'Jackie' had a great story on paper going for it, based on the aftermath and impact on Jackie Kennedy of one of the most interesting and shocking events in history.

While it does have some great merits, 'Jackie' didn't do much for me, instead leaving me rather lukewarm. On the whole it doesn't do a good job doing a potentially great story justice, feeling rather Cliff Notes and overwrought with very little insight. The best thing about it is the performance of Natalie Portman which is brilliant and was deserving of its acclaim. Portman has never looked lovelier and clearly did her homework, with her performance seeming much more real than just a mere imitation or caricature.

Other members of the cast also fare well, with good performances from Beth Grant and Greta Gerwig and Casper Phillipson does well in his limited screen time. Faring best is the sincere and quite poignant (when reminded that he took this role not long before succumbing to pancreatic cancer) performance of John Hurt.

There are a few good scenes. The footage scenes of the Kennedys is where 'Jackie' is at its most interesting, while the air-plane, mannequin and shopping windows and Malick reference scenes (as agreed with a previous reviewer) are powerful moments. The other most impressive assets are the production and costume design and make-up, beautiful to look at and evocative.

However, not all the casting works. Billy Crudup is stiff and lifeless as a pointless character in scenes that are out of place and confuse the structure of the story. Peter Sarsgaard, normally a reliable actor, is aside from being physically wrong for Bobby at his most wooden. Richard E Grant was odd casting as well.

A big problem was agreed the music score. Too intrusive, far too loud (drowning out the dialogue),dirge-like and repetitive. The only good part was the Cassals piece, speaking as a lover of the cello and having it as my second instrument (singing is my passion). Even my dad (a cellist and conductor) said "I can most likely write better music than that and I can't even compose!" For all the work that went into most of the production values, it was cheapened somewhat by some sloppy and haphazard editing with shots that didn't flow that well from scene to scene. Too many close ups too, some serving no point. The direction is pretty insipid, as is the overwrought and half-baked dialogue that is masked by sound quality that vastly favours the music over the dialogue.

Sadly, the slight story also didn't grip. Intimacy is mistaken for tedium and there is very little that's illuminating or new, nothing that we don't know already and the film fails to make the characters interesting (while one cannot fault Portman's performance even Jackie was written in a shallow way).

The interview scenes don't belong and confuse the story structure in the earlier parts of the film. Some other scenes are pointless, especially an overlong and weird scene with Jackie looking very glamorous and behaving neurotically accompanied by the very ill-fitting "Camelot", that belonged in a completely different film altogether. Could have done without Jackie being covered in blood, that was far too melodramatic and gratuitous, at least to me. All this felt like padding and dragged the film down.

In conclusion, not awful but didn't do much for me, very mixed feelings. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Former first lady Jackie Kennedy (Natalie Portman) is being interviewed by a reporter (Billy Crudup) after the event. After her husband was killed in Dallas, Lyndon B. Johnson is installed as the new President. Bobby Kennedy (Peter Sarsgaard) and assistant Nancy Tuckerman (Greta Gerwig) try to console her. She has a heated exchange with a priest (John Hurt). She maneuvers the uncertain times after the assassination and in the process, creates the legacy of Camelot.

There is something compelling about Natalie Portman's performance. It's more than mimicry. She has a sense of Jackie's upper class persona. The loss feels real. There isn't quite as much in terms of plot. There are also aspects that feel manufactured. John Hurt is a great actor but his scenes have an unreal quality. They are too close when they speak and their exchange is too written. It should be a high point but it fails to reach those heights. This is well made but not that dramatic.

"Jackie" is a co-production between Chile, France and the United States and the first English-language movie by Pablo Larraín, the director of the Oscar-nominated "No". The writer is Noah Oppenheim and for him it is his third work as a screen writer after "The Maze Runner" and "Allegiant". More big names worked on this one, such as producer Darren Aronofsky. This 100-minute film is among the bigger awards players this season. Natalie Portman, who plays the title character, has won a lot for her performance and until her loss at the Golden Globes (to Huppert),she was a true contender in the Best Actress category. Even now, a win is still possible, her second Oscar win. The movie is nominated for 2 more Oscars, which shows that the Academy is fond of it. The cast includes other known names like Peter Sarsgaard, Greta Gerwig (in an unusual role compared to what I have seen her in),Billy Crudup and the late John Hurt in one of his final performances. First of all, it needs to be said that this is no Jackie Kennedy biopic. This is a movie that deal with the woman's life in the hours before her husband was murdered and in the weeks after. It is not about her husband. of course, there are scenes that relate more to him than to her, but overall the focus is much more on Jackie. These scenes would be the killing of course (the emotional highlight of the film),the way how his killer gets killed or also some of the political context, like Johnson taking over and references about the Cold War.

But the fact that there are also references about Jackie's two dead children and that she is basically in every single scene of the film show who is the central character here. The movie also really only focuses on what happened after the assassination. Chapters of her like like Onassis are not included. About Portman, I think she was pretty good. I am sometimes a bit undecided when it comes to her if I like her or not, but she deserves the Oscar nomination I think. Not too sure about a possible win though. Looking at how the action depicted in here is already more than half a century old and how all the characters (except the kids perhaps) have died, you can certainly call it a biopic. I think the movie really scores more through informational value and helps you to learn and understand new things instead of really making an emotional impact which also would have been possible. It is as bleak as Jackie's clothes transformation from pink to black in the face of what has already happened. Some parts work very well, some not so much. I am still a bit undecided about a certain historical/mythical reference Jackie keeps making on several occasions about Kennedy's presidency, even in terms of music ("Camelot"). I guess you have to decide for yourself. I myself recommend this movie especially to people old enough that they did not only live in the 1960s when this happened, but were at an age where they still remember it today. These are probably the ones who this film may have the biggest impact on. All in all, I am not wowed by the outcome here, but I am convinced and I think it is worth seeing.