lonely-chaotic-soul I don't think I'm in the place to rate a biography film. What I kept thinking of, however, all through the movie that not every life should be turned into a film. Some artists' lives should be seperated from their works. The film tells a very unpleasant story that exists behind great art works. I'm a fan of the art work here but definitely not the artist.

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.

G K This is a quietly excellent film, clearly a labour of love for Harris, and far superior to much of the current Hollywood product. It is aimed at educated adults. The film is the life story of acclaimed abstract expressionist artist Jackson Pollock (Ed Harris), including his surrender to alcohol which led to his untimely death.Pollock is a superior biopic about an artist, one that really does try seriously to find a way of conveying the wellspring of creativity. The uncompromising Pollock is played with ferocity by Harris, and his supporting cast do the picture justice. Apart from its other virtues, the film sheds light on the bitchiness and jealousies rampant in the art world - and how some artists play the games of that world more readily than others.

jeremy3 The good part was the acting. Ed Harris was excellent at capturing Pollock's drunkenness, shyness, social awkwardness, arrogance, and passive-aggressive personality. The movie starts out showing Pollock as already a drunkard, but someone born with a gift. He is almost totally autistic, seeming to launch into his own world at the most embarrassing social occasion. As a drunk, he has no guile. He is rude, arrogant, nasty, and cruel. Yet, the same man can be quite kind, passive, and loving at times.The second good part was displaying how Pollock expressed his artistry. The film very well displayed how Pollock just took paints and appeared to throw paint around randomly. A naive person would assume that it was random. Yet, the messy, dripping paint was used by Pollock in a most brilliantly disciplined and focused manner. This rather bland WASPish artist was like a farmer with an extraordinary gift.The third part that was good was the role of Marcia Gay Harden. Playing his wife, she basically recognized his gift, and that's what her love was based upon. She put up with him for too long for her own good, but it was because she knew he had the gift. She wanted him to succeed. She was the woman of the preliberation days, who stuck with her man because she saw something in him that was worthy.Why this movie did not work is that it should have not just started out in 1941, when Jackson Pollock was 29 years old. Due to this mistake, a lot of information was left out to the viewer. I am guessing most of the audience knows who Jackson Pollock was. However, few know his story. So, this becomes a major thorn in the whole movie. The viewer never truly understands why Pollock is the way he is. We understand his extreme moods and Harris' beautiful treatment of his mannerisms. However, we have no idea what made Pollock the way he was.Instead of showing all his tantrums in his adult life, some time should have been devoted to flashbacks of his childhood. We understand that his Mom is an elderly WASPish, proper American. However, that's all we understand. We have no idea who Jackson Pollock is and how he got the way he did. The only thing we understand is that he is a brilliant drunk. This becomes a major detraction in the movie. However, I must say I loved the ending. Harris brilliantly shows how in his irrational drunkard, speeding down the road to destruction behind the wheel, represents Pollock's rage at the public who can never properly appreciate and love the man enough for his liking. However, that is the question that the movie refuses to address. Why did Pollock feel unloved?