Jackie : Extremely boring

Am I the only who is not on board with this film? I love Natalie Portman, I'm obsessed with the Kennedy era, and I love the fact that they shot using actual film, but this film did not do anything for me, even though I wanted to love it.

The whole thing is pretty much Natalie walking around with a frantic look while classical music plays in a minor key.

I couldn't buy her accent or the way she talked, and it doesn't help that the whole movie is her talking. The accent made her character seem like it was from an SNL skit.

None of the scenes connected, which I get is the point of the film, to show how much of a blur that week was supposed to be, but it just seemed like nonsense scenes thrown together.

I couldn't believe it was only 1 hour and 39 minutes, it moved so slow. I'm really disappointed because I love so many aspects surrounding the film, but I thought it was extremely boring and couldn't wait for it to end.

I haven't seen it yet but your opinion is very discouraging to me cause I really am looking forward to seeing it. Your opinion sounds similar to my opinion of Lincoln (with DD Lewis). I found that to be dreadfully boring and slow.

That Lincoln reference is spot on, I had the same thought while watching Jackie.

Good 2 know ur a dummy bec Lincoln movie wuz spectacular 2 us historianz

Werd 2 ur mudda, bruddafckka

Using the Lincoln reference may be enough to sway me away from it. Ugh. I couldn't get through Lincoln myself. I turned it off half-way through, not caring what happened to the rest of the story (even though we all know).

Lincoln was a 2 and a half hour snoozefest. This film is only 90 mins. I disagree completely with the OP that it was boring - I thought it was tremendously well put together. Natalie gives a very layered performance and the directing is wonderful. The music in particular adds so much to the film.

Read some of the reviews which are mostly positive and make up your mind then, perhaps over just listening to the opinion of one person on a message board lol.

I found the music to be completely distracting. It made me feel like I was watching a horror movie.

I have to agree here, the music was deafening at times and really didn't fit the scenes for me. I guess good music for me doesn't take me out of the movie; I don't physically notice it is there, but the music in this film made me wince a couple of times and think 'what a din.'

I'm glad I'm not the only one to think this.

I think SOME Films are meant to be "Experiences" and others are meant to be "entertaining".

I'm thinking maybe this film "Jackie" was meant to be more like an "experience". There IS no point really You're just supposed to feel like you've been transported back to that gripping day back in November 1963. You're supposed to feel the chaos Jackie felt the days after.

I haven't seen the movie myself, but this is just my impression based on the reviews here so far.

---

Using the Lincoln reference may be enough to sway me away from it. Ugh. I couldn't get through Lincoln myself. I turned it off half-way through, not caring what happened to the rest of the story (even though we all know).

---

Oh no. if you think "Lincoln" was boring (I actually found it pretty interesting.high-brow and overly verbose yesbut interesting in the dialogue nonetheless) then you obviously haven't seen "The New World". "The New World" (with Colin Farrel) has got to be the single most BORING movie I've ever seen in a movie theater in my LIFE!!!! Talk about 3 hours of mostly silence, cinematography, low-dialogue, mixed scenes here and there UGh!

Yes, we all know the story of John Smith and Pocahontas, but boythat movie was PAIN-inducing slow smh. It's a shame too because I actually was excited to see it. But boy what slowness it had

I think I will save "Jackie" for Netflix or TV watching. Movie ticket prices are so high these days. I don't need to waste my money on something that's going to be so boring and low-dialogue-ridden. No thank you.

I viewed Lincoln in the theater three times. I really liked the film and thought that it was "very good," but close as it came, it could not quite bust through to greatness. Overall, there was something a hair too calculated about the way it played. Jackie is similarly intricate (and calculated), but it lacks the technical mastery of Steven Spielberg and the enveloping quietude that gave Lincoln much of its charm and its sense of historical verisimilitude.

I have viewed Manchester by the Sea twice now. After my second screening last night, I upgraded the film slightly from "good" to "good/very good." Its strengths are very strong, but it is significantly flawed, too. Overall, without having seen the 2016 releases that are just about to break wide such as Martin Scorsese's Silence, I would probably consider Manchester by the Sea one of the year's ten best movies, but not one of the five best. Then again, among 2016 feature film releases, I have only deemed one movie "great" and four others a full-fledged "very good."

---

Your opinion sounds similar to my opinion of Lincoln (with DD Lewis). I found that to be dreadfully boring and slow.

---

At least it was well-acted, though.

