User reviews

The infamous words spoken by Pilate to Jesus of Nazareth come to mind when one ponders the life of John Edgar Hoover. Was he a genius or a tyrant? A patriot or a dictator? A cross dresser or an uptight man with no sex life? Nobody knows for certain, and director Clint Eastwood does not offer a definitive answer to any of these questions, which is exactly as it should be. Life is rarely cut-and-dried, but moviegoers seem to have forgotten that fact in the face of media that state speculation as fact on a regular basis.

I find it not only surprising, but distressing, that a major criticism from those critics who panned the film is the lack of closure on Hoover's private life. Unless they are truly obtuse, they must realize that no film could possibly do such a thing, since his files were destroyed at his own bidding. All is speculation, and a fine speculation it is. Leonardo DiCaprio is superb (as usual) in the title role, never revealing more cards then he chooses to at any given moment. He receives fine support from Armie Hammer as Clyde Tolson, Hoover's Second in Command/Rumored Lover, and Naomi Watts as his endlessly loyal private secretary Helen Gandy. At a time when "red fever" ran high, Hoover's relentlessly tightening control on government investigations is shown in flashbacks that only underscore how supreme power can corrupt even the noblest of intentions.

In the end, the film answers none of the questions that seem so important to the very critics that disliked it, but in my humble opinion, a well made film is one that inspires debate or discussion rather than simply hand down a definitive 'this is the way it was' with an imperious gavel. With "J Edgar", Eastwood and his cast have succeeded well.

A movie about one of the most renowned personalities of America's 20th century directed by one of its most respected directors made it one very highly on my 'to see' list.

The film does not waste much time in giving us a sight of what a powerful even notorious personality the homonymous character is, including his very strong anti-communist sentiments. As far as his character goes he appears as swift to respond, highly intelligent but also highly paranoid, a predator, a hawk, always switched on, always on the edge, without any peace who did not appreciate having any limitations to his authority or power. During a very poignant dialogue towards the end, between Hoover and his assistant Tolson, it becomes very clear how Hoover did not appreciate criticism and were unable to handle the truth expecting others to simply accept his version of the truth.

As we are treated to a more intimate view in his life the closeness to his mother does not go undetected and neither it should as with all personality deficiencies (in men at least) the relationship with their mother is one to closely watch. It was because of her influence in Edgar that left him with a pervasive sense of threat as well as a hunger for power, an influence that amongst other things caused him to be socially limited. Even towards the end of the film where our main character has grown much older (frail physically but not emotionally), his ways have not been altered in any way and one could even presume that his megalomania and paranoia are grown even more.

Despite the aspects of Edgar's character the audience might not come to like, Clint Eastwood does a superb job in making sure that Hoover's gifts are also highlighted which include: impressive energy levels, vigorous memory, capacity to detect patterns and an ability to receiver, process, comprehend & communicate information extremely effectively.

Though not a dark film, this biopic has dark undertones suited perhaps to the personality it portrays. There are very few outdoor scenes, little light in general, and it would also seem that J Edgar was the workaholic type who did not have much of a social or private life. Regarding his social life, he appears outgoing but not very sociable and in connection to his private life we are led to assume that he was a homosexual, which was a cause for him to suffer, perhaps loathe himself, due to the religiously incited anti-gay sentiment preached by his over controlling mother. His inability to fully accept who he was must have, beyond question, caused him plenty of frustration. On this matter, there's a poignant scene in the movie where his mother said (paraphrased): I'd rather have a dead son than a gay son.

With the above in mind, one question that must be therefore raised is whether his quest for power and authority was driven by his ideas/values for a better society or because it provided him with a sense of self worth? Why wasn't' he ever satisfied or willing to give up power? There is also some resemblance, albeit small, of 'The Aviator' another biopic with DiCaprio in the leading role.

DiCaprio gives a forceful performance and carries the film, which is part biopic & part political drama, compellingly. If there is a criticism about this movie it would have to be that it is rather slow and often made me wonder as to where it is heading with the constant interaction between Hoover's youth and later years.

This is an accomplished biographical drama/character study that although it might not be to everyone's taste, nonetheless to those with a keen interest in politics or US history in the 20th century or simply those interested in finding out more about the enigmatic J. Edgar Hoover, this is the film to watch.

Greetings again from the darkness. The best place to start with this one is by saying what it isn't. It is not a documentary. It is not a very detailed history lesson. It is not the best biography of the man. It is not a behind-the-scenes of the FBI. What it is ... another piece of quality filmmaking from Clint Eastwood. It's an overview of J. Edgar Hoover and his nearly 50 years of civil service under 8 U.S. Presidents.

The screenplay is from Dustin Lance Black, who also wrote the script for Milk, based on the story of Harvey Milk (played by Sean Penn). Clearly, Eastwood and Black had no interest in setting forth an historical drama that couldn't possibly be told within a two hour film structure. No, this is more of a fat-free character study that hits only a few of the highlights from an enigmatic man's fascinating career. With so few available details about Hoover's personal life, some speculation is required ... but Eastwood walks a tightrope so as to make neither a statement nor mockery.

