Maybe because I don't know much about Jacqueline Kennedy's personal experience, I am quite interested in this movie that depicts the former first lady of the United States, one of the most famous women in the world. But throughout the film, I only saw Natalie Portman in my eyes. It is true that Natalie's close-ups in various emotions can be used in acting textbooks, but the audience is not a student of the film school, and watching a movie is not an acting class. It takes the audience into historical events and feels the feelings of the characters in the film. correct. There is a big gap with Helen Mirren's "Queen", not because of appearance, not because of body (the difference between the two films' character prototypes and actors is not small), it is aura, aura! As a woman whose first president's husband was shot in her arms, and whose second husband the richest man in the world leaked nude photos of herself, her character should not be limited to just talking to reporters and fussing about funeral pomp. The close-up of the dialogue between Jacqueline and the priest in the second half is a dramatic scene, especially the part where the priest said "There comes a time in man's search for meaning, when one realizes there are no answers. When you come to that horrible unavoidable realization, you accept it, or you kill yourself. Or you simply stop searching." Maybe that's what the director really wanted to express. Anyway, I only saw the state I imagined a woman would be in after losing her husband, not the state I imagined Jackie would be in after losing her husband.
View more about Jackie reviews
