Pollock

2000 "A true portrait of life and art."
7| 2h2m| R| en
Details

In August of 1949, Life Magazine ran a banner headline that begged the question: "Jackson Pollock: Is he the greatest living painter in the United States?" The film is a look back into the life of an extraordinary man, a man who has fittingly been called "an artist dedicated to concealment, a celebrity who nobody knew." As he struggled with self-doubt, engaging in a lonely tug-of-war between needing to express himself and wanting to shut the world out, Pollock began a downward spiral.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever
Mjeteconer Just perfect...
Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated
Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.
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.
Lindsay Thompson 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.
secondtake Pollock (2000)There's no question this is a well made film, and based pretty much on truth, and an interesting truth--the life of a great Abstract Expressionist. Some would say the greatest of them all.For myself, this isn't enough, and I know this is me. I'm an art critic and professor of Art in my real life, and I'm never very patient with movies about artists. The reason isn't that there are inaccuracies, but that there is a subtle or not-subtle goal of aggrandizing the subject. This reaches a beautiful but, again, romanticized, peak when Pollock makes his famous break into true gestural, raw work in a large commissioned piece for Peggy Guggenheim (who is portrayed, oddly, as a shy and dull sort, which I've never pictured). Then later he makes his drip works. And then he dies, again over dramatized and made aesthetic, as tragic and ugly as it had to have been in life.If you want to really get into Pollock's head, especially if you aren't already a fan (I love Pollock's work), this is a convincing movie. At the helm as both director and playing the artist is Ed Harris. He is especially believable as a painter, which is something of an important point. This isn't like those movies about musicians where the actor is clearly not playing. Harris actually paints the darned thing, the big masterpiece, on the cusp of the drip works. I don't know if Harris was drinking, too, but he's a good drunk, and of course Pollock was a better drinker than a painter, even.It's a cheap shot to say a movie could have been shorter, but this one sure would have propelled better with less atmosphere, less filler that is meant to create his life but is interesting only as an illustration of historical facts. It wore me thin for those reasons. Again, it might be a matter of how much you can get sucked into the given drama that is Jackson Pollock's life. It was quite a life, crude, untempered, brave, and immensely connected to what matters as an artist.
photomanvince After revisiting this film 10 years post release, I have to ask myself the following question. Why did the Academy chose Russell Crowe's performance for Best Actor over Ed Harris' portrayal of Jackson Pollock? Mr. Harris perfectly laid bare the tortured soul of Pollock for all to see. Rarely does an actor so seamlessly, and convincingly, exhibit the range of emotions shown in this performance.Equally impressive was Mr. Harris' directorial debut. The story flowed coherently, something that can be said less and less often about films these days, holding the viewer's interest as the characters develop. Performances across the board were first rate and believable.I say, check it out!