Jackie (V) (2016) User Reviews

An exploration of grief, grace and mythmaking

[spencergrande6 · 8/10 · 24 February 2017]

I mostly fell for this exploration of grief, grace and mythmaking. Even when it was a bit too on the nose (the faults mostly lie in the wraparound story). It's concerned with how someone copes in the spotlight, how someone can make a legacy from the idea of a thing, how a person is more important than their legend but also how their legend shapes how that person is forever perceived.

It's telling in the universe of the film that Jackie herself is first obsessed with redesigning the White House in what is ostensibly a superficial act of decorating, but then is revealed to be, in reality, attempting to reflect more than the legends of past presidents but also the men who shaped them. A reminder that all legends start with a simple human being doing things only a person can do. A grandiloquent gesture of political humanity for a house full of ghosts.

There's a lot else to like here. Natalie Portman's performance does indeed capture Jackie Kennedy's persona, but also the legend of her and the real woman behind it all. Watching the real White House tour video on YouTube showed me how accurate Portman's breathy accent and meticulous demeanor really were. Beautifully composed, with notes of elegance and grotesqueness in equal measure. And a wonderful, tragic, near other-worldly score by Mica Levi.

A portrait of grace, sorrow, tragedy, elegance, memories, and grief.

[blanbrn · 7/10 · 2 February 2017]

Being a history and film buff I had to see "Jackie" as it's a historical film of the memories and times of the life and assassination of President John Kennedy, as told thru flashback and grief trauma memories from the elegant and class act first lady Jackie Kennedy(in a beautiful performance from the wonderful Natalie Portman). Starting like an interview style of a film told by flashback flashback the movie takes place after the death of "JFK", as Jackie is interviewed about the experience and the memories of the death and the impact of the administration, all of this brings out sorrow and emotions from Jackie(as Natalie showed the grief and anger on screen so well)it's just like you as the viewer feel the pain of the first lady. Overall good film that's a showcase of memories showing how tragedy and loss can affect a strong lady along with a nation, this picture is a watch for any history or film buff.

A simple historical film with great acting by Natalie Portman

[zohal1999 · 7/10 · 28 January 2017]

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.

Mesmerizing, dreamlike, and powerful.

[Red_Identity · 25 December 2016]

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.

Portman and Storyline disappointing - watch "The Kennedys" series instead!

[angelhardt · 6/10 · 29 January 2017]

I was looking forward to this movie and just returned from the movie theater, so my memories and emotions are still fresh. It was quite disappointing as it only captures the week after the assassination - there would have been so much more to tell. Having seen Katie Holmes' brilliant performance of Jackie in the series "The Kennedys", she was much more convincing while the story was embedded in a larger historic context and offered personal details and interactions. This movie refers to their challenging marriage and life as a couple in just one sentence. Bobby's character is pale and boring, and both the storyline and Portman's act did not convince me at all. I disliked the way she spoke (so artificial) and there was just not depth to her character. I was bored at times from the endless wandering of her doing nothing at the White House, what a waste of time. I don't understand the fuzz about her being worthy of an Oscar. If at all, Katie Holmes deserves it!

"Jackie" rises on Portman's performance, but stumbles over some of the filmmakers' decisions.

[dave-mcclain · 7/10 · 20 October 2016]

Jacqueline Bouvier. Jackie Kennedy. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Jackie O. Jackie. There are many ways to refer to this singularly iconic woman – and many ways to remember her. That breathy voice. That educated and sophisticated demeanor. Her sense of style… including that pink suit, later tragically stained with the blood of a slain president, husband and father. And, of course, her extraordinary poise and grace in the wake of President Kennedy's assassination. Her public image and the sights and sounds that surrounded her are indelible for so many Americans – and people all around the world – but how much do we really know about her as a person? How much do we really understand? Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis was a very public person, with a very private sensibility, best known for being at the center of one of the most traumatic moments in American history. "Jackie" (R, 1:40), directed by Pablo Larrain, written by Noah Oppenheim and starring Oscar-winner Natalie Portman as the title character do their best to help us peak behind the curtain and learn more about the woman behind that famous face.

