Jackie follows First Lady Jackie Kennedy in the days following the famous public assassination of her husband (and POTUS), John F. Kennedy.
I think Jackie is like many biopics I’ve seen recently; interesting story but did it need to be a movie?
I love when a film is entertaining and what’s more, I love when that entertainment comes with a purpose or an underlying message. What I don’t like is when the purpose overwrites the entertainment and all we’re left with is the message.
Jackie is so concerned with expressing the message “Jackie Kennedy was a grieving woman” that the entire film is devoted to pushing that message.
By the halfway point, I’d taken in everything the film had to say. So for the latter half, I was just admiring the direction as Jackie continued to drone on the same message.
Natalie Portman’s performance as Jackie is fine. I can certainly see it winning Portman her second Oscar but I wouldn’t entirely agree with it. Like I said, it’s fine.
Jackie definitely has some aspects worth admiring behind the camera but it’s the story we’re told that annoys me, it’s a story that didn’t need to be told.
My reaction to biopics nowadays is similar to my reaction towards sequels and remakes; There are much more interesting stories to be told and they’re original. Go for original.
If there’s a true story out there which needs more attention, requires to be informed in-depth AND you can make it entertaining then yes, make a movie about it. But Jackie spends its entire runtime telling us what a school history report could have in one page.
I wouldn’t suggest rushing out to see Jackie, it is interesting at times but I would honestly rather have seen La La Land again.
What did you think of Jackie? Was this film necessary? Does Portman deserve the Oscar? Should I watch La La Land a third time?
Whatever your thoughts, leave your comment below, sign up to this blog on the side and don’t forget to follow my Instagram page for foreign versions of movie posters.