Ladies and gentlemenMr.Conway Twitty

I agreed, one of the dullest movies I've seen in a long time. I did look up Jackie on youTube and strangely her accents and vocal mannerisms are spot on. We most often see her in still photos, in real life she sounded drugged and and almost like she was doing a Marilyn Monroe impersonation.

Agreed, I looked up the original White House tour she gave and Natalie did a great job with her accent.

I always thought Jackie sounded kind of . . . slow.

I used to be obsessed with J.F.K. when I was in high school and middle school, and I read so many books about him and Jackie. I've seen them in pictures a million times. It is hard for me to get lost in actors playing them when I feel like I know so much about the real life people. So I don't know how I am going to feel about this.

Wait, so would you say this movie is as slow and boring as Lincoln? The trailer looked very promising but if it's as painstakingly slow as Lincoln, then I definitely want a head's up!

I was really looking forward to this and thought it was poorly executed with good intentions to examine JBK during this time. I would not recommend this, at all. I think anyone who remembers this horrific time would not appreciate this film. I think Natalie Portman did the best she could with the material, but I wasn't sold on the casting of most of the actors.

Lincoln wuz a monumental film, u ppl wudnt know a grate movie if it hit u in da head

Werd 2 ur mudda, bruddafckka

I just saw it at a sneak preview. I wouldn't say that it was boring, but it wasn't overly interesting, either. I'd call it a good vehicle for a talented actress, but I can't think of anyone who looks enough like Jackie Kennedy to pull off the part. I didn't see her; I saw Natalie Portman dressed like her but not even sounding like her. Does that make sense?

"I can't think of anyone who looks enough like Jackie Kennedy to pull off the part"

Perhaps you should limit your viewing to Saturday Night Live, where they do impersonations, not acting.

This is one of the most boring films I've ever seen in my life. I was going to post the same topic myself. Thank you for saving me the time.

Boring? Try watching Manchester By the Sea a couple of days before Jackie. Now THAT was an overrated snoozer. I liked Jackie but I don't see any compelling reason to see it in a theater. Cable would be fine.

I found "Jackie" to be a powerful movie. I will say this however, the movie needed to take out five minutes of the drawn out funeral planning drama and insert five minutes of interaction between JFK and Jackie.

Jackie's love for JFK is evident, both in history and her dialogue in the movie but in order to feel Jackie's heartbreak it would have helped to feel her love. JFK is merely a prop in this otherwise well crafted movie.

I was a Kennedy staffer way back when, so to my attuned eye there were a few but very few historical inaccuracies. I thought the movie dragged at times, as I said it needed a dose of the fun and promise of those days, it needed a touch of what JFK and JBK meant to each other.

It is worth seeing, the cinematography is amazing, the music, while melancholy is gripping, the blending of historical footage and new scenes is flawless. I'd go see "Jackie".

Lincoln? Oy Vey! That was brutal.

That's disappointing to hear! I was really hoping Manchester by the Sea would be great.

I actually really liked Manchester By the Sea except for the ending. Ugh. I was much more engaged with the story than I was Jackie.

I didn't find it boring at all.

But I don't spend all day playing with a phone and acting like I'm doing something.

"Boring." What we used to call "subtle."

To each their own but Jackie is one of my favorite movies this year and I think it's one of the better biopics. I'm not always the biggest Portman fan but I thought she nailed this

THIS! This this this this this this this. Literally every single thing you said is EXACTLY how I felt. The accent, the music, the walking around the sheer boredom of it all. I completely agree.

I think this film requires a greater degree of intelligence and film knowledge than most typical audience members are able to give.

I hate to admit it, but I thought it was a little boring too. Like the OP, I'm a huge fan of this era and was really looking forward to it. There were definitely strong parts of the movie. The cinematography was very good and some of the flashback assassination scenes were shot tremendously(The post assasination Dallas ride was astounding filmaking) but overall, the film moved very slowly. It wasn't bad, but I don't think I would reccomend it. Portman's accent was distracting.

Intelligence and film knowledge are not mutually exclusive. Film knowledge is not rocket science, or brain surgery or chess, it's knowledge; something one can read in a book if one is willing. I'm sure there are extremely intellectual people in the world that don't like watching slow biopics with subtle musical scores and accurate portrayals of historical characters, shot from multiple artistic angles etc.

Some people just like what they like.

