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.

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.

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.

Somewhere in the process of making this movie, I'm sure there was a good script. Somewhere, perhaps even the editing room floor, there may even still be a good movie to be found... Sadly, such a film was not seen on screen.

When first announced, I was so excited for this. A stellar cast, a strong concept, and to boot the trailer was original and looked promising!

To be fair and give credit,the cast all perform admirably and Portman deserves the praise she is receiving. The fault does not lie there.

From the opening shots of the movie, accompanied by its dismal score that grates on your senses, prospects begin to dim. Such poorly framed and composed shots I have not seen in a major motion picture in a very, very long time and as the story unfolds haphazardly with its clunky editing and snails pace, hope in the auditorium began to fade.

I stayed awake throughout - though the task proved difficult and I cannot say the same for many of my fellow movie goers...

In the end, it is such a shame as there was so much potential here that is wasted by poor editing, direction, cinematography, and score and even in spite of strong performances and a compelling script somewhere beneath, this whole production tragically falls to tedium...

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.