Therein lies the only problem with the film. While hypnotic to watch, we are left with an empty feeling when it's over. How can that be? This man built the foundation of the FBI. He instigated the fingerprint system. He armed the secret police. His agency tracked down notorious gangsters. He led an anti-communist movement. He was in the middle of the investigation for the Lindbergh baby kidnapping. He supposedly kept secret files on most politicians and celebrities. He viewed the security of Americans as his responsibility. He was smack dab in the middle of almost 50 years of American history ... all while being a power-hungry, paranoid mama's boy who may have been, in her words, a daffodil.

An elderly Hoover's own words tell his story as he dictates his memoirs. We are told that his memories of these stories are blurred and he takes a few liberties to say the least. He longed to be the comic book hero like his own G-Men. He longed to be recognized for his contributions, even to the point of desiring a level of celebrity. In his mind, he was the face of national security and the hero cuffing many outlaws. In reality, he was also the black-mailing schemer who so frightened Presidents with his secret files, that all 8 of them backed off firing him. He could be viewed as the ultimate survivor in a town where few careers last so long and cross party lines.

The film picks up in 1919 when Hoover is a youngster making a name for himself as an all-work, no play type. That reputation stuck with him until the end. When he was first promoted, he hired Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts)to be his secretary. In one of the most remarkable hires of all time, she sticks with him until his death in 1972. Staunchly loyal to Hoover and totally dedicated to her job, Ms. Gandy helped Hoover with decisions and processes throughout. The other member of his inner circle was Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer). Tolson was Hoover's right-hand man at the bureau, his trusted adviser, his daily lunch partner, and speculation never ceased on their personal ties.

Judi Dench plays Annie Hoover, J Edgar's controlling mother, who he lived with until her death. She was also his adviser, supporter and probably a factor in his stunted social skills. We also get glimpses of how he dealt with Robert Kennedy (Jeffrey Donovan) and his overall lack of respect for John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Richard Nixon. The Lindbergh case plays a key role because Hoover used it to gain more power for his bureau and increase funding for weapons, forensic labs and resources.

As for Leonardo DiCaprio, it's difficult to explain just how outstanding his performance is. It could have been a caricature, but instead he affords Hoover the respect his place in history demands. The 50 years of aging through make-up can be startling, especially since the time lines are mixed up throughout. His speech pattern mimics Hoover's, as does the growing waist line. There are some Citizen Kane elements at work in how the story is told and how it's filmed, but Eastwood wouldn't shy away from such comparisons.

If you want real details on Hoover, there are some very in-depth biographies out there. The number of documentaries and history books for this era are limitless. What Eastwood delivers here is an introduction to J Edgar Hoover. It is interesting enough to watch, and Leonardo's performance is a must-see, but the film lacks the depth warranted by the full story.

The best that can be said for this film is that it got made. The subject matter, about the life of a dreadfully dull and stodgy old bureaucrat from a bygone era, is not in line with Hollywood's usual mass-produced action films aimed at brash young boys. I credit Director Eastwood and lead actor Leonardo Di Caprio with enough star power to convince the money-men to fund this project. And it turned a profit.

But there are plenty of problems with "J. Edgar", not the least of which is a script that flips back and forth too much between the 1960s and earlier decades in Hoover's life. A lot of time is wasted on the gangster era of the 1920 and 30s, possibly because Di Caprio is so youthful looking, he fits a younger image of Hoover, in contrast to an aging old man in the 60s. Almost nothing is included about the JFK assassination and follow-up investigation despite the fact that Hoover played a central role in marketing the "lone-gunman" theory.

Throughout, Hoover comes across as bureaucratic, rigid, moralistic, self-righteous, incapable of changing with the times, dishonest, and a hypocrite. Absent from the film are any virtuous qualities he may have had.

As Hoover, Leonardo Di Caprio gives a better performance than I would have predicted. But the script does Di Caprio no favors. The dialogue for Hoover consists largely of platitudes and pronouncements. Hoover doesn't talk with people so much as make little speeches to them. And Di Caprio's monotone voice exaggerates this talking down to others effect.

Hoover demanded loyalty from his staff. As his private secretary, Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts) is an interesting study in forced loyalty. Ditto Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), as Hoover's sidekick.

Cinematography is quite dark. Colors are heavily muted, almost monochromatic. Costumes and prod design are convincing across five decades. But makeup for an older Clyde Tolson is horrid; his face looks like a wax figure that's about to melt.

"J. Edgar" could have been much better, had the script focused more on the sixties and shown Hoover's working relationship to the Kennedy's and Lyndon Johnson. And though I appreciate Di Caprio's efforts to get the film made, a different actor might have been more convincing in the role of Hoover. Still, the film is a reasonably good effort. It's worth watching once, if for no other reason than because it's a true story about a real-life historical figure.