"Life" Magazine writer Theodore H. White (Billy Crudup) arrives at the Kennedy Compound in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts for his appointment to interview Jackie Kennedy, one of the most famous women in the world. Just one week after her husband's assassination, Mrs. Kennedy, who invited the Pulitzer Prize winner to do this interview, is already very concerned that her husband may be forgotten – or misunderstood by history. White, who is deferential, but firm and professional, finds a woman who is clearly still grieving her horrible loss, but who is also very much in control of herself – and very much in control regarding her husband's legacy – even to the point of editing White's notes during the interview.

While returning periodically to the scenes of the interview, most of Jackie's story is told in flashback scenes of her as First Lady – especially on that fateful day in November of 1963 – and the four days that followed. We get a sense of who she was as First Lady from a look at the filming (no, not taping – not in 1962) of Jackie Kennedy's famous televised tour of the White House, during which she showed and discussed her historic and artistic changes to "The People's House", as she calls it, while she receives help and support from her close aide, Nancy Tuckerman (Greta Gerwig). But most of "Jackie" revolves around the assassination, its immediate aftermath and the funeral preparations.

In spite of being traumatized by the shooting, Jackie "keeps it together" as well as anyone in those circumstances could, cradling her husband's fatally-wounded head in her lap on the way to the hospital and desperately hoping that he might survive, dutifully standing with the new First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson (Beth Grant), beside Vice President Lyndon Johnson (John Carroll Lynch), as he takes the oath of office and becomes President of the United States, and then, after sitting motionless beside her husband's casket during the flight back to Washington, D.C., refusing to change her blood-stained suit before exiting the plane and being photographed by the press, "so they can see what they did to Jack".

While caring for her children and making plans for their future, Jackie becomes intimately involved with the planning of her husband's funeral. President Johnson and his new administration, including Special Assistant Jack Valenti (Max Casella), respectfully defer to Jackie's wishes regarding every detail, even when she changes her mind. She uses the funeral of Abraham Lincoln as a template for her plans, including insisting on an open procession through the streets of Washington, in spite of the well-founded security concerns that are raised. Alternately sharing their grief and having stress-fueled clashes, Jackie and her brother-in-law, Robert F. Kennedy (Peter Sarsgaard) work together on these plans, including choosing JFK's grave site in Arlington National Cemetery. As much as we learn about Jackie from watching her during those four days in November, we gain even more insight into her private thoughts during scenes of a conversation with an elderly priest (John Hurt) at the cemetery.

"Jackie" is fascinating and compelling, but includes elements which damage its overall quality. The script and direction shed a lot of light on what happened (and might have happened) during the private moments of this very public national nightmare, while painting a very personal portrait of Jackie Kennedy, but the editing harms the film's potential effectiveness. The chronology of events, while not very difficult to follow, simply jumps around too much, and the choices of which bits of archival footage to use and where to use them, distracts from and even contradicts the film's own cinematography. Meanwhile, the score is overwhelming and unnecessarily melodramatic.

The primary strength of this film is Portman, who nails Jackie Kennedy's voice and mannerisms, while infusing her with a complex combination of vulnerability, tenacity and grace under pressure. Some of the other casting is shaky. Two of the major players in this historical drama, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and President Lyndon Johnson, are played by actors who look virtually nothing like the real-life men, and make little attempt to act or even sound like them. Fortunately, strong supporting turns by Casella, Hurt, Gerwig and Richard E. Grant (as chairman of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts) pick up the slack. Overall, "Jackie" is a valuable and satisfying addition to the long list of cinematic portrayals of the Kennedy family and their tragic, but resilient history. Movie Fans will likely end this film feeling they know and understand more about the Kennedy assassination, its impact on the country and, most importantly, the woman most affected by it all: Jackie. "B+"

what is the problem?

[blanche-2 · 9/10 · 10 March 2017]

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.

A slow, forced fit of a lot of amazing historical stuff into a psychological pretzel

[secondtake · 6/10 · 4 June 2017]

Jackie (2016)

This is such moving, important material, historically and emotionally, it's hard to separate the movie from the subject of the movie. You might appreciate the movie just for its bravery, going into material that is by necessity subtle. And uncertain.

