Jackie (Pablo Lorrain)

[Watashi]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTliHR9L9mzy ggTgWg_5DUvFnA5PcBnypAxfXiSJK6 MNQKivd6L

[Watashi]

Really good stuff. The script is the weakest part (crazy that the writer's only two other credits are Allegiant and The Maze Runner), but Portman and director Pablo Lorrain masks any of its faults with powerful performances and direction.

[Henry Gale]

Holyyyy shit, what a film. Just absolutely extraordinary and deeply, emotionally transporting to me.

I found out a few days ago Larrain had two other films come out this year. I don't know and don't even care if they don't measure up, since any trip half as lucidly back into his current creative mind feels absolutely essential. With this alone he's ascended to absolute must-see status with whatever he does next.

Usually the sorts of movies that make me look at the world in a different way don't come from the perspective of subjects like this. But wow, it really just grabbed me in ways I can't even articulate right now. It's so haunting and vivid, gorgeous and untidy, all at once. Also it's just about the best looking film I've probably seen all year.

Just a mesmerizing masterpiece. Even the woman on her phone in front of me (who, to her credit, did leave it off after I asked), the guy restlessly bouncing his legs in a way that somehow reverberated in the bottom of my seat, and a couple of huffing-and-puffing walk-outs couldn't break its spell on me. So with that I both say that it's great and contend will absolutely not be for everyone, but boy am I glad it was exactly as it was, as it was absolutely for me.

[Ivan Drago]

How's the score by Mica Levi?

I've been pumped for this since I saw the trailer. Pablo LarraÃ*n is great with movies set in politics.

[Henry Gale]

How's the score by Mica Levi?

Pretty stunning, almost a touch overly reliant on it at certain points, seemingly realizing how vital it is in setting the film's atmosphere. It carries many sections of the film where standard scene structures are tossed out.

Larrain's approach to that sort of fluid memory storytelling almost feels like darker, more sorrowful Malick at times, or if Harmony Korine suddenly aspired to make a polished prestige film. Aronofsky's influence as producer (and probably the fact that he developed it for years with the intention of directing it himself) is also very much felt.

[Grouchy]

Just one tiny detail. It's Pablo LarraÃ*n.

[Melville]

Usually the sorts of movies that make me look at the world in a different way don't come from the perspective of subjects like this.

about the best looking film I've probably seen all year.

a mesmerizing masterpiece.

standard scene structures are tossed out.

Larrain's approach to that sort of fluid memory storytelling almost feels like darker, more sorrowful Malick at times, or if Harmony Korine suddenly aspired to make a polished prestige film. Aronofsky's influence as producer (and probably the fact that he developed it for years with the intention of directing it himself) is also very much felt.
I had no interest in this, but now I'm psyched to see it.

[Ezee E]

This was exquisite. Portman and the direction are so extraordinary here that the flaws can be forgiven. Heck, I wonder if it's Portman who's on such a different level here that the other actors (Saarsgaard, who's usually good) just seem kind of tame.

It's pretty unique that for the entire running time, I feel completely involved in this 60's world that is created. Score, art direction, editing are all top notch.

Lovely movie. I hope more see it.

[Mal]

Portman really outdoes herself here. I will be shocked if she does not win another Oscar for this.

[Ezee E]

I don't know that I've heard Jackie Kennedy's actual voice. A youtube search, and I'll probably be amazed even more.

[Ezee E]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSIgTq7pb5U

Absolutely.

[Watashi]

I kinda loved Saarsgard as Bobby Kennedy. He's the only one not trying to do an imitation and it works.

[Ezee E]

Portman's role goes beyond an imitation though.

If anything, the only other actor that, for me, seemed to have a presence was Billy Crudup's "The Journalist."

Didn't realize that was Greta Gerwig. I thought it was Sevigny.

[Henry Gale]

Yeah, I thought Sarsgaard was the most impressive of the supporting cast too. I don't want to say that Crudup, Gerwig and Hurt had "easier" roles, but I thought they gave really different but really nice, more relaxed performances, in terms of them being people we don't have as common references for.

But really it's Portman's show and she commands every scene regardless of who is in her orbit on screen. Regardless of how close or natural her voice is, she creates such a specific, obsessively meticulous and fragile portrait of a person so quickly that all of those sort of conscious critiques of her giving an impression-reliant performance fell away for me almost instantly.

Is there even a single scene that she isn't in? (The only one that comes to mind is when RFK, LBJ and everyone see Oswald's murder on TV, but even that's severely intercut with Jackie in the other room.) As much as I thought other lead female performances this year have given similarly towering and powerful moments in other films, the fact of just how much of Portman we get here does wonders to her impact and memorability (and likely imminent awards stuff, blah blah).

[Peng]

Still processing it, but really liked it overall. Portman, Levi, and Larrain together create quite an intense atmosphere that steamrolls past some screenplay clunkiness for me. At first thought Portman was too fake, but then her first grief-stricken scene shattered all that, and the continuing crosscut between her two sides (and more) created just the right friction to give the film's (rather bluntly expressed) themes some much needed intimacy. So much more intensely sad than I expected though; not long into the film someone sobbed during that first grief scene, and there were consistent sniffing since. Probably 8/10 for me.

[Ezee E]

Still processing it, but really liked it overall. Portman, Levi, and Larrain together create quite an intense atmosphere that steamrolls past some screenplay clunkiness for me. At first thought Portman was too fake, but then her first grief-stricken scene shattered all that, and the continuing crosscut between her two sides (and more) created just the right friction to give the film's (rather bluntly expressed) themes some much needed intimacy. So much more intensely sad than I expected though; not long into the film someone sobbed during that first grief scene, and there were consistent sniffing since. Probably 8/10 for me.