Any movie Clint Eastwood makes is certainly worth a look, and Leonardo DiCaprio is entertaining in anything he does. But this version of J. Edgar Hoover's story seems superficial, and lacking meat on its bones.

That has more to do with its form – a theatrical film only two hours and 17 minutes long - relative to the length of the biography at its core. Hoover was such a complex man, and his career was so long, with so many chapters, that his story is probably better suited to a 4-to 6 hour HBO mini-series, where more of the details of his life, that this film with its short running time can only hint at, can be more completely told.

Dustin Lance Black, who wrote this film's screenplay (as well as that of Milk), is walking a very fine line here regarding Hoover's complex personality; it seems that he had a much more intricate story he wanted to tell, were it not for the confines of the feature film format. Here, broad brush strokes take the place of long chapters on Hoover's involvement with the Red Scares of the '20's and '50's, political blackmail, gambling, organized crime, and of course, homosexuality.

But if it had been made as a mini-series, it probably wouldn't have attracted Eastwood and DiCaprio, and consequently wouldn't have the high profile that this film does. That version of his story will have to wait for another time.

Eastwood chose to shoot this story in a washed-out color palette. The story jumps back in forth in time, and the closer the events of the film are to the end of Hoover's life, the more color Eastwood imbues into the scenes; the earliest moments in the time line are shown in a color scheme barely above monochrome. It's a subtle effect, but it helps the viewer keep track of where the scenes exist in Hoover's life.

That long time line necessitates that DiCaprio must be seen in various makeup schemes to convey the age of his character at any point in the story. His makeup is uniformly good; but the two other principal actors in the film, Armie Hammer as Hoover's longtime companion Clyde Tolson, and Naomi Watts as Hoover's secretary Helen Gandy, don't fare so well as their characters age. Obviously, the lion's share of the film's makeup budget was allotted to the star. Hammer, it must be said, gives a fine performance under all those old-age prosthetics. Christopher Shyer, who plays Richard Nixon in a brief scene, has the least-effective verisimilitude of anyone who has played the man in a motion picture.

But makeup alone does not a performance make. Di Caprio's ability to remain in character and "age" with him is remarkable, and transcends the work of his makeup artist. As he did with his portrayal of Howard Hughes in The Aviator, his skillful use of voice and body to stay true to his characterization of Hoover through the years is evident throughout.

One gets the feeling that much of this film was shot in front of a green screen, no surprise given the various eras of Washington that it depicts; but to a longtime moviegoer, there's a certain sadness that imparts to seeing that technique, once the province of the large-scale action film, used in serious dramas. There was probably no other way to do it in this day and age, but it just calls attention to itself in a way that gets in the way of one's immersion into the subject matter. Admittedly, that's my problem, not the film's.

So, is it worth a look? Sure. Best Picture nominee? In a field of ten, probably. Will Leo finally win an Oscar this time out? Well, look at it this way: Paul Newman gave his best performance in The Verdict, but the Academy finally honored him for The Color of Money. Leo probably should have won for playing Howard Hughes, but maybe he'll win for playing J. Edgar.

It doesn't take an American history buff to be familiar with a figure such as J. Edgar Hoover, founder of the Federal Bureau of Investigation... and a little more on the political chessboard. Anyone who've watched enough political movies would know a little about that rotund man who seemed to oscillate between the good and the bad side depending on protagonists and circumstances. Played by Kevin Dunn, he was the man behind the long exile in Richard Attenborough's biopic "Chaplin", Bob Hoskins played him as a conflicted string-puller who posed as an ally to "Nixon" not without reluctance... and his long-time relationship with Clyde Tolston wasn't cut out. In "Mississippi Burning" he was almost the 'Big Good' as the FBI agents were dismissed as Hoover boys by the local racists... finally, if you're a fan of Looney Tunes' cartoon, you might recall his cameo in "Hollywood Steps Out".

J. Edgar Hoover was one of these historical figures so larger-than-life history had no choice but "invent" them; his career spanned more than four decades and covered every major sequence of the 20th century: the rise of anarchist movements after the Great War, gangsterism during the Prohibition, the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and the ensuing 'Trial of the Century', the Kennedy presidency and his rivalry with the little brother Bobby and Nixon... perhaps the one adversary he wouldn't have the luxury to witness the downfall. You can't write America's history without having a few alineas linking back to Hoover, the man who created the FBI, revolutionized the method investigations, pioneering forensic and the classification of fingerprints at a time they were deemed as speculative science. And yet for some reason, he was always relegated to a secondary even tertiary level, there's no film about him as the leading role and maybe that says a lot about the paradox of the man, so present and yet absent, using secrecy as a sword and as a shield.

Making a film about Hoover was the challenge raised by Clint Eastwood and it wasn't an easy task. Through a rather well-structured albeit austere script, he manages to paint a rather interesting portrayal of a complex man, one who insisted to make America as secure as ever, driven by a fear of anarchy, yet driven by his own insecurities; who insisted that every recruit should be irreproachable and yet lived as a bachelor officially married to his job... but officiously living with the same man for more than forty years. Not the least of his paradox