What really did Jackie say in that week after her husband's assassination? And more importantly, how did she say it?

This brings us to Natalie Portman, who is everything here. She tires, she gives a difficult role a lot of focus. And it's not completely her fault that the performance ends up being stilted, or unconvincing, or you might say incomplete. She must have studied Jackie's mannerisms, but that's not really a way to excuse their exaggerations here. Slight exaggerations, but this is a movie about subtlety and conviction.

The other historical figures are oddly cast—and I know it's an impossible job trying to cast JFK or Bobby, or even Johnson (who is more convincing when Bryan Cranston does it). And where was Ted? All of these things wear the movie down.

The writing and direction raise questions. They are solid here, for sure, but they also contribute to a slightly lugubrious feeling. It's slow. It forced its obvious weight on us. Chilean director Pablo Larraín may have the disadvantage of not having lived through it (and not being from the U.S., even). Yes, there was a Camelot, and maybe it was created deliberately, but idealism doesn't come in cans.

But back to point one—this is moving, important, amazing material. It is almost worth watching for that alone.

Natalie Portman is Mesmerizing in this Stunning Biopic!

[namashi_1 · 9/10 · 27 January 2017]

If you ever doubted the credibility of Natalie Portman as a performer, watch 'Jackie' right away & dump your thoughts away. In this stunning biopic, where Portman flexes her acting muscles as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, proves to be a testament of her incredible talent. Its a film driven by a lead performance, that is anchored by sheer power.

'Jackie' Synopsis: Following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy fights through grief and trauma to regain her faith, console her children, and define her husband's historic legacy.

Director Pablo Larraín brings a disturbing true-story on celluloid, that covers theme of love, loss & power. We watch Jackie struggle with the surroundings around her, following the assassination of her President Husband. And I must tell you, the journey has been told with gut-wrenching bleakness. The narrative is no-holds-barred & what we see throughout the film, is a women in deep pain.

Noah Oppenheim's Screenplay is top-notch. Its arresting as well as its disturbing. Pablo Larraín's Direction is fantastic. He has handled this biographical-drama with precision. Cinematography is brilliant. Editing is razor-crisp, keeping the narrative tight in its 99-minutes running-time. Art & Costume Design are perfect. Mica Levi's Score is super.

Performance-Wise: As mentioned right from my summary, Portman is Mesmerizing. Its a tour-de-force performance, that ranks amongst the best of 2016. Of the supporting cast, Peter Sarsgaard as Robert F. Kennedy & Greta Gerwig as Nancy Tuckerman, are first-rate, yet again. And John Hurt as Father Richard McSorley, is remarkable in a cameo. Others lend good support.

On the whole, 'Jackie' is definitely a must see. It finds one of the most talented actresses of our times, at her finest hour. Go watch!

moment of grieving

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 4 July 2017]

The Kennedy assassination was one of the defining moments of history, probably the most internationally shocking one until 9/11. Pablo Larraín's "Jackie" focuses on the widowed Jackie Kennedy during the few days after the assassination, as she tries to cement her late husband's legacy. I wasn't alive then, so I don't know what Jackie's voice sounded like, but Natalie Portman affects a breathy mid-Atlantic accent to play the stylish first lady. Quite an impressive performance.

We could make the argument that JFK didn't have much of a positive legacy, given his poor record on civil rights (upon which Johnson sought to improve) and an undeclared war on Cuba. Even so, the era was seen as the culmination of the possible. I recommend the movie.

Larraín also directed 2012's "No", about the TV campaign that led to Augusto Pinochet's defeat in the 1988 election.

Disappointed

[shola-35818 · 5/10 · 21 January 2017]

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.

