Notes From the Movie Room October 11, 2024

 🎬 One of my longtime Youtube friends, Joe Mayo, ( MeanMrMayo - YouTube and Mr Cinemayo - YouTube  ), recently posted a "rant" video (RanTcid Mayo | "I'm Not Interested!" (youtube.com)) about people who pressure their friends to see a certain movie that they love and refuse to take no for an answer. Joe has both a marvelous speaking voice and a terrific sense of humor, so his "rant" videos are intended to make serious points, but with a comedic edge. In this particular video, Joe is discussing a friend who expresses horror and near indignation upon learning that Joe hasn't seen the 2018 remake of A STAR IS BORN starring Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper. The guy insists that Joe must see the movie, post haste. When Joe expresses non-interest, the guy just gets more and more insistent, bringing on a rather heated discussion between the two friends.

Joe's video made me think of many heated discussions I've had with friends regarding films and music. I'm one of those people who tends to get overly passionate about certain films that I either love or hate. And I admit to encouraging people to watch certain films and then being disappointed when they don't end up loving those films as much as I do. However, I don't get upset or offended. Well, maybe sometimes. Years ago, when I showed THE PIT AND THE PENDULUM (1961) to a friend who'd never seen it, I was hoping to initiate a new member into the Cult of Barbara Steele. He thought the movie was kind of slow and boring and felt that Miss Steele "didn't stand out". Although my gut reaction was to strangle him and bury his body in my crawl space, I quickly recovered and took it all in stride. I'm much calmer than I was in those days. Besides, the crawl space is full...

Even I have to admit that many of the movies I'm passionate about are so far on the eccentric side that many film geeks aren't going to be intrigued enough to seek them out or respond favorably if they do. When I sent a DVD copy of Ray Dennis Steckler's 1964 enduring classic THE INCREDIBLY STRANGE CREATURES WHO STOPPED LIVING AND BECAME MIXED-UP "ZOMBIES" to a friend, I wasn't at all surprised or hurt when his reaction was, shall we say, tepid. This movie is definitely an acquired taste, or, as some might say, evidence of a lack of taste.

When someone encourages me to watch a movie, I usually agree to take them up on their suggestion, unless it's an item I consider so objectionable that I don't want any part of it. My mind is generally open to new ideas. When I was still working, I had several incidences where co-workers, knowing what a film freak I was, would walk up to me, hand me a DVD or VHS tape, and say: "Here. Take this home and watch it." And I always did. Most of the time, I enjoyed what they handed me, some more than others. One of the movies was the original TERMINATOR, starring Governor Arnold, a movie I had ZERO interest in watching. To my surprise, it turned out to be a fun watch, although I didn't rush out to find and collect the various sequels. 

One day a friend handed me a DVD of a movie I'd never heard of. It was THE RED VIOLIN (1998), starring Samuel L. Jackson. This particular friend had rather eclectic tastes in films and books, so I was eager to give the film a chance. It turned out to be one of the most amazing and emotional experiences of my life. This film is so beautiful, so totally unique, that any description I might give couldn't do it justice. All I can say is, my friend handed me an incredible gift, and I gladly extend his recommendation to anyone who reads this post. No pressure, though. You can live a long and happy life even if you never see this wonderful movie.

Getting back to the 2018 remake of A STAR IS BORN, here is my own opinion: MIKE'S MOVIE ROOM: A STAR IS BORN (michaelsmovieworld.blogspot.com)

SPEAK NO EVIL (2024)

 

It takes a lot of inspiration these days for me to drag my sluggish self into a theater to see a current film. My movie room is much too comfortable and private. No distractions, no unwanted human contact and no inflated prices for popcorn. And no ringing, flashing, beeping cell phones except for mine.

Of course, laziness isn't the only reason I tend to venture out to theaters less frequently. There aren't that many modern films that interest me enough to make the effort, and many of the films I have seen in recent years have been disappointing. This trend was happening long before the pandemic lockdown. I find myself appreciating the cultural past so much that it's easy to ignore the cultural present. 

Recently, however, I was intrigued by a positive review of the 2024 thriller SPEAK NO EVIL. The review was written by film critic/scholar Chuck Koplinski for our local newspaper. Chuck is also the instructor of many of the film classes I've taken, and I have a lot of respect for his opinions, even though we sometimes disagree. His review of SPEAK NO EVIL made it sound like the kind of "slow burn" thriller I appreciate. Directed by James Watkins (WOMAN IN BLACK 2012), the film is a remake of the 2022 Danish film of the same name. Knowing nothing about the film or the director, I decided to give it a chance.

