Jackie

First Hit:  It was a confusingly powerful portrayal of Jackie Kennedy during a most difficult time.

Confusing because my media biased view of Jackie consisted of a refined elegance and intelligence gained through a wealthy upbringing. This was challenged by the oddly phrased and pronounced speech along with the way she approached the challenges during this time. Although the assassination was an extremely traumatic event and the brief window this film uses to introduce us to Jackie is small, there was an oddity to the character that left me both confused and interestingly engaged.

Jackie (Natalie Portman) didn’t invent anything, didn't lead any social movements (non-profit or otherwise) and therefore her famousness comes from being a First Lady that revitalized the interior of The White House and that her popular husband was publicly assassinated in a short lived Presidency. The only visibility the public had of her was through the media. Glimpses of her as first lady, giving a tour of The White House, mother of Caroline and John, as a grieving widow, and dating and marrying Aristotle Onassis a Greek shipping tycoon. Regardless, the public had fascination about her and it is this attraction that probably led to this film.

This film’s timeframe is short. It begins with a post assassination interview by a journalist (Billy Crudup) as the vehicle for Jackie to share the truth as she saw it. To speak about the events of assassination, the funeral, and her time in The White House while hinting at Jack’s (John Fitzgerald Kennedy as played by Casper Phillipson) sexual indiscretions during their marriage. The film also interlays filmed sequences of her famous White House television tour, which gave many people their first look at the President’s famous home.

I enjoyed the way it was filmed in that the scenes were rich with the look of the early 1960s. Additionally, I liked the scenes of the tour. These scenes moved from the film’s richly colored set to the grainy and hazy black and white images that appeared on most television screens.

At times, I found Jackie to be very superficial by worrying so much about what something looked like and not caring so much about substance, to be followed by times where the complexities of her thinking came across as deep and intellectual, like the clarity of finding the right space to bury her husband. I never met her and because I only knew of her from the media, I’ve no way of knowing how closely Portman mimicked or embodied the role.

Her focus on making sure that Jack didn’t become just another “oil portrait on the wall” but that he stood for something was brought forth many times by her and Jack’s brother Bobby (Peter Sarsgaard). Supporting Jackie throughout the film was her assistant Nancy Tuckerman (Greta Gerwig), her closest confidant.

Although I wondered about the lack of tension and reasons why I was watching the film, I couldn’t wait to see what was going to happen next because there was an air of unpredictability in her voice and intention. As she states to a priest after the assassination, that her life was over and that she would spend the rest of her life waiting for it to be really over. This came across in the film and it was believable.

Portman was either amazing or created an odd characterization of this famous name. Again, I don’t know and given what I’ve seen and how Portman delivers performances, I’m going to say it was an amazing performance at an award-winning level. Crudup was interesting because his reactions to Jackie during the interview were, at times, priceless. An example was her telling the journalist that she doesn’t smoke as she lights up her 10th cigarette in a row was great. Sarsgaard was very good as Bobby. He was feisty and protective of his brother and what they were doing together, which matched my media understanding of him through the 1960s. Gerwig was very good. I loved her supportive actions including the visual reminders for Jackie to smile. Noah Oppenheim wrote a very strong script. Pablo Larrain’s direction was straightforward and no punches were pulled. The interspersed views of the assassination were excellent – especially the last one.

Overall:  This film isn’t for everyone and for people who have no connection to Jackie or didn’t live during her lifetime, it may not work

The Divergent Series: Allegiant

First Hit:  As the second to last film in this series, it moves the storyline along and was watchable.

Series films have become prominent fare being produced by Hollywood. Originality appears to be too risky and studios are banking on a prior successful story-lines, many times with the same actors, to produce dollars.

There are series films that have done well and grow in their story-line and presentation. Some are sequential types of films where the story develops over time (e.g. Rocky). Other use the same actors and/or their characters in new situations (e.g. James Bond films). Two of the latest series sets are The Hunger Games series and the Divergent series.

Both of these film series have heroines, use young actors, but the major difference between film number 3 for both these, is that Divergent is watchable and has a plot, whereas The Hunger Games was barely more than a set-up for the fourth film and virtually unwatchable.

Acting wise there are stronger actors in The Hunger Games however the script and possibly the direction let them down.

In this Divergent film, we find Tris (Shailene Woodley) disliking the change in leadership of their community and with this wants to breakthrough the wall surrounding Chicago to find out what else exists. In a daring escape she and Four (Theo James), Christina (Zoe Kravitz), Caleb (Ansel Elgort), and Peter (Miles Teller), go over the wall and end up in the Bureau of Genetic Welfare where Tris meets and begins working with David (Jeff Daniels).

As the façade of David is exposed, Four heads back to Chicago to help his mother Evelyn (Naomi Watts) sort through the problems of governing a division free Chicago.

Woodley is good enough in this film and I don’t know if it was the script, direction or her abilities that lowered my interest and caring about her character. James was consistent in his role and was one of the better characters. Teller was also very consistent, not only in this film, but through all of them. Elgort seemed amateurish in his portrayal of Caleb. Daniels was sufficiently strong as the antagonist. Watts was OK in a role that seemed unrealistic in its portrayal. Noah Oppenheim and Adam Cooper wrote this mediocre script. Robert Schwentke did a fair job of keeping the film moving along despite the lack of solid substance.

Overall:  This film wasn’t completely lost and hopefully its conclusion in June of 2017 will work better.

The Maze Runner

First Hit:  Possibilities existed but were wasted in a poorly written script with a lack of background to give the story context.

I get why the pre-teens and teenagers in the audience clapped at the end of the showing I attended. There was enough there that would appeal to a younger audience.

Young attractive actors, fighting against an unknown master, fear of the unknown, and kids their age being left to fend for themselves. There was a “Lord of the Flies” sense about it, yet where Lord focused on change and how it happens, here we have little substance and even less character development.

However, what I really struggled with was context. Even at the end when you get some context, and there wasn’t enough good information that would make me want to see the sequel (pointedly announced by the storyline). There is little information to make this story intellectually interesting and it doesn’t develop much in the way of curiosity.

There are moments where I could have been attentive but it faded away as lightweight fare with a weak script. From a filming standpoint, it also could have been more interesting by giving more in-depth views of the square area they lived in and I would have enjoyed more maze scenes where the boys were figuring out the maze.

Dylan O’Brien (as Thomas) was a reasonable main character but the script and story wasn’t there for development. Aml Ameen (as Alby) was the leader of this community because he was the first person sent to the area and as such commanded respect. He carried this load fairly well. Ki Hong Lee (as a runner) was OK, but again I think the story line was too weak to support good acting. Blake Cooper (as the youngish Chuck) was one of the better characters in the entire film – there was a realness to him that made it work. Thomas Brodie-Sangster (as Newt) was good, but again more could have been done to create a character. Will Poulter (as Gally) was the most dynamic person in the film but his role was predictable. Lastly, Kaya Scodelario (as Teresa) - the only girl, had a limited role and was OK. She brought some fun to the film at her arrival. Noah Oppenheim and Grant Pierce Myers wrote this poorly conceived and executed script. Wes Ball did a poor job of directing this poorly imagined film.

Overall:  It was bored most of the time although there were moments of interest when the maze was featured.