A Stunning, Psychological Portrait of Glamorous Trama

[velvetcrowbar91 · 10/10 · 17 September 2016]

Throughout the history of cinema, there have been countless biopics of famous figures that deify their subjects and disregard faults in fear of tainting the idol they have so perfectly sculpted. In Jackie, however, Pablo Larrain subverts genre expectations in favor of a haunting psychological portrait of a woman caught in a terrifying piece of history. Famous images of Jacqueline Kennedy in her pink Chanel suit have lingered in the public's collective memory for years, but here, Larrain allows viewers to experience the week following JFK's assassination from the perspective of the woman who held his dying body in her arms. It's shot in an episodic, frantic format that replicates the psychological turmoil of post-traumatic stress as the line between past and present blurs. One ghostly scene in particular - soundtracked by Mica Levi's eerie score - follows Jackie as she wanders the White House in isolation, exploring various rooms and eventually falling asleep alone as a widow for the first time. The film's central performance by Natalie Portman will no doubt gain great attention for its dedication to every last nuance of Jackie Kennedy's mannerisms and voice, but the real success rests in Portman's relentless and layered conveyance of emotion throughout the film. She does not allow the iconic figure to become a one-dimensional reflection of the public's memory, but allows viewers to witness the conflicted feelings of nostalgia, grief, isolation, and tenacity that Kennedy experienced. The film successful solidifies the lingering of Kennedy's melancholic face as a fleeting vision set across the 60s horizon, luminous and bruised at once, but enduring through history.

Poise, resilience and determination winning over grief

[msunando · 7/10 · 11 September 2021]

Natalie Portman essays the role of Jacqueline Kennedy, the widow of the assassinated US President John F Kennedy. Fresh from the event that almost destroyed her life, Jackie is still a picture of grit, poise and steely determination to the world outside whilst she is broken and helpless in her mind. A week after the assassination, on November 29, 1963, Jackie was interviewed in Hyannis Port by Theodore H. White of Life magazine. In that session, she compared the Kennedy years in the White House to King Arthur's mythical Camelot, commenting that the President often played the title song of Lerner and Loewe's musical recording before retiring to bed. "Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief, shining moment that was known as Camelot. There'll be great presidents again ... but there will never be another Camelot", she said in that session.

Jackie is Natalie Portman's single character show, where she stands tall, confident and a replica for the former first lady, with all the bells and whistles, including the remarkable accent. The heart goes out to her as she refuses to take off her blood smeared suit, explaining to Lady Bird Johnson (wife of Lyndon Johnson who succeeded Kennedy as the president) that she wanted them (the people) to see what they did to Jack. There are poignant sequences a many where Jackie recounts her life in the White House and how she resurrected the lost glory of the previous office holders by bringing back the artefacts, or how she grapples to hold on to the assassinated president's body, barely recovering from her shock and grief.

The film is narrated through that historic interview and therefore resorts to fleeting between flashbacks at different stages depicting old events and those around the assassination, and thus appears like a documentary rather than a drama. Here lies the inherent weakness in the execution as I believe that telling the story chronologically could have made it more effective and hard hitting. But do watch Jackie for Portman, American history and to admire the former first lady for her poise, determination and public image despite being faced by a near mental breakdown.

More of an indulgent fantasy than a biopic

[Marx_Bros_Fan86 · 5/10 · 4 January 2017]

I've seen many critics and commentators praise Jackie for being an accurate, intelligent, and insightful depiction of Jackie Kennedy and I'm a bit flabbergasted by this. This film came across to me as highly speculative, overly melodramatic, and distant all at the same time. Many of the film's techniques are praiseworthy, but this ultimately doesn't reach the level of a biopic like Patton or Malcolm X.

Jackie follows the life of Jackie Kennedy (played by Natalie Portman) during the days after her husband's assassination. The film's framing device is an interview of Jackie with a journalist (Billy Crudup) at her home after the assassination. She imparts her story to the journalist to set the record straight about her life and her family's legacy. She is extremely controlling during the interview, telling the reporter what he can and can't write about her (even at one point saying she doesn't smoke while smoking a cigarette). The film flashes back and forth between the interview and the days after the assassination, focusing on Jackie's grieving. After showing the initial events after the assassination, Jackie tries to stave off a nervous breakdown while grappling with what her life means without her husband. Without him, she almost feels like her life is a waste. To handle this, she becomes obsessed with building the Camelot myth around the Kennedy family. She wants the Kennedys to be remembered as a grand, romantic family with a good legacy. She accomplishes this in part by planning a grand funeral for her husband against the wishes of the secret service, who desire a more modest ceremony for safety reasons.

