Solemplex
To me, this movie is perfection.
Moustroll
Good movie but grossly overrated
Glimmerubro
It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.
carolinephillips
A film about nothing much more than planning a funeral. A Totally forgettable film. Such a shame as I can imagine a bio about her life is extremely interesting. This film gave no insight into the tumultuous relationship she had with JFK or her life after his death.
daoldiges
I was curious to see this film as I love history and do find the Kennedy story interesting. This film was in many respects interest - mostly because it surprised me and did not give me what I was expecting. The time-frame is very brief, just the week or so following the assassination. Jackie was portrayed as a rather vain, course, and defensive person who smokes and drinks a lot, all of which could be due to the recent circumstances in her life. Portman's performance was also interesting in that she didn't treat the role with awe and gave it to us straight, which I appreciate. I actually really enjoyed the score quite a bit, but didn't think it was a great match for this specific project. Like I said, it was interesting but as a whole a little disappointing. This is the part in a film review of this type where I would usually mention that only if you're a big Jackie fan should you take the time to see this film. However, I will change that to read that if you're a real Jackie fan you probably shouldn't see this film because it does not portray her in the elevated, glamorous light so many want to think of her in, and you will likely be disappointed. Please don't hold your imaginary, fantasy ideas of what you want this person to be against this film and it's participants.
The Movie Diorama
Black Swan still remains her best film by far, but there's something alluring about her role in this. The accent, the mannerisms, the sheer amount of class...it's yet another transformative performance. Focussing purely on the aftermath of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, it follows the First Lady as she reflects on her horrific past to a reporter. We experience her struggle for personal grief whilst being in the eye of the public. Clearly Jackie Kennedy was an empowering individual and rather admirable. She could've easily snapped and had a complete breakdown, but her classy demeanour exceeded this. She was constantly in control of herself. She had to be, for her children and for herself. With such a powerful and emotive individual, we needed one of the best actresses working today. Yes! Bring in Natalie Portman. Absolutely phenomenal. I haven't seen La La Land at the time of this review, but I honestly doubt Emma Stone was able to better this. Portman became Jackie Kennedy. It wasn't just copying her and mimicking her personality. I wasn't watching Portman, I was watching Kennedy. It's a film that is entirely dependant on that central character, thankfully it works. Fortunately the film's runtime is short and sweet so it rarely drags. There are a few scenes that are perhaps prolonged too much, including the funeral procession itself. For the most part, the pacing is good. Not a big fan of the typical biopic setup of the character being interviewed in order to create the narrative. Slightly uninspired. The supporting cast assisted in boosting Portman's performance. Sarsgaard and the late John Hurt being the standouts. I adored the inclusion of real footage and recordings, made the experience far more authentic. The usage of traditional film cameras also felt vintage, no need for IMAX or anything like that. It's a personal and intimate story that doesn't require advanced technology. One of Portman's best.
macpet49-1
This must be the umpteenth version of Jacks by now? I think they were full of bravado agreeing to do this yet again. For those of us who are old enough to have lived through it, nothing new here. I have to say that I have difficulty historically dealing with impersonators in general because I tend to become harsher than usual. I'm a stickler for small details. For instance, her hair is incorrect--Jackie had more of it and a lower hairline which gave her a distinctive look. Natalie's hair comes and goes throughout the film as though she either has extensions going on or a wig and then not a wig. Her hairline is so high that she almost looks like she's balding. Then there's the accent--at times it does evoke Jackie but mostly there's a distinctive annoying lisp that Jackie never had. Then there's the miscasting of almost everyone else in the film The only people who 'look' like they might be Kennedys are the actors for JFK and Teddy whom we barely see or hear. Bobby is played by one of those Swedish boys from that huge Scarsgaard family. He too has an unbearable lisp. Jackie was tall for a female of that time; Ms. Portman barely reaches anyone's shoulders. Jacks was famous for wearing low cut heels. Natalie is on stilts and even then she can't outgrow Tucky or Rose Kennedy (who was a shrimp). The clothing looks bought from a Catholic charities shop downtown--work,cheap and completely wrong. The children are pathetically incorrect, no comment (Some producers' kids no doubt?)! A fine Brit actor plays the priest but hardly has a line worth mentioning. Portman gives good grief but adds a snippy , cranky sarcastic edge to everything she says (very unlike ladies who were taught manners from Miss Porters). A 'rush to production' is obvious . It does perhaps show Jackie's complete experience of the time but hardly and unfairly all sides of the woman. Watch documentaries and skip this one.