I couldn't agree more with the OP. I love the majority of this cast including Portman, John Hurt, and Peter Sarsgaard and they were all tremendous as usual. My issue with this film is simply that it is not entertaining in any aspect and I think that movie should be. I enjoy history and was even trying to like this film through the eyes of a history buff but I could not.

This film made me like Jackie Kennedy less than I had before and I don't think that was it's purpose. I hate using this cliche but I just don't get what the 'point' was of this film.

And yes, the music is jarring and overly loud. Natalie Portman's accent (and mouth) is bizarre and distracting and I've heard Jackie Kennedy speak in interviews before. She came off as an emotional wreck and kind of a jerk in this.

I get that it's about the few days after her husband's death but it's 100 depressing minutes and I don't know what the point of sitting through that is. I still haven't grasped the message.

I agree with the OP completely. I am a huge fan of the original score for Jackie, and the cinematography and style of the film, but I ended up walking out of the movie - I've only ever done that one other time in my life. Natalie Portman's accent felt over-the-top in a comedy sketch kind of way, and the movie just felt sloppy to me. Not "messy", in an artful, intentional way. Just sloppy.

Just saw Jackie, and though the parts near the end with the priest played by John Hurt become tedious, I found the film engrossing and moving with a terrific, Oscar worthy performance from Portman. Like My Week with Marilyn and The Queen it's not a biography, but a few days in the life of a world famous woman. I give it a 7/10 and yes, I found Lincoln to be a bore. Jackie is much better.

Certain parts of it felt it was dragging.

Portman nailed her accent. It was perfect. I'm 68 and lived through this era. Even back then, I thought Jackie Kennedy had a rather strange voice or accent. When I thought about seeing this film, I hoped she would sound the way she really didwhich is exactly how Portman portrayed her. Nonsense scenes? Really? Which scenes were nonsense? That all happened. I was amazed by the attention the film paid to detail, even recreating in real action some of the still photography we have all come to know. I thought it was refreshing to see a film that didn't rush along. Yeah, it was tough to take, but "boring" is the last thing that comes to my mind regarding this movie. Lots of different reactions here.

I haven't seen it, but a review said "probably not a movie for mass audiences" and "It's a chamber drama rather than an epic". So that says a lot to me. I can see why some would call it boring. I might too.

I saw the movie today and totally agree with you. I was bored to death.

Extremely boringand very flatdon't listen to any hypeit's boring..drab..and goes nowherea grief councellor might enjoy it


Deputy Davo's Pig Squeezing Country and Western Comedy Show.

extremely unenjoyable movie

it's basically a 100 minute close up of Portman's face looking sad as she walks from one room to another

thank god she has a pretty face though







so many movies, so little time

glad I'm not the only one. To be fair, I guess it's quite difficult to make something entertaining out of this horrendous tragedy.

well Manchester and Moonlight are way more boring than this. so this is an ok film for 1 and half hour

This movie is a pain in the ass.

I have to agree with the OP.

Natalies talking in difficult to bear and seems extremely unnatural.

Couldn't finish the film, but boy did I try!

---

The whole thing is pretty much Natalie walking around with a frantic look while classical music plays in a minor key.

I couldn't buy her accent or the way she talked, and it doesn't help that the whole movie is her talking. The accent made her character seem like it was from an SNL skit.

---

Absolutely! The trailer actually looked far more interesting than the film. The film itself turned out to be a huge disappointment. And an extremely hammy performance from Natalie wearing a cheap-looking wig.

Likewise.

This should have been catnip for me, but my God did it drag.

Aftermath of the JFK assassination should have been full of loads of exciting things when shown from the perspective of his widow, but this was just so boring.

---

I couldn't buy her accent or the way she talked, and it doesn't help that the whole movie is her talking. The accent made her character seem like it was from an SNL skit.

---

I think her accent was so strange because we don't hear it anymore. If you are obsessed with the Kennedy era as you say, you would know that the elite families all went to certain private schools, and often adopted similar speech patterns. Go back and watch her actual White House tour, Portman does an excellent job. The speech pattern is just unfamiliar to us today. Think of how people in the 60's would react to hearing Kardashian-speak, that we are so used to now.

Agreed with that, and i'm not even American ;) I do know that even here in Australia, people had different accents & ways of speaking in that era. In the 1950's & early 60's, anyone who went to a private school & moved in upper class circles had a slightly British accent.

For someone who was a politicians wife or in public life, it extended well into the early 70's. Even your average city suburbanite was reasonably well spoken compared to today. The more traditional slack Aussie accent was more common amongst the working class.