Probably a generation thing, but a lot of older people in my theater for this, and they were sobbing almost from beginning to end. My age and below, definitely a bit different.

Okay, I was probably the youngest in the theater.

[Idioteque Stalker]

I was fully expecting to be the first dissenter here, but no. This movie was awesome. Way more arthouse than I expected, and it's not just because of Levi's prominent score. The editing will probably turn a lot of people off who are expecting to see, like, Frost/Nixon or something, but damn did it sweep me into Jackie's headspace teetering between mesmerizing poise and overwhelming grief.

[Idioteque Stalker]

if Harmony Korine suddenly aspired to make a polished prestige film.

Hmm... Yes.

[Spinal]

I liked this, although I'm still trying to decide how much. There were two scenes that I did not like. I did not like the scene in which Jackie has to break the news of Jack's death to the kids. I also did not like the scene in which we see the aftermath of the assassination. These felt exploitative and unnecessary to me. Portman is excellent, and there is a lot about it technically that is engaging. It kept my interest, yet the nagging question I had throughout was "Why this subject matter? Why this film right now?" Knowing nothing about the creative team, I wondered if the writer and/or the director were female since it seemed like an attempt to recontextualize a well-documented event through a new lens. Nope and nope. It's kind of a hypnotic film, effectively capturing the haze and surreal atmosphere of grief. I'd be curious to read more about the director's intentions, but, on that level alone, it's a memorable experience.

[Ezee E]

I liked this, although I'm still trying to decide how much. There were two scenes that I did not like. I did not like the scene in which Jackie has to break the news of Jack's death to the kids. I also did not like the scene in which we see the aftermath of the assassination. These felt exploitative and unnecessary to me. Portman is excellent, and there is a lot about it technically that is engaging. It kept my interest, yet the nagging question I had throughout was "Why this subject matter? Why this film right now?" Knowing nothing about the creative team, I wondered if the writer and/or the director were female since it seemed like an attempt to recontextualize a well-documented event through a new lens. Nope and nope. It's kind of a hypnotic film, effectively capturing the haze and surreal atmosphere of grief. I'd be curious to read more about the director's intentions, but, on that level alone, it's a memorable experience.

Good point on why this was intended to be made. Aronofsky was originally signed on to direct this if I remember right, but just stayed on as producer.

As box office indicates, not too many others were interested in it either. But it made me aware of Pablo Larrain, and it is one of my favorites of the year.

[Idioteque Stalker]

I also did not like the scene in which we see the aftermath of the assassination. These felt exploitative and unnecessary to me.

I had the same reaction. The horror on Portman's face was more than enough to suggest how gruesome it was. One of those instances where I felt they may have been shooting for the more prestigious R rating.

[TGM]

Between this, Manchester by the Sea, A Monster Calls, and Collateral Beauty, it would appear that the big overriding theme across 2016's movies is grief. Sorta weird how so many films touching upon the same thing continue to oftentimes release around the same time as one another.

But yeah, definitely got a Malick vibe from the film's structure as well, except I liked this a hell of a lot more than anything I've seen from Malick, and found it about a million times more engaging as well. Good stuff, but I think I'd like to let this sit a little before really saying anything else on it.

[Spinal]

A million times is a lot of times!

[TGM]

A million times is a lot of times!

I'm not a fan of Malick, lol. :p

[Stay Puft]

There were two scenes that I did not like. I did not like the scene in which Jackie has to break the news of Jack's death to the kids. I also did not like the scene in which we see the aftermath of the assassination. These felt exploitative and unnecessary to me. Portman is excellent, and there is a lot about it technically that is engaging. It kept my interest, yet the nagging question I had throughout was "Why this subject matter? Why this film right now?" Knowing nothing about the creative team, I wondered if the writer and/or the director were female since it seemed like an attempt to recontextualize a well-documented event through a new lens. Nope and nope.

This is where I'm at, except those scenes left such a bitter taste in my mouth I think I disliked the movie overall. I found it crass and not in any way illuminating about Jackie as a person. As a portrait of grief it is effective for about the first third of its runtime, and LarraÃ*n's obsession with the textures of old media formats is as cinematically compelling as always (I enjoyed not only the use of real news footage for mediums and establishing shots, but also some of the visual effects work, creating new images out of old materials, most notably in the funeral procession). But all the heavy lifting in the world can't salvage such an aggressively insipid screenplay (the framing device here is a weak genre crutch and nothing more) and it's always going to be a movie that opens with the JFK assassination, teasing in its edits and brief glimpses of blood, and ending by returning to the same event, finally revealing it in all of its gory detail. That's about what I expect from a Hollywood film.

I was hoping for a lot more from LarraÃ*n. But not from the screenwriter, incidentally. So I dunno. I liked parts of it. But this was disappointing all the same.

Also, comparisons to Malick seem completely off the mark. I don't see the connection at all. These are two completely different stylists, with completely different methods.

[Grouchy]

I'm going to be a dissenter on this movie. However, I think the comparisons with Malick are unfair. This is not an inept bore.

I think it's a well-made film with plenty of assets (acting, cinematography) but I'm unsure that I actually took something of value from it. At its best it's a portrait of grief like you guys said, which could have been made about any widow. At its worst it's a collection of random vignettes set around a very specific time period. What I do know is that it left me cold.

[DavidSeven]

Engaging and cinematically poetic. Did not feel as consciously free-form as Malick or as inauthentically deliberate as Lonergan. I think it found itself in a good medium where performance and technique were able to be effecting in real way. As with a lot of films that aim for this sort of ethereal tone, there is still a distance that keeps it from being overwhelmingly impactful or transcendent. But I do appreciate the skill and awareness it took to make this mostly compelling for its entire length.