Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Johan Dondokambey A great story about a talent in art. Still this story tells the same old song about most of the talented minds in the world, that their success doesn't guarantee they get it better in everything else in life. The screenplay is developed nicely to encompass the life stages of Pollock. The scenes feel balanced in dividing between the New York Years and the country years, the years before marriage, the married years, and even the dysfunctional marriage years. I like to see the consistent character delve done by Ed Harris here. Marcia Gay Harden also did a great job in getting into character and also getting into the the ways of the era. Jennifer Connelly and the other supporting character also give a nice addition to the movie overall. Yet the movie feels to much like Pollock's mind, empty, lonely and troubled, that it seemed a very unlikely entertainment for me.

maryszd I always try to catch this film when it's on TV, but I always stop watching before its terrible ending. Jackson Pollock was a great artist, thanks in no small part to his shrewd wife, Lee Krasner. She was the intermediary between this disturbed and ultimately psychotic man and the sophisticated New York art world that never knew quite what to make of him. Compared to today, the postwar New York art scene looks quaintly innocent. All it took was some pontificating by Clement Greenberg and a spread in Life magazine to make Pollock's career. Ed Harris plays Pollock well, and the scenes where he actually paints are fascinating. The film also does a does a good job of showing how artists actually lived in fifties in New York. By today's standards, it was a grubby life in dilapidated walk-ups painted in the harsh, cheap white paint favored by cheap landlords. But it was possible to be poor and still live in Manhattan. In a way, Krasner did her job too well. Pollock was emotionally unprepared for his fame and it sent him (and ultimately poor, innocent Edith Metzger who had the bad luck to be in his car at the wrong time) over the deep end. Pollock is an honest movie that is obviously a labor of love on the part of director Harris and the actors whose performances are excellent.

namashi_1 A biopic on American Painter, Jackson Pollock. 'Pollock' is a terrible letdown, because the late-icon himself was one disappointed man. As a cinematic experience, this one's a major letdown! Ed Harris stars as Pollock, whose entire life comes across as depressing. Harris, the actor, is in form. But Harris, the filmmaker chooses the wrong subject. Cinema is a different medium altogether. We watch movies to get entertained. And biopics, mostly, have been hugely engaging experiences. But this biopic, is simply bland! Ed Harris's direction is dull. Can't blame him, cause his biopic is upon a dull person. The Cinematography doesn't strike either. In the acting department, Harris lives his part and becomes the late icon. But the show belongs to Marcia Gay Harden, who delivers a knock-out performance as Pollock's wife. She is the life of the show! Jennifer Connelly, in a brief role, looks stunning! Val Kilmer makes an appearance.On the whole, 'Pollock' doesn't work as a cinematic experience. Thumbs Down!

James Farley This film solidly portrays a very sad subject. The technical aspects are excellent. The camera work is great, the acting is professional, and the story is probably as tight and relevant as it can be. Ed Harris has done a first class job in capturing and expressing the essence of the thing. The problem is the thing itself, Jackson Pollock the man, his work, and life.Jackson Pollock is presented as the quintessential artist debilitated by alcoholism and a burning talent. Perhaps his alcoholism is a damper to the intensity of his artistic vision which burns too brightly or, perhaps there is a hint of childhood difficulty, parental abuse or indifference which is never actually revealed in the movie. A cursory study of Pollock's real life shows the reason it is never revealed is because it doesn't exist. Pollock was, if anything, a well indulged child who perhaps resented his lack of struggle. The film incidentally displays that Pollock was an alcoholic for the simple reason that he lacked self-control and had no desire and no incentive to mature. We see his alcoholic rants initiated by something that discomfits his comfortable life in some small way. Some act of people in his life expressing or acting an independent will triggers an infantile cry from the drunkard, a whining insistence that everyone must his will, not their own. In one scene a drunken Pollock is riding his bicycle to his house, balancing a case of beer bottles between the handlebars while simultaneously attempting to drink one. He is distracted by a passing vehicle, loses his precarious balance and falls to the destruction of the entire case. I suppose that Mr. Harris was trying to create a metaphor of Pollock's life in this scene and, as with the film in total, he accidentally succeeded. He meant us to see a tragic figure losing control of a precariously balanced life, but instead we see a stupid man come to the logical conclusion of a juvenile misadventure.Along with the man is his art. Many people observe the Pollock's work and don't like it. They keep their negative opinion to themselves while assured by others that his works are significant and deep and therefore difficult to fathom except by highly educated initiates with keener insight and greater knowledge. This movie does a masterful job of revealing how pointless and stupid Pollock's work actually is. We are treated to representations of his manner and method of creation. At first he squiggles brush strokes onto canvas without pattern or purpose until he creates a confused tangle of squiggles and stripes of discordant colors. Then, one day, in a flash of accidental inspiration he discovers that brushing the paint on is a waste of time – he can dribble and splash a confused tangle of splashes and splotches much more efficiently than with a brush. Voila! Genius – or perhaps the opposite, depending upon your viewpoint.Pollock is supported by his long-suffering wife, portrayed convincingly by Marcia Gay Harden and his sponsor, Peggy Guggenheim, portrayed equally well by Amy Madigan along with a host of other characters including his mother, brothers, sycophantic art critics and colleagues. One wonders all the more at his own supposed "suffering" as he lives the free ride, consistently supported monetarily and nurtured emotionally by a host of women and effeminate males who ooh and ahh at his every incontinence and endure his childish abuse slavishly. This story goes on for two long hours until we finally get to the end where the drunken narcissist drives himself and an innocent victim to their senseless, violent deaths, along with his mistress, who survived by sheer chance.Before I saw this film I knew that I didn't like Pollock's work. Having seen this film I know that I don't like Pollock himself either. How sad for us all.