Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:41 pm



Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
 Jackie (2016) 

Rate this film:
A 11%  11%  [ 1 ]
B 67%  67%  [ 6 ]
C 22%  22%  [ 2 ]
D 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
F 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 9

 Jackie (2016) 
Author Message
Pure Phase
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:33 am
Posts: 34865
Location: Maryland
Post Jackie (2016)
Image

Quote:
Jackie is a 2016 biographical drama film directed by Pablo Larraín and written by Noah Oppenheim. The film stars Natalie Portman as the titular character, following her life after the assassination of her husband in 1963. Peter Sarsgaard, Greta Gerwig, Billy Crudup and John Hurt also star.

_________________
ImageImageImage

1. The Lost City of Z - 2. A Cure for Wellness - 3. Phantom Thread - 4. T2 Trainspotting - 5. Detroit - 6. Good Time - 7. The Beguiled - 8. The Florida Project - 9. Logan and 10. Molly's Game


Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:14 pm
Profile
Rachel McAdams Fan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:13 am
Posts: 14544
Location: LA / NYC
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
It's a beautiful movie on a technical level and Natalie Portman gives a strong performance but it left me completely cold. Portman is good but this is far from career-best work - it doesn't even touch her performances in Black Swan or Closer for example. I also found Peter Sarsgaard rather bad. It moves at an incredibly languid pace and more closely resembles an art house film than a conventional biopic. B-


Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:56 pm
Profile YIM
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:56 am
Posts: 12119
Location: Adrift in L.A.
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
It's a movie that's at war with itself. The Oscar-bait interview segments with Billy Crudup distract from the more fly-on-the-wall moments with Jackie dealing with the aftermath of Kennedy's assassination.

Portman is great, but the movie never gels into something special, even though all the pieces are there. B-


Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:23 am
Profile
Rachel McAdams Fan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:13 am
Posts: 14544
Location: LA / NYC
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
The framing device was weird - it was almost like they were trying to make this movie mainstream-accessible by having those scenes when it really isn't at all.

The score of the film is honestly the best part.


Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:50 pm
Profile YIM
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
Splendid cinematography and a terrific performance by Portman can't change that this feels so incredibly cold and detached. You see Jackie suffering in the aftermath of Kennedy's assassination, but I never understood why the fuck I should care as a viewer. It is clinical in its approach.

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:46 pm
Profile WWW
Sbil

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 48626
Location: Arlington, VA
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
In some ways, Jackie is a hard movie to love, but Natalie Portman's performance is not. This is a deeper level, shattering performance that builds on the work she has done in movies like Black Swan. It took me a few minutes to warm up to her characterization, but by the end, it's clear that this is a perfectly calibrated, well modulated portrayal of raw grief. Not sure I would give her a second Oscar for this, but she should certainly be in the running. I liked, but did not love, the rest of the film. It's one that is easier for me to admire than go gaga for, but Portman's searing, powerful work in the lead role easily stands out. B+


Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:34 pm
Profile
Rachel McAdams Fan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:13 am
Posts: 14544
Location: LA / NYC
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
This is the most forgettable movie of awards season, and I saw it only a week ago. Everything else in contention is so much better.


Sun Dec 11, 2016 1:24 am
Profile YIM
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
You might not like it and I sure as hell didn't love it, but forgettable, it is not.

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Sun Dec 11, 2016 8:58 am
Profile WWW
Hold the door!

Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:26 pm
Posts: 20302
Location: Where they shot Knock at the Cabin
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
thompsoncory is threatened by the fact Portman's performance could take the Oscar from Emma Stone.


Sun Dec 11, 2016 1:09 pm
Profile
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:25 am
Posts: 18843
Location: San Diego
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
I think this is definitely Portman at her finest. The film around her is a little hard to be invested in apart from the way the assassination was depicted but I didn't think it was bad.


Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:01 am
Profile
Pure Phase
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:33 am
Posts: 34865
Location: Maryland
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Jacqueline Kennedy must, as a widowed first lady, plan his elaborate Washington, D.C. funeral and participate in the transfer of the White House to Lyndon B. Johnson while also quietly mourning a man who was her (unfaithful) husband, as well as the adoring father of her two living children. An almost Gothic, often non-chronological symphony of memories, moments, and moods rather than a traditional biography, this film hones in on the point where one’s public duty and private life intersect. As envisioned here, Mrs. Kennedy is a complicated figure profoundly aware of history’s judgment, the importance of symbolism in American culture, and the power of the media even as her life is in violent flux. She is inhabited by Natalie Portman in her finest performance to date; the Academy Award winner perfectly captures her subject’s legendary poise and almost otherworldly Mid-Atlantic accent while also infusing her with very recognizable veins of anger, despair, self-doubt, and vanity.

