This will, hopefully, won best picture. It was phenomenally shot, with flawless styling. Only a few minor editing faults. Well rounded acting, except for Scarsgaurd (seriously a new England accent lost in an Illinois boy?). I think the cinematic tension, especially in the score and camera movement, make this movie brilliant. I haven't seen anything this year that matches our even comes close to competing with this movie. Also keep in mind the academy attaches to artistic history pieces.
Agree about Portman; I couldn't take my eyes off of her, no matter who was in the scene with her. Hope LLL doesn't win; not really Best Picture material.
Monster- It's a story we are all firmiliar with. So no need to sugar coat it in anyway. I agree with some posters that the movie read very slow and choppy. I think it was an artistic choice to make the moments that matter stand out. Which is creatively brilliant. I don't disagree Portman had shining moments. But, she's also been better in other films.
Marj- Yeah, keeping up with other awards doesn't affect the academy's decisions. I am almost certain that of this makes the category, which gets released soon, it'll take the top seat. Though I've seen many predictions for the category and they all evade this movie, I couldn't agree with LA LA LAND winning. We shall see. (Side bar, took a look at your list. Not sure why WITCH is number one. To each its own. The visuals of the Movie outlead most A24 films. Though the subject matter is tension timing contested from many other films. I think it's must see for film fanatics. But IMO not the best of the year.)
It had some great technical directing, with some very clever CGI shots. I frequently found myself admiring things like the reflection of the (real 1963) crowds in the car window that Natalie Portman was gazing through. And therein lies the problem. I was more interested in that, or in how closely the matched Jackie's real White House Tour, or the grisly assassination shots than in anything else. The script was a rambling, largely pointless affair. Portman's tortured attempts to nail Jackie's accent and speech patterns was so effortful that it obliterated the moments where she sorta-kinda (but never really) could have passed. And overall it added up to... what? Stuff all, really. Did we really get any new insight into Jackie, the Kennedys, the assassination, 1960s America, or life generally? No, on all counts. I really can't see why it's nominated as best film, other than for the enormous effort it took to produce in almost every way. For me, it was also an enormous effort to watch it.