AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

moviesleuth2 "Hilary and Jackie" gets off to a weak start, but by the end of the film it has become quite engaging. In fact, the last hour or so of the film is good enough to almost warrant a recommendation, but the first 30 minutes are too rough for me to do so with a good conscience, and the middle hour simply isn't engaging enough.The film tells the story of two sisters, Hilary and Jacqueline DuPre. Hilary is a flautist, while Jackie is a cellist. The film chronicles their lives as children, where they were torn between being best friends and competing with each other, and their adult lives where jealousy and alienation both tore their relationship apart and also made it stronger.The problem with the film is not the actors, but the director. "Hilary and Jackie" is a very multi-layered drama, but director Anand Tucker has a hard time keeping it all straight. The result is a film that wants to tell a story, but lacks the focus to tell it in an effective manner. The result is a poorly-focused film that struggles to get its point across.The acting, however, is magnificent. Emily Watson is terrific as Jackie. She has a love/hate relationship with her cello-playing. One one hand, playing the cello is something that she's good at, but on the other hand, it alienates her from what she wants in life. Although Watson has the more showy part, Griffiths is by no means a lesser performer here. Griffiths is torn between helping her sister, and living the life she wants with her husband and family. Based on his reputation and his stiff performance in "The Water Horse" (ironically also starring Emily Watson), I didn't think that David Morrissey had the capacity to act. Fortunately, I was wrong. Morrrissey gives an energetic performance as Hilary's husband Kiffer. He loves his wife, but sometimes that comes at a price. Likewise, James Frains is a far cry from his performance as the villain in "Into the Blue." He's also a musician, and his relationship with Jackie is an example of who romances between artists can be very difficult.There's some good stuff here; the music is beautiful, and the scenes where Jackie plays are effectively executed. But it's just put together quite well enough to warrant more than a "see it if you must" verdict.

MartinHafer When this film debuted, there was a bit of controversy because some friends and family swore that the life of Jacqueline du Pré had been misrepresented and twisted in this movie. Considering that the story was written by her sister, Hilary, and her brother, it is certain that there is a lot of subjectivity to it--but this still didn't make this a bad film. However, as several people looked rather bad in the film (such as Jacqueline du Pré herself and her famous husband) and others looked more innocent (such as Hilary's husband--who is apparently NOT quite the nice guy he seems to be in the film), it's not surprising that the film ruffled a few feathers. This really is a shame, as I'd love to know the true facts behind the story (from a totally neutral source) although despite possible flaws, the film style and acting are marvelous and this film is exceptional.One of the elements of this bio-pic I really enjoyed was the non-linear film style. Instead of a by-the-books retelling of the story, after showing the early lives of the two musical prodigies, the film shows what happened from Hilary's perspective. Jacqueline comes off as rather selfish and possibly schizophrenic in this segment. However, when the story later backs up and shows Jacqueline's story, you realize that there is much, much more to the story and Jacqueline is more of a pitiful person--someone you can't help but feel sorry for and care about--though in the first section she was far from likable. This was very creative film making and I love when films like this and HE LOVES ME, HE LOVES ME NOT show an entirely different perspective that help the viewer to see a whole new context for the first half of the movie.I also really appreciated Emily Watson's performance, though I must admit it was hard to watch at the end without shedding some tears. Her performance was clearly the standout one in the film and was truly compelling. Additionally, the rest of the performances all around were excellent and quality abounds with this film.There's a lot more to this film, but I really don't want to spoil it any more than I have. Give this one a look--it's well worth it. By the way, this is NOT a film for little kids--the subject matter and content are rather adult at times and it's best to leave this one for an older audience.

Lee Eisenberg I was only semi-familiar with Emily Watson (and not at all familiar with Rachel Griffiths) when "Hilary and Jackie" came out. When I saw it a few months later, I was blown away by both their performances. Showing the relationship and struggles between two musical sisters, the movie gives one a sense not only of how each sister envies the other, but of the strain under which a person in the musical world operates. Specifically, Jackie starts considering sabotaging her own violin just to relieve herself of the pressure. And I never could have predicted the grave ending.Anyway, it's a movie that I definitely recommend. It's music to anyone's ears (and eyes). If it started Emily Watson (happy birthday, Emily!) on a streak of playing women under stress, then so be it.Oh, and the comment about the story of two First Ladies? When Whoopi Goldberg hosted the Oscars the year that Watson and Griffiths were nominated, she jokingly described this movie as such. Did Emily Watson deserve an Oscar for her role here? Maybe, but I thought that "Life Is Beautiful" deserved everything (I can't believe that "Shakespeare in Love" won).

Keith F. Hatcher I have before me a 1965 vinyl LP record with a beautiful portrait of the then twenty-year-old Jacqueline du Pré and her cello. On it she plays the Elgar and Delius Cello Concertos, classics in her repertoire which have never been bettered. Indeed, years later, the "gran maestro" Mstislav Rostropovich on being asked why was it that he had never made a recording of the Elgar Concerto, said that a young English woman had already made the definitive version to which he had nothing to add. I also have various remastered CD recordings - with or without her then husband, Daniel Barenboim as accompanying pianist or orchestra conductor, ranging from Paradis and Saint-Saëns to Fauré, Franck and Dvorák, as well as Sir Edward Elgar's beautiful "Enigma Variations".Jacqueline du Pré was born just a few months before me and we thus celebrate 60 years on this iniquitous planet. Which is the best that can be said about the film "Hilary and Jackie" - iniquitous, "gross", vulgar............ When I learned she had got multiple sclerosis and had stopped playing her cello, I cried for a week; and when she finally died, another week. She shall be remembered for her exquisite music, not for the trashy version of a film like this one.I am sorry, but I just could not bear seeing the film to the end. It had nothing to do with the Jacqueline du Pré whom I loved as a sensitive, intelligent, brilliant musician. Everything which this film lacks.As the Spanish actor Paco Rabal once said: No god could be so cruel.This film is cruel.Even today, I show the LP recording with the beautiful portrait to my teenage students in an endeavour (mostly wasted) to persuade them to stop picking their noses.I give this film a three out of ten - ONLY because there are fragments of her own music in it; as for the rest of the film - ZERO.