The story involves an American couple, Louise and Ben Dalton (Mackenzie Davis and Scoot McNairy), and their young daughter, Agnes (Alix West-Lefler). Living in London, and going through personal and professional challenges, the family is taking a vacation in Italy. While there, they become friends with another couple, Paddy and Ciara, (James MacAvoy and Aisling Franciosi) and their young son, Ant (Dan Hough), also vacationers from England. Ant is unable to speak, and his father said the boy has a deformity which caused his tongue not to grow to normal size. 

Paddy and Ciara. Would you go on vacation with these people?

The Daltons enjoy the company of their new companions, but are occasionally taken aback by their odd behavior, usually that of Paddy. Nevertheless, after the vacation has ended, and the Daltons are back in London, they decide to accept an invitation from Paddy and Ciara to spend a weekend at their remote country house. Although the visit starts out well, the Daltons are increasingly disturbed and puzzled by the strange actions and passive-aggressive behavior of their hosts. Gradually, they find out exactly why Paddy and Ciara invited them.

I don't want to give away any spoilers, because there are surprises in the movie that need to be experienced, not read about. The slow burn aspect is certainly at play, but the overall atmosphere of disorientation and dread begins as soon as the Daltons arrive at this isolated house and never lets up for a second. Even though the land surrounding the house is expansive, the house itself is very small and cramped, which adds to the Daltons' tension. They very quickly realize that they're trapped in the middle of nowhere with people they barely know. Their daughter, who suffers from anxiety issues, manages to become friends with the non-communicative Ant, a friendship which becomes the key to revealing the mysteries surrounding the house and the odd couple living there.

Fans of horror films won't be disappointed by what ensues in the last one-third of SPEAK NO EVIL. There's more than enough action and excitement to satisfy the modern filmgoer's thirst for the macabre. All of the contemporary horror movie elements are present: jump scares, physical pain, blunt instruments, sharp instruments, endless screaming, and enough blood to feed an audience of vampires. The entire enterprise is extremely well done, I must admit. In fact, I would almost describe the film as somewhat predictable and by-the-numbers, except for one important fact: the movie makes us care about the characters, at least the ones who end up being victimized. The story is brilliantly written and none of the characters are one dimensional. And the viewer learns that each person in that claustrophobic house is complicated, flawed, and keeping a secret.

The smiling Daltons, not having a clue what they're getting themselves into.

The film's conclusion, shocking and depressing, stays with me. I'm not terribly happy about that situation, but I guess it means the filmmakers accomplished what they set out to do: shock people and leave them depressed for weeks. My understanding is that the original Danish film had a different ending, although not necessarily less downbeat. Maybe one day I'll search out the original film and find out.

The acting by all the players is excellent, kids included. I wasn't familiar with any of them, but when I looked them up on IMDB, I realized I had seen some of them in other films. James MacAvoy is the standout, and his character, Paddy, is the most difficult and multi-layered character in the film. MacAvoy rises to the challenge. He is at times supportive and loving, and at other times a seductive trickster. But he always conveys the possibility of becoming suddenly dangerous, even when he's being friendly and supporting, until his character finally explodes with violence. MacAvoy crosses all those emotional lines brilliantly. But the other actors don't pale in comparison. Davis and McNairy are called upon to be desperate, terrified, and heroic, while being torn apart by their own inner demons and fragile marital relationship. Franciosi is somewhat in the background for most of the film, a smiling, beguiling image of exotic beauty who is difficult to read. But when she's called upon to display her character's weirdness, she doesn't hold anything back.

SPEAK NO EVIL will only consume 110 minutes of your life. Before you know it, you'll be walking out of the theater lobby, depressed beyond belief and searching for your car. The film is apparently quite popular. The budget was only $15,000,000, and so far, the box office has collected nearly $60,000,000. Be forewarned: there are a lot of depressed individuals walking around out there. As for me, I'm safely back in the movie room, binging on Shirley Temple and Doris Day, just to take the edge off.

Go see this movie. You have nothing to lose but your good mood.

THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (1979)

 

It's fun to revisit movies I remember enjoying from years past, not only for the quality of the technique and the performances, but for the fond memories of the theater-going experience. Going to see THE AMITYVILLE HORROR in 1979 in a crowded theater was a real trip. So many jump scare moments where the entire audience reacted at exactly the same time, usually followed by embarrassed laughter. Well, maybe some people were laughing. Many others were shaking in their shoes at what was happening on the screen. This was a well-crafted horror film that seemed to take itself very seriously. In a decade where audiences had already been traumatized by THE EXORCIST (1973) and THE OMEN (1976), demonic forces were big business, and the Hollywood money machine made a lucrative deal with the devil that paid off quite handsomely. 

The film, directed by Stuart Rosenberg, was based on the 1977 novel, The Amityville Horror, by Jay Anson. It told the story of paranormal experiences endured by George and Kathy Lutz and their three children, who lived for twenty-eight days in a house in Amityville, New York, where a notorious mass murder had occurred a few years before. The Lutz's claimed they were forced to flee in terror from the house, although there has been a lot of skepticism over the years regarding those claims. The book was a best seller.

I haven't read the novel, so I don't know what changes were made in Sandor Stern's screenplay. James Brolin and Margo Kidder portray George and Kathy Lutz, along with Rod Steiger, Don Stroud, Helen Shaver, Michael Sacks, Amy Wright, John Larch, Murray Hamilton and Irene Daley. 

Although I'd rewatched this film a few times on cable back in the 1980's and 90's, and knew everything that was going to happen, it was always an enjoyable watch. The film is practically free of violence, a big plus for me, and quite surprising, considering the subject matter and the era in which it was made. And Brolin and Kidder are both talented, likeable actors. So, when I recently found a used DVD copy at a flea market for two bucks, I gladly picked it up.

 Chalk it up to the cynicism that comes with advanced age, or over saturation with the horror genre, but watching the film this time around proved to be more of a laugh fest than anything else. It started with Lalo Schifrin's theme music. The voices of children singing "La-la" were combined with discordant, unsettling music and replayed incessantly throughout the movie. This gimmick may have been considered creepy at the time, but now comes off as a cliche or even a parody. The film also seemed to move along too fast with its possession theme. Almost as soon as the family has moved into the accursed abode, Dad begins to take on the appearance and personality of Charlie Manson on a really bad day. And Mom is waking up in the middle of the night screaming: "He shot her in the HEAD!!!" Not to mention the youngest daughter taking up with a demonic imaginary (?) friend who obviously doesn't have the family's best interests at heart. 

Acclaimed actor Rod Steiger does his Method actor best as a priest, also Kidder's uncle, who comes over to bless the house and is beset by a satanic swarm of flies. Watching this sequence after so many years, I wondered why I didn't see how ridiculous it was. But the movie and its evil entities aren't yet finished with Steiger. As the enterprising Amityville demons have apparently taken control of the telephone lines, the concerned priest is unable to call Kidder to warn her about the flies, and presumably other possible problems. So, he goes into his church to offer prayers at the altar, only to have the aforementioned demonic forces use their far-reaching powers shake up the place, literally, and cause a piece of falling plaster from an overhead angel to blind him. When we last see Father Steiger, he's sitting on a park bench looking bewildered and defeated. It's not clear if he's acting or just exhausted from making this movie. 

Since Kidder's character is a Catholic, some boneheaded wardrobe mistress thought it would be a good idea to show this married mother of three children dressed in what appears to be a typical Catholic schoolgirl's uniform of the era, in a scene where she's just come home with a load of groceries. I remember this rather bizarre clothing choice being mentioned by at least one critic when the film was first released. But the biggest laugh of all is when Helen Shaver visits the house of horror for the first time. Shaver's character, apparently gifted with more psychic abilities than all the witches in the history of Salem Massachusetts, wanders through the house in a wide-eyed daze. Her paranormal powers lead her into the basement. Pointing to a wall, she announces excitedly that she's located the spot where the spirits enter the house. Then, like any considerate houseguest would do, she grabs an ax and starts tearing into the wall. Miss Shaver, no doubt trying hard for a Best Supporting Actress nomination, gives that wall everything she's got.

The film does have many well-conceived and very horrific moments. The early scenes that depict the murders of the family are very frightening and remain some of the most memorable images. One of the most effective scenes is when Amy Wright, playing a babysitter left with the youngest daughter, gets locked in a closet by the evil imaginary friend while the little girl sits motionless and allows it to happen. The feeling of claustrophobia and terror is palpable, and Wright plays her role perfectly. And I have to admit the onslaught of special effects during the climax are impressive and exciting. 