A

_________________
ImageImageImage

1. The Lost City of Z - 2. A Cure for Wellness - 3. Phantom Thread - 4. T2 Trainspotting - 5. Detroit - 6. Good Time - 7. The Beguiled - 8. The Florida Project - 9. Logan and 10. Molly's Game


Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:03 pm
Profile
Let's Call It A Bromance
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:22 pm
Posts: 12333
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
Easy candidate for overrated Oscar film of the year. Portman is fine but the screenplay is fairly weak here becoming fairly repetitive and the film shies away from much more gripping material only stated in quick one sentence references.


Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:55 pm
Profile WWW
Wallflower
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 34875
Location: Minnesota
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
Portman is great but everyone calling the film cold, detached, etc... hit the nail on the head. It's just hard to really care and it moves at such a glacial pace.


Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:45 am
Profile
Hold the door!

Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:26 pm
Posts: 20302
Location: Where they shot Knock at the Cabin
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
This is possibly the least conventional biopic I've ever seen. I thought it was very interesting and I loved the visual style, and Portman seems to have nailed Jackie O. My friend fell asleep and hated it. It's a weird, artsy film, but it's certainly worth a watch.

B


Last edited by zwackerm on Sun Mar 05, 2017 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:32 pm
Profile
Wallflower
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 34875
Location: Minnesota
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
zwackerm wrote:
Potman seems to have nailed Jackie O.


Image


Sun Mar 05, 2017 12:46 am
Profile
now we know
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm
Posts: 67000
Post 
Jackie

I saw this yesterday at the cinema. I know, I know. China and their ridiculously late release schedule!

Well, anyway, it wasn't bad, but certainly not award-worthy. Portman, who if I remember correctly was the main focus for ballot voters last year, wasn't overly impressive. She never transcended "Portman playing JFK's wife", though she obviously put the effort in. That much was clear. More than can be said for Sarsgaard, who is one of the most overrated actors working today. While I believe the film was told from the correct viewpoint, it was never entirely engaging, and only sparked my interest in the dozen or so interview scenes with Billy Crudup's character. The rest, while not boring, was less engaging since we all know the story. The film sort of does, but also shies away from showing full-on gore. It wanted to, but it was self-aware [of its potential awards buzz], so we're left with bloodied clothes, fast edits so as you don't actually see anything, and blood pouring down Portman's back in the shower. The film is too shallow as a study into the psyche of a post-assassination Jackie Kennedy (though I will say that for someone like me who hasn't the foggiest about US political figures, the film does provide adequate insight into the type of women she maybe was), and seems reluctant to show the death and ensuing furore, which doesn't leave much left besides the impeccable costuming, grainy 60s cinematography, and a few apt lines from John Hurt.

B-


Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:54 pm
Profile WWW
Keeping it Light
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:06 am
Posts: 11185
Location: Bright Falls
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
Jackie is a nice film lead by a mesmerizing Portman. I've always had an interest in the part of history surrounding JFK's death, but it unfortunately doesn't go quite deep into it. From the beginning the film is quite gripping, as we recall through Portman the aftermath right after the shooting. But then as we come to more grips with it, and we go into the legacy of things and the procession that was planned for JFK, it becomes a bit boring. The film seemingly weighs heavy importance about Jackie's most notable thing as First Lady, a White House tour video. Giving us an interesting for parts, but actually limited view and engagement in her life and relationship with JFK. Crudup is cool in his role as the journalist interviewing Jackie, but the scenes between him and her lack any dynamic. The 60's are effectively re-created with good style though and Portman is just great, it's worth seeing it for alone.

B


Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:46 am
Profile
KJ's Leading Idiot

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:15 pm
Posts: 36915
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
I agree with what most of the folks here suggested. Portman is great (though definitely not her best), Sarsgaard is forgettable here, Curdrup's story had a lot of potential but they don't land. The overall story and its reveal structure seems to be at war with itself unable to decide whether it wants to be a biopic or full-on historical drama and ends up coming short on both ends.

B-


Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:27 am
Profile
The Kramer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:36 am
Posts: 23695
Location: Classified
Post Re: Jackie (2016)
This one didn't work for me as well as Spencer did. Despite having a ton of style and a unique point of view/setting, it kind of came off like a standard biopic.

Main character says "I want to do something unordinary"

Not main character says "That's not the way things are done!"

Main character does it anyways.


Meh. Natalie was great at least. As you'd expect.

4.5/10


Tue Sep 27, 2022 2:43 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 19 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 48 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.