Let's be realistic.

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

The first must-see film of the year.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

This is such a powerful piece of work. Ed Harris has clearly devoted a large section of his life to capturing Pollock's story, and his commitment I doubt could have been rivaled by anyone else. His performance is spellbinding - painful, inspired, ugly, and it's hard not to think that he must have really gone there while performing it.It is doubly impressive to wonder how he managed to also direct the film - and direct it with a strong hand and complete assurance - while going to the emotional depths that were required of his performance as Pollock.Particularly enjoyable for a Pollock fan - but enjoyable for anyone that wants to experience an honest and unflinching look into the life of a tormented genius.Highly recommend.

Jackson Pollock (Ed Harris) is famous with a Life magazine cover in 1950. The movie flashes back to 1941. He's a drunk staying in Greenwich Village with his brother and pregnant wife. Artist Lee Krasner (Marcia Gay Harden) shows some interest and becomes his lover/supporter. His brother moves to Connecticut. Jackson breaks down which is why he can't be drafted into the war. Lee takes Jackson home acting more and more like his manager. His work eventually gains the attention of art collector Peggy Guggenheim (Amy Madigan) who gives him an one-man show in 1943. Lee and Jackson decides to move to a country house on Long Island away from the drinking and doing more work. His paintings are still not selling and then the Life article happens. Lee and Jackson have a roller-coaster relationship and then he has an affair with Ruth Kligman (Jennifer Connelly).Ed Harris directs a mostly straight forward biopic of Jackson Pollock with a few fascinating scenes of painting sessions. His directing style doesn't necessarily project Jackson mental breakdowns but his acting is able to bridge the gap. Ed Harris is not the most imaginative director visually but it is overcome by good actors doing good work. It is a good debut directorial effort.

Sitting through Pollock will test the limits of your patience. I admire Ed Harris for taking on the persona of such a complicated individual, but all I saw throughout the entire film was Ed Harris acting drunk and dripping paint. First, Harris was far too old at 49/50 to be playing a man we are supposed to believe is in his 30s and early 40s. Harris' performance was so overshadowed by his admiration for Pollock and his art that it marred the entire film. Marcia Gay Harden certainly deserved her Oscar for her performance as Lee Krasner--the most developed character in the film--but again, the actress was too old for the role. It is two hour biopic that barely touched the surface of a man's extremely complicated relationship with his family, friends, and the art world. A very disappointing film overall.

I'm betting, reading over the other comments about this movie, that anyone will care for what I type here.This movie is boring.Perhaps there is dictum about "artists" in cinema, that "if you don't like the art, you won't like the movie about the artist." Since I just made that up, I doubt there is anything specific like that, but there ought to be, or at least some thing approximate.I don't like Jackson Pollock's art. I don't think that it is art. I think it's interesting splotches on canvass. But it doesn't mean anything to me. The colors are cool, the variations, the variegations, the structure of his paintings, are interesting. Art? No way. Not to me. I need to see an idea, and there none in Pollock's art.This is all as prelude to a thought on the movie: If such a tortured soul as Pollock came up with basically interesting splotches of paint on canvas, then it seems to be a complete waste of a tortured soul.There are long stretches in the film of Ed Harris as Pollock doing not much of anything, other stretches when he's being a drunken fool (urinating in a fireplace during a swanky dinner may be the way to establish a reputation as tortured artist, but in the end it's not exactly polite).Ed Harris is a great actor, he really is. And it seems he's quite an admirer of Pollock. But what Harris is to acting, in my take, Pollock is not the same to painting.I think people who watch this movie probably are artistry fans, which is to mean, loving art for the fact that somewhere, someone has called something "art." Even if it's abject garbage. Sometimes literally.As from the beginning, perhaps it's the person in question: I like Mozart, very much so, and so I very much liked "Amadeus." I like the Doors, very much so, and so I very much liked "The Doors." Still I dislike John Holmes, and yet I liked "Wonderland" quite a bit. Whether Porn Stars rank with artists like Mozart is questionable, though less so when compared with Pollock.Hence, perhaps this movie would be better were it about a better painter. Just throwing ink and paint and other fluids around does not a great painter make.