I have no doubt that Jackie was instrumental in building the mythology around JFK, and it's not a stretch to believe that she wanted to validate her own life in some way by doing this. Finally, she must have went through some kind of PTSD after the assassination. But the film attempts to show all of these things in ways that are indulgent, exploitative, and melodramatic. Take a scene where Jackie listens to Richard Burton's performance of Camelot while trying on various stylish dresses she had worn in the White House, all while sobbing hysterically. Or a scene where she admits to a priest that she might have planned all of the pomp and circumstance during the funeral to make her feel good about herself. These scenes feel like they came out of a National Enquirer article rather than a decent biography. Just five minutes of research will show that Jackie didn't even plan the funeral – it was planned by Robert Sargent Shriver. This film is all about mood, not accuracy. Needless to say, Jackie's vanity in this film is probably a tad bit exaggerated, and I question the veracity of pretty much every scene in the film.

These flaws may have been somewhat forgivable if I felt like the character Jackie really came to life at any point, but I don't think she did. Using the interview as the framing device was a bit clumsy, and it's one of the many elements that really prevented me from being fully absorbed in the film. While the film is clearly trying to make points about Jackie's character, I feel like I'm being told about them. I don't feel them. But the cold distance between Jackie and the audience is partially because of Natalie Portman's performance. While her performance has been praised left and right, I found it to be overly rehearsed, almost mimicry. In a good biopic, there has to come a moment where the actor becomes the historical figure, and I don't think that happened here. I could say the same for the film's second largest part, Robert Kennedy. Peter Sarsgaard does not look or sound a thing like RFK.

The movie isn't all bad. For all the flak I've given Portman, her performance is good overall, just not as good as her Black Swan performance in my opinion. The director Pablo Larrain uses close ups very effectively (in some of Portman's best moments), and he seamlessly blends archival footage with reenactments. There is a scene where Jackie looks out the window of the limousine at her husband's funeral, and the reflections of the people watching the funeral motorcade on the window looked an awful lot like archival footage to me. Real archival footage or not, it was an impressive effect. The score by Mica Levy is also haunting.

Jackie was a pretty disappointing experience for me. It's more like an exercise in artistic filmmaking than a good story. Ideally you get both from a film. Not so here. I would wait for video if you want to see this film.

Music is So Bad, My Dog Fled the Room

[drednm · 15 April 2017]

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.

Meaningful and remote

[richard_ferdman · 7/10 · 8 March 2022]

Natalie Portman did a great job being intimately part of the camera and yet remote from true love while being fragile and yet strong in all communications. Her staccato was true to Jackie and so this became more real and haunting. Her lines were not just read but timed exquisitely. In the end, one felt her loss, and in many ways the nation's loss was put in the background as needed to be in this case.

Creepy, or just detached?

[mharah · 6/10 · 3 December 2016]