In spite of my newly acquired cynicism, I continue to like this very popular movie and will no doubt want to pop some popcorn and watch it again. After a few Bacardi & Cokes, I may find myself singing the La-la theme along with the kiddies and having a great time.

Notes From the Movie Room August 18, 2024

 

🎬 BOX SET BLUES 

We collectors of physical media do have our occasional mishaps. Problems generally occur when we send for items through the mail; packages may be damaged, DVDs/Blu-rays/4Ks may be scratched, or worse yet, missing from the package! I've had some DVDs that were totally blank, a nice, shiny disc with absolutely nothing on it. And definitely a few torn boxes or cracked plastic cases. All part of the glorious game, my friends. If you're dealing with a reputable, honest dealer or company, it's usually possible to get replacements or refunds as needed. But for me, buying items from a store has always been a positive experience. Until recently. I was browsing through my local Barnes & Noble, or, as I like to call it, my home away from home, and decided to pick up a box set called JOHN WAYNE: THE FOX WESTERNS, which contains four films the legendary actor made for 20th Century-Fox: THE BIG TRAIL (1930), NORTH TO ALASKA (1960), THE COMANCHEROS (1961) and THE UNDEFEATED (1969). My main reason for buying the set was for THE BIG TRAIL, which I had never seen. I had seen the other three films, and even owned a copy of NORTH TO ALASKA.

As fate, and the trickster gods of physical media would have it, THE BIG TRAIL 2-disc set contained two copies of the same disc. And it just happened to be the disc that did NOT feature the widescreen 70 MM movie with audio commentary and several other extras. My disc(s) had the small screen remastered movie only. No complaints about the movie, which I did watch. It had excellent imagery and sound, and I loved the film. But I did intend to get a refund, if possible, and buy another copy. I checked the B&N website, and they had other copies available, so I went back to the store intending to order one, as they didn't have any more box sets in stock. The folks at B&N were very understanding and there was no problem with the transaction. 

A few days later, the store informed me that my package was available for pickup. When I opened the package at home, I found that I had exactly the same problem as before. This was really hard to believe. I mean, what are the odds? Long story short: I took it back, they were very nice, and I got a refund. They also told me they would contact the powers that be and inform them that something had gone wrong with the robots at the factory. This was a minor hassle, and certainly disappointing. But, hey, this is truly a first-world issue, and I can't say I was all that upset. Besides, I found out that THE BIG TRAIL is out on Blu-ray, so I will search out a copy.

I had a much happier experience with another box set I ordered recently from Oldies.com: M SQUAD: THE COMPLETE SERIES-SPECIAL EDITION. From Timeless Media Group. This was an NBC series that ran from 1957 to 1960, and starred Lee Marvin as Chicago plainclothes cop Frank Ballinger. It's hard to believe, but this is one TV show from the Golden Age that I never even heard of until fairly recently. I came across a few episodes on Youtube and really got into it. The best way I can describe it is: PETER GUNN (1958-1961) on steroids. M SQUAD is a little grittier than the dark, moody, noirish PETER GUNN. And Marvin is much more edgy than the gentile Craig Stevens. However, both shows feature terrific jazz scores. I've only started digging into the first season, but I've already seen guest stars like Mike Conners, Bobby Driscoll, Deforest Kelley and even the enigmatic Benito Carruthers from John Cassavetes' SHADOWS. Not to mention a couple of familiar faces from B-horror flicks: Paul Birch from NOT OF THIS EARTH (1957) and Peggy Webber from THE SCREAMING SKULL (1958). That's one of the best things about exploring old TV shows, seeing who turns up in the casts. 

If you don't hear from me in a while, it's because I'm in serious binge mode.

WHITE HEAT (1949)

This classic Warner Brothers picture was directed by Rauol Walsh, and stars James Cagney, Virginia Mayo, Edmund O'Brien, Steve Cochran, Margaret Wycherly, John Archer and Fred Clark. One of the greatest gangster pictures ever made, WHITE HEAT showcases Jimmy Cagney is what is undoubtedly the most complex role of his career. As Cody Jarrett, he is so thoroughly flawed, he is practically a textbook case of criminal psychosis. Cruel and violent to the extreme, Cody is also unwholesomely attached to his mother and in mortal fear of ending up like his father, who died in an asylum.

