It wasn't her first role, but playing Queen Padme Amidala in "Star Wars: Episode I —The Phantom Menace" certainly put Natalie Portman's career on everyone's radar.

It speaks well of her, if not the movie, that it's not what she's known for. With a string of good performances (and an Oscar nomination for "Closer") Portman, 28, is better known simply as a really good actress.

That continues in "Brothers," in which she plays a Marine Corps wife whose husband (Tobey Maguire) is believed killed in action; in her mourning, she becomes close to his ne'er-do-well brother (Jake Gyllenhaal). Trouble mounts when her husband returns home.

Portman recently talked about the role, as well as how a good movie comes about, and managing to stay out of tabloid trouble.

Question: In a movie like this, is there more responsibility to get it right, in terms of military families?

Answer: You're definitely more respectful and accurate of what it's like, and (to) not fall into stereotypes and be true to the wide variety of experiences and backgrounds that people have who are in the military, when portraying them. It can often be stereotyped in public perception and certainly film.

Q: You played it with a sort of straight-ahead, naturalistic approach — just sort of getting through the day.

A: The thing I most got from the women I spoke to, the military wives I spoke to, is that their job is to make sure that everything keeps going, that life continues as normal (as possible), because the kids are (thrown) off when there's a disruption. And it's obviously a huge disruption to have your dad go away. So it's the focus of the women to really keep everything under control and to keep life as usual, and also for their husbands, to make sure they're not worried about anything. They can focus on their jobs overseas.

Q: You had to develop chemistry not just with one leading man, but two, and at the same time. Was that challenging?

A: It was good, and it was easier because I've known both Jake and Tobey for a really long time. We all sort of grew up together in a way, not being best friends or anything, but I've known both of them for more than 10 years. So there's a level of familiarity, which is really helpful.

Q: The movie was intense. Was the set looser?

A: It wasn't necessarily very jokey, but it was definitely a pretty easy-going set, compared to the material we were dealing with. You definitely do need to let off the steam a little bit. You can save the intensity for the scene.

Q: What do you look for in choosing a role? Is there a grand scheme?

A: I don't really have any plans. But yeah, the criterion is usually that it's different and interesting and challenging, and I haven't done (it) before. Characters can be really different, too. The thing I did after this is the Don Roos film ("Love and Other Impossible Pursuits") that hasn't come out yet. That was also a drama, but definitely a very different character. Sort of defeatist.

Q: Can you tell a movie is good when you're making it?

A: I can't at all. It really, I feel like, always happens in the editing room. That's why, whether it comes out good or bad, you sort of can't take credit for it. It's the director, really. A good director and a bad director can take the same material and make a masterpiece and a complete failure. Probably like any kind of craft. You trust in your director, but they're human, too. Even the best ones falter.

Q: You're a high-profile person, but you're not always the subject of tabloid fodder. It that difficult to avoid?

A: Yeah. It's become more so, because there's just so much that's out there now. At the same time, the amount of information out there now makes everything less important, because there's so much. I'm definitely careful of where I go. You sort of know where people hang out. It's not that bad.