This film shows a Jackie Kennedy that we did not know. While there is nothing revealed of which we weren't already aware, albeit in fits and starts over the years, assembling it all as "Jackie" does is certainly a fresh approach. One must decide if we are watching a dissection or a hit job, for in many ways, it is not flattering. Natalie Portman's acting chops are well displayed. Her portrayal is certainly not a mirror image. She actually looks less like Jackie than many of the actresses who have preceded her. But since many other actors in the film only vaguely resemble their actual characters, a look-alike image was probably not intended. Her voice suggests Jackie's very unique sound and speech pattern, but it is not the same. Again, probably not intended to be. The film's scenario covers the week following the President's assassination with strategic flashbacks interspersed. It is difficult to discern whether the actual dialogue can be confirmed, or if it has simply been re-imagined with some degree of hoped-for accuracy. Director Pablo Larrain is Chilean. Reportedly, he speaks little English. This isn't necessarily a handicap, but it certainly could make for some very unusual choices - Among them: Vice-President Lyndon Johnson was surely not the hapless bystander that he is portrayed here; Attorney General Bobby Kennedy did not defer so eloquently to Jackie (we know that from several sources; they didn't even like each other very much); the Kennedy children couldn't possibly have been so detached from the proceedings. The script may have allowed for that interpretation, but the director would have needed to secure it. And where were the rest of the Kennedy clan? They barely appear in the film, and this is not at all like them. Writer Noah Oppenheim's two previous scripts - Allegiant and The Maze Runner - are nothing like Jackie. It had been on the Hollywood Black List (well-regarded screenplays which can't seem to get a green-light) as early as 2010. Darren Aronofsky, to direct and/or produce, had been attached early on; he is hardly a mainstream choice. Portman herself had been approached as early 2012. (Rachel Weisz, the earlier choice, dropped out when she and Aronofsky split up.) She wouldn't even commit until knowing who would direct. Larrain was chosen even though he didn't like doing bio-pics and had no experience as a women's director, to say nothing about never having directed an American film. Aronofsky stayed on as the producer. The main interiors were shot on a soundstage in Paris. The designers and crew mostly Europeans. In short, Jackie is a non-traditional package -- and it comes off that way. It is beautifully done in exquisite detail. Virtually nothing is out of place. The score, from Mica Levi whose previous film credits are eerie, makes a very intense statement. And it is relentless. As a bio-pic, Jackie is an outlying member of the Jacqueline Kennedy canon. As a mainstream film, it is unsettling... even creepy. It will be interesting to see how the Kennedy partisans receive it. My guess is.. not well.

Both Portman and Jackie Beautiful in Subtlety

[salker12 · 10/10 · 18 October 2016]

I saw this movie at TIFF and haven't been able to get it off my mind since. Natalie Portman is brilliant in her portrayal of someone who is both uniquely strong-minded and painfully insecure. The portrayal of this type of personality at a time (the 2-3 days following JFK's death) where personal and national perception was everything is unlike anything I have seen in film.

Between script, art direction and cinematography, this movie is equally brilliant in its ability to say everything without saying anything. I can't recommend this movie enough. I don't doubt that we will be talking about it come Oscar season.

We aren't most people.

[nogodnomasters · 7/10 · 5 August 2017]

The film opens with reporter Theodore H. White (Billy Crudup) interviewing the chain smoking Jackie Kennedy (Natalie Portman) following the days of the assassination. Her life is told as a flashback, although it only covers a few moments: The White House Tour, The funeral arrangements, and the assassination itself...which was graphic and bloody.

I found the film being uneven, opening poorly with a bad screeching violin soundtrack. There were scenes I loved such as anything to do with Camelot. Peter Sarsgaard as Bobby Kennedy was a total miscast as were most of the historical figures. We see a grieving Jackie who was still concerned with grace, style, and appearances, making sure everything was in its proper place for history.

Emotional: Yes. Good film: Yes. Academy Award material: No.

Guide: 2 F-words. No sex or nudity.

"And the Oscar goes to... Natalie Portman"

[bob-the-movie-man · 9/10 · 22 January 2017]

"Jackie" tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, "Black Swan") to a 'Time' journalist (Billy Crudup, "Watchmen", "Spotlight").

Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a 'baby girl' voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie's eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President's funeral.

This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar.

In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard ("The Magnificent Seven") as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).

Also providing interesting support as Jackie's priest is John Hurt ("Alien", "Dr Who") and, as Jackie's close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant ("Withnail and I", who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).

Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.

While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie's mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – 'Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?' rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.

This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, "Rust and Bone") cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie's "Camelot" to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don't feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for "Allegiant" and "The Maze Runner" – is both tight and thought-provoking.

Overall, a recommended watch.

Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie's point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then! Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in "Family Guy" (google "family guy logos").

(For the graphical version of this review please visit bob-the-movie-man.com. Thanks.)

Jackie – A Very Brief Period in American History

[brankovranjkovic · 7/10 · 24 January 2017]

This film is based on actual events and follows the 7 days following the assassination of JFK.