Cody and his gang rob a mail train and kill several men. One of the gang members is seriously injured. They return to their hideout where Ma Jarrett (Wycherly) and Cody's wife, Verna (Mayo) await. Cody leaves his injured man to die while the rest of them take off. When the police catch up to Cody, he decides to confess to a lesser crime that was actually committed by a henchman at the same time as the train robbery. That way, Cody will serve a lighter prison sentence and establish an alibi as well. An undercover officer (O'Brien) is planted as Cody's cell mate in order to get evidence tying him to the train robbery. The plot, as they say, thickens. Considerably. There is enough double crossing going on with these characters to confuse Raymond Chandler. And the "white heat" of the title will become spectacularly evident in the film's final moments.

Cagney is well supported by stage actress Wycherly as the cold, tough-as-nails Ma Jarrett who, in the perverse universe of this movie is the true femme fatale, not Verna. While Verna is a duplicitous wife, it is Ma who has control over Cody's life and criminal activities. Sexy Virginia Mayo is perfectly matched by sly, seductive Steve Cochran, one of the gang members, who takes over Cody's wife and then tries to take over the business while Cody is in prison.

WHITE HEAT is a perfect example of Film Noir, not just for the cinematography, but for the psychological turmoil of the characters, primarily Cody and Ma. There is also a lot of location footage shot in and around Los Angeles that adds much realism and excitement to the film. 

Essential viewing for the student of Film Noir! Don't pass this one up!

"Made it, Ma! Top of the world!"

 

Notes From the Movie Room June 17, 2024

 

🎬 Imagine, if you will, the sheer horror of loading a beloved DVD into your Blu-ray player, a DVD that you've watched and enjoyed multiple times for years and discovering that it no longer plays. Imagine the sadness, the overwhelming feeling of deprivation, the near hysteria that can overtake a movie freak at such a moment. This happened to me recently when I tried to play my copy of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962), the classic Bette Davis/Joan Crawford thriller. 

The 2-disc DVD is part of the Bette Davis Collection: Volume 2 from Warner Home Video. This was the first time it refused to play. Weirdly enough, the second disc, which has the extra features, still plays with no problem. At least, for now. I keep hearing people in the Youtube physical media collectors' community talking about similar problems with Warner DVD releases. The only previous problem I had was with one of the double feature discs in one of the Film Noir box sets, where the second feature wouldn't play. I own all the Film Noir box sets and so many other Warner releases. It's been a while since I played most of these classic films, so I may have other unpleasant surprises waiting for me.

Replacing BABY JANE on a Blu-ray was a no brainer for me. One can only suffer from Davis/Crawford withdrawal for a short while until medical and/or psychological intervention becomes necessary. So, I picked up a copy from Oldies.com. All the extra features are on this release. I'm hoping this is an isolated experience that won't be repeated, but I have a sinking feeling that won't be the case. I'm not even sure how many of these classics, including all the Noirs, have been released on Blu-ray. I doubt seriously that most of the early, more obscure Bette Davis and Joan Crawford films will be remastered for Blu-ray. But that may happen eventually.

  🎬 I'm arriving very late to the party regarding the 1990-91 TV series TWIN PEAKS. I picked up this box set a few years ago, started watching it, and only made it through the first disc. It was enjoyable, but I just got distracted. So, I recently decided to start again from the beginning, and have completed the first four discs. Binging TWIN PEAKS can be an unsettling experience. But I'm enjoying its weirdness and want to see all of the mysteries get solved. I've been a David Lynch fan ever since I saw ERASERHEAD at a midnight movie in a local theater back around 1979. I even picked up the 2017 sequel when it was on sale at Barnes & Noble. This will take a while to get through, because binging, for me, can get old really fast.

This series first played thirty-four years ago, and yet I think of it as "modern" television. That's because my connection with whatever may-or-may-not be on TV has been severed for a very long time. I don't say that to sound like an elitist. It's really just a matter of practicality. I worked what's known as "second shift" most of my life. That means, usually, 3 PM-11 PM, or, for much of my working life, 3:30 PM-Midnight. This goes all the way back into the 1970s before the advent of home video. As someone who spent a lot of happy hours watching TV while growing up, probably way too many hours, I found myself cut off from the world of Prime Time. And I can't remember missing it all that much, to be honest. When the VHS era started, I was able to record occasional shows, but, still, that continuity with sitting and watching TV night after night was broken. Even on my nights off, I rarely watched anything. One major exception was SEINFELD. I discovered it one night when I had an unexpected night off and totally fell in love with that insane show, and now own the entire series. But that's about it. Even after nine years of retirement, I never even think about sitting down to watch an evening of television shows, network or otherwise. That's not to say that I haven't seen anything. But on those rare occasions when I find myself channel surfing, I haven't found much that captures my interest. I remember my dad talking about THE X-FILES, and he kept telling me I should start recording it. Eventually, I did start watching and collecting that show, after it had gone off the air. I still haven't watched many of the episodes. My evenings at home usually consist of relaxing in the movie room and watching old favorite movies from the collection or new titles, many of which are first watches. And I also watch old TV favorites that I remember from my lost youth, not to mention a lot of shows from the old days that I never got to see. For the most part, I continue to live in the cultural past, and I'm very happy to be there. But TWIN PEAKS, that "new" and much-discussed show, has entered into my radar. I am intrigued.

