I love Jackson Pollock art. And I love Ed Harris. So, I discovered the film as a challenge . And that is it. Because it is not, exactly, a film about art, a pure biopic or fresco of a fight of a genius. It is more. A perspective about Pollock like a confession. Or question. Direct, honest, little bitter. That is all.

There is very little to downright complain about in Pollock - a well made, well acted film made very effectively for its budget. That being said, it is inaccurate to say that the film doesn't drag in places, but it is hard to point the finger and say where something could have been cut. Pollock has a niche in art fans like actor/director/producer Ed Harris, and it is to Harris' credit that he has not dumbed down the movie in order to reach wider appeal. Instead, he has created a film that does justice to the artist and will satisfy art fans. To those who are less than familiar or interested in Pollock the artist, the film still holds a must-see element in the form of Ed Harris' captivating performance as Jackson Pollock. Harris is completely at home in Pollock's skin, whether it is painting in the many techniques of Pollock, or whether he is simultaneously riding a bike, drinking, smoking and opening a bottle, the performance is simply marvelous. This is undoubtedly the performance of Harris' long career and it is a travesty that Russell Crowe took home the Lead Actor Oscar for his generic action hero role. Marcia Gay Harden plays Lee Krasner with conviction, but it is unfortunate that her skill is eclipsed to a great extent by Harris. There are some wonderful moments in her performance, but this is really Harris' show and he pulls it off with great success.

Ed Harris was nominated for an Academy Award for his portrayal of Jackson Pollock. He also directed this pretty average movie. Pollock was the guy who invented the method of flicking paint on-to canvases on the floor. He also poured paint straight from the can. To-day there are art professors who reject Pollock as an artist...but if you want to buy a good Pollock to-day...you better have multi millions of dollars. Ed is O.K. as the alcoholic - manic depressive painter. However, he fails to get to grips with the psyche of the would-be genius. Perhaps the whole cast gave Pollock too much respect. The script does not feel real, and, quite frankly i did not learn much about Pollock the human being. (or Pollack the painter) A movie you see once...then forget about it.

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?