Jackie Kennedy was an elegant woman, an American style icon and probably the first media celebrity. The film begins with Jackie being interviewed by a reporter from 'Life' magazine, he is exploring life in The Whitehouse and a minute by minute account of the assassination.

The film is a character study, it compares Jackie 'The First Lady' vs Jackie 'the woman/wife'. It doesn't focus on the assassination but more on the way Jackie deals with the consequences and the public reaction.

One scene that really stuck in my mind was where Jackie is travelling in the hearse, she is speaking to the driver, she names other presidents who were also assassinated and she asks what they remember about their achievements. Jackie realises her husband hadn't achieved very much during his half term, so she decides that she needs to desperately create an important legacy! My wife strangely disliked this film, everything about the actual character which makes me think Natalie Portman must have really nailed it.

Natalie Portman is convincing as the grief stricken widow, and this film is a good showcase for her acting talents. If you agreed with the Oscar for her role in Black Swan then this is also a dead cert.

A very well made film IMO with a powerful and eerie score.

Surprisingly boring and cold

[terhitapiainen · 4/10 · 10 January 2017]

We went to the theater expecting interesting but sad biopic of an enigmatic woman. Well... my husband and at least a couple of other men in the theater fell asleep, at least when the noisy and creepy score did not keep them awake. It is difficult to tell what explains the discrepancy of the overall positive reviews and our clearly disappointing experience. We felt that the reason why the story was told was not clear to the writers and director. It is difficult to understand how the movie was so boring when everything you read about the Kennedys is interesting. Natalie Portman really tried to be convincing but the acting was forced and you could smell the hours of training. The accent of Jackie Kennedy was really weird even though it tried to resemble the original way of her talking. I overheard one couple discussing when we walked back to the parking lot:" It was rather static. - Yes, and psychotic." I am not sure if they understood the meaning of the words but weirdly it made sense. Overall the photography and costumes were beautiful and all other actors were convincing. In conclusion, the lack of connection with the viewers was evident despite the overall high quality.

One major caveat, but this is an Oscar sure-thing for Natalie Portman

[Art Snob · 8/10 · 19 September 2016]

I saw this at one of my rare non-balcony screenings at this year's TIFF with Chilean director Pablo Larrain (who had another film at the festival, the Spanish language NERUDA) present and available for a post-screening Q & A.

First things first. If you thought Helen Mirren as THE QUEEN, Marion Cotillard as Edith Piaf, and Meryl Streep as THE IRON LADY gave great, deservedly Oscar-winning performances in biopics, know that Natalie Portman as Jackie Kennedy gives a performance here that's every bit in their league. This almost makes you wince at the thought of how much talent was going underutilized in all those Star Wars and Thor movies, but I'm glad that they made it possible for her to play a role like this one. Truly out of the park.

I can't see this film not picking up multiple nominations. Pablo and the picture should both be nominated, but they'll have a tough time taking home the prizes over Damien Chazelle and LA LA LAND (which I also saw and am sure will be a big hit). The cinematography, editing, set design, and ESPECIALLY the makeup are all first-rate and deserving.

There may be a nomination among the supporting players: Peter Sarsgaard is excellent as the thoroughly-broken Bobby Kennedy, and his consideration should benefit from the contrast with his highly-visible role as the head baddie in the remake of THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (also seen at TIFF) which is certainly destined for commercial success. (BTW, he's just adequate in that role – no match for Eli Wallach in the original.)

About that caveat: The film leaves the impression that there was a national day of mourning the day of the Kennedy funeral, so I inquired of Larrain (who speaks only limited English) why the film didn't address the controversy about the NFL playing a full schedule on the same day. It turned out that he didn't know what the NFL was and had to be informed by the moderator. I didn't really catch his reply, something about things having to go on.

Another quibble: The framing device is an interview Jackie gave to Theodore White a week after the assassination, but White is not identified and is played by Billy Cruddup, who looks nothing like him. The familiarity Jackie had with him is nowhere to be found.

Misimpressions aside, this is a must-see for anyone with a taste for great acting. Let the aforementioned performances be your guide -- that or a desire to see Portman one-up her Oscar turn in BLACK SWAN.