JACKIE 2016

 

Natalie Portman deserves a lot of credit, and, some would say, an Academy Award, for the hard work she put into doing an imitation of Jacqueline Kennedy during the time of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, funeral, and the immediate aftermath. Miss Portman has the hair, makeup and early 1960s Jackie-esque fashion style down pat. She even strives, with somewhat mixed results, to imitate Mrs. Kennedy's soft, breathy speaking voice. As she is in nearly every scene in the film, her acceptance by audiences is crucial. 

The film begins shortly after the death and burial of JFK with the former First Lady giving an interview in which she attempts to either tell the truth, or fabricate a version, of the events of the assassination and give a summation of her husband's legacy. Her verbal sparring with the journalist (Billy Crudup) is interspersed with her memories of what happened on November 22, 1963, and the terrible days that followed.

Like many contemporary films that deal with historical figures and events, JACKIE does not tell its story in a linear pattern. Director Pablo Larrain jumps back and forth in time, almost scene by scene, showing various events during the years of the Kennedy presidency. One event that is carefully recreated is the tour of the White House conducted in 1961 by Mrs. Kennedy for television. The grainy black & white imagery looks very authentic, and for those of us who remember seeing the actual broadcast, the effort is indeed impressive. I would take issue, however, with the way the film portrays Mrs. Kennedy as somewhat awkward and unsure of herself. That is not how I remember it, and I have a copy of the broadcast that shows her being very gracious and dignified.

The depiction of this televised tour is one example of why I have problems with this film. Many of the characterizations don't ring true for me. My memories get in the way. When JFK was killed, I was twelve years old. Like so many in my generation, the events of that terrible week are ingrained forever in my mind and in my heart. John and Jackie have become almost mythical figures to me. No actors, no matter how talented, could ever convincingly portray them and cause me to care and respond as I still do to the authentic news coverage of those days. When it comes to President Kennedy and his First Lady, I have no objectivity. The sum total of what I believe about them, and what I wish to continue to believe, is contained in the reality TV footage from that historical era.

Jacqueline Kennedy was already a celebrity in her own right while she was in the White House, appearing on the covers of magazines, including movie magazines. As the years went on, and she reinvented herself as Jackie Onassis, her fame was stronger than ever. To me, however, she became less important. It was always nice to see pictures of her and hear the latest gossip, but her relevance was minimal. But when she died so unexpectedly at the age of sixty-four, my feelings about her changed. Suddenly, it was as though Jackie O had never existed. The beautiful lady who had passed away was Jacqueline Kennedy. I remembered how important she had been to my country, and I mourned for her. The rush of sadness I felt for losing her surprised and overwhelmed me.

I went to see JACKIE hoping to be moved by the familiar story and the performance of the leading actress, but I was not. Natalie Portman spends much of her time wandering through beautiful rooms, arrayed in gorgeous clothes, a dazed look on her face. The film does have its moments, however. The recreation of the shooting is very well realized. And there is an extended conversation between Jackie and brother-in-law Robert Kennedy (Peter Sarsgaard), where the two disagree about plans for the funeral, that comes across with excellent effect. 

The film has many good actors. Beth Grant, always a welcome presence in a movie, is perfectly cast as Lady Bird Johnson, but not much is seen of her. John Hurt is very good as a Catholic priest whom Jackie confides in before her husband's funeral. And Billy Crudup makes the most of his screen time as the journalist. Pablo Larrain is also responsible for directing the 2021 film SPENCER, a decidedly bizarre meditation on the life and trials of Princess Diana.

Many people who see JACKIE will no doubt find it poignant and realistic. And most people will love Natalie Portman's work. As for me, I choose to keep my memories as they are. Truth be told, I can't help it.