or much about Mrs. Kennedy.

Okay, several people were angry that John-John in the movie didn't salute the casket.

One review referred to the story as "horrible and morbid." Guess what - it is.

One review said Jackie was a "housewife." I won't dignify that with a response.

Natalie Portman was criticized for doing a "cringe-worthy" imitation. Her voice and accent were found hilarious.

And it was called "boring" over and over again.

I understand that to each his own, and I respect that. I'm just surprised.

I first of all did not find this film at all boring. I found it emotional, compelling, and interesting - and despite what someone said here, I did find out things I never knew.

I thought Natalie Portman did a brilliant job and, while the role didn't offer as much as Viola Davis' did in Fences, I would not have been upset to see her win another Oscar. There was nothing wrong with her accent, that's how Mrs. Kennedy talked. If you don't believe me, go to youtube and listen to the tapes.

The film focused on Jackie after the assassination, but it was shown, as were earlier times, such as her televised tour of the White House. I thought the film mixed with the actual footage was excellent.

The clothes were perfection. Like others, I did not care for the music and what I really did not care for was the music at the end.

The rest of the cast did an admirable job - John Hurt, Greta Gerwig, and Billy Crudup. I was disappointed in Peter Sarsgaard, but I think he was trying to convey Bobby's shock and grief. He's a good actor normally but not very successful here.

I found this a poignant film and a stunning portrait of Jackie Kennedy and what she suffered as a result of the assassination.

As the film is titled 'Jackie' you expect to learn more about her through the film, it should have been called 'JFK's widow one week following his assassination'. This is a woman who was powerful and had a background, a life, buried two babies. All we get from this film is a portrayal of a grieving, often selfish and self absorbed woman who smokes and drinks too much. Who wouldn't fall to that after something as traumatic? The film is flat and bland, it gives us no indication of the type of woman she was, her role in white house (aside from her expensive renovations and insistence on a huge funeral for her husband) We see nothing of her personal achievements. Natalie Portman and the excellent cast's acting skills are the only interesting thing to watch. Disappointing and does 'Jackie O' no justice at all.

OK, yes, Natalie Portman gives a good performance as Jackie Kennedy. But everything else in this long, boring film is badly done. The worst two examples are the actors playing JFK and RFK. The actor playing JFK is way too short for the role, has his voice dubbed by actual JFK audio footage, and prances around like a gay munchkin. Peter Sarsgaard is a good actor, but make no effort at all to look or sound like RFK. It's as if you're watching a version of history with pod people taking over the roles of these famous men.

From the first awful note, the music of Mica Levi is intrusive, jarring, and totally wrong for this type of film. It even drowns out dialog it's so loud. Aside from the clip of Richard Burton singing "Camelot," the film seems to exist in a time warp, with zero cultural references allowed to intrude other than old news footage.

We are told Jackie is being interviewed in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, but the house and surrounding grounds look nothing like the famous Kennedy compound or Cape Cod. Even footage filmed in Washington, DC looks oddly phony since the city has changed so much since 1963.

The scenes where Jackie spars intellectually with the journalist (Sarsgaard as Theodore H. White, but they never use his name) and the priest (John Hurt) are so foolish they almost seem like comedy skits. There's also a long and needless scene with Richard E. Grant as a designer working with Jackie as she obsesses over interior decoration for the White House.

During the long screen time devoted to recreating Jackie's famous televised tour of the White House in 1961, she talks about the stage that was built in the music room when Pablo Casals played there, but the following scene shows him seated and playing not on a stage.

Other historical characters from the Johnsons to Jack Valenti are glimpsed as being generally unfriendly and outrightly evil, but nothing is developed. It's as if all this history is just a vague backdrop for Jackie to emote in front of. Perhaps it's an accurate comment about a woman who is so self-obsessed, her hours after the assassination are spent worrying about what will become of her and where she will live.

And that's the main issue here. We're shown a Jackie who is constantly self-obsessed rather than self-assured. She's a heroine for the selfie generation rather than a real and accurate product of her time.

I'm not really familiar with Pablo Larraín's work. I hadn't seen any of his other films prior to watching Jackie. And yet I was still very excited for it because it sounded like something that was absolutely my cup of tea. Hearing reports that Academy members weren't liking it very much, and then hearing exactly why (because it wasn't your usual biopic and seemed to be more "out there" than most biopics) just got me more excited. It didn't disappoint at all. It was basically everything I wanted it to be. One of the finest, truest character studies of the year, completely driven by explorations into Jackie Kennedy's psyche. That sounds kind of pretentious, but I do think this film more than any other of the year deserves to be described that way. I would absolutely not be surprised if the Academy doesn't go for this at all, but I do wish it was popping up in more critic awards than it has been. More than any other film of the year it rests completely on its lead actress. Portman is just completely engaging and mesmerizing, and she adds to the film's poetry-like storytelling. Having seen both Portman and Emma Stone, I would be surprised if they gave the Oscar to Stone simply because Portman is basically her entire film and she's also completely immersed into the character in a way that Stone doesn't need to be. The latter's role may just be too light. Regardless, it's a performance to be talked about and remembered.

I appreciate when I leave a film feeling as though there's still so much left to unpack and to uncover about it, meaning that I wasn't able to completely discover all of its aims and goals in one viewing. To me that's the sign of a very well thought out film, a film that will leave a lingering impact. That's exactly how I came out of this. I'm sure not everyone here will take to it, but count me as one of its fans.

As someone who loves history, I thoroughly enjoyed Jackie. For the most part, the facts were historically accurate as far as I am aware. I also really liked the score, I thought it was very refreshing and simply different. The film was slow-paced but I find that's to be expected with historical films. I liked that the cinematography was simple to give a real sense of the era, and the costume design was great. I also liked the ending.

Essentially this is a film where I liked everything, but didn't love much. The only things that I absolutely loved was Natalie Portman's acting as Jackie Kennedy. She really exuded her character and became Jackie Kennedy. it was great! The other thing I loved was John Hurt as the priest which was a lovely surprise.

Overall, this was a simple film but it wasn't daring. It didn't risk take like other films would and therefore in that regard may be a bore for some.