Good Performance in a Not Very Good film

[bankofmarquis · 6/10 · 1 February 2017]

It's never a good sign when I am watching a film, that I start checking IMDb to see "how long is this thing going to last".  The good news for me is that JACKIE comes in at a tidy 1 hour, 40 minutes and, if you skip the credits, you can escape the theater after about an hour, thirty-five.

And, escape I did, for - apart from Natalie Portman, John Hurt and Greta Gerwig's performances - there is not much else worth mentioning in this film.  And that is too bad for the subject matter - the days from JFK's assassination to his funeral as shown through the eyes of his widow - is intriguing, if only the filmmakers made an intriguing film.

Let's start with what works. Natalie Portman does a terrific job as the haunted, lost Jackie.  She is nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress and she deserves it.  Portman/Jackie is trying to make sense of what just happened, how her "Camelot" life has been upended, what does it mean, how does she go on - all the while putting on a good face to a nation that needed her.  She also has to be a comforting mother to her children, who just lost a father.  Jackie spends much of the movie in a fog and Portman's performance of this is interesting and works, for the most part, and I really liked the supporting turns of Greta Gerwig (as Jackie's assistant) and the recently departed John Hurt as a priest Jackie talks to in her time of crisis.  Their scenes with Portman have some sort of spark that could have (should have) jump started this film.

But it's just not enough.

As I mention, Portman - as Jackie - spends much of this film lost in a fog and, unfortunately, Director Pablo Larrain pulls the audience into this fog as well.  It was interesting - maybe even intriguing, at the beginning of the film, but, eventually, I started wondering "what's the point" and "let's get on with it".  His point, I think, was to have the audience lost in the same fog as Jackie and that might sound like a good idea for a film on paper, but it just didn't work as it was played out over time.

Adding to this is the intrusive score by Mica Levi (UNDER THE SKIN).  The continuous hard punctuation of sound pulling Jackie back from the fog (most of the time) was jarring to me and, after a while, gave me a headache.  Again, I think I get what he is going for, it just was CONSTANT and annoying after awhile.

Which, ultimately, is my complaint with this film.  There is a wealth of avenues to explore with this subject, but focusing on, basically, one thing does not for a good movie make.  It gets redundant and boring and, ultimately, fails as a film.

Go to JACKIE for Portman's (and Gerwig's and Hurt's) strong performances.  Endure the rest.

Letter Grade B- (for the performances)

6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)

Disappointing and Overrated

[Spring15 · 3/10 · 11 January 2017]

I went to see this movie mainly because I had read rave reviews of Natalie Portman's performance, which according to some, will certainly win her her second Oscar.

I cannot adequately express my disappointment in the movie and in Portman's performance. The first thing that bothered me was the horrible accent she had put on. I don't know if Jackie Kennedy really spoke this way but it felt forced, artificial. She was good at expressing grief, but I was unable to feel any sympathy. This is shocking, considering how devastating the event - JFK assassination- was to the whole country.

In this movie Jackie came across as self centered, which can be forgiven, considering the magnitude of her loss. Natalie Portman couldn't touch me emotionally. The frequent close ups were annoying. We know she was devastated, but it was unnecessary to show closeups if her blood stained face, crying and tears again and again.

The worst part of the movie was the interview which went into the past, in segments, asking how she felt, and Portman's acting in those scenes was way below her ability. Natalie Portman is a good actress, but in thus movie she felt artificial. It was totally unnecessary to create the interviews. If the point of the movie was to show Jackie Kennedy's feelings and courage at the worst time of her life, a more direct approach might have worked better. The screenplay, background score, direction were all deficient in putting life into this tragic story. I couldn't wait for the movie to end.

The saving grace was the costumes and the White House interior at that time. They were wonderful. Acting wise no one other than 'Jackie' had much room. The screenplay certainly didn't help.

The whole movie felt like someone wanted to create a movie that would show Natalie Portman on the screen all the time. Sadly she remained Natalie Portman to me. She never felt like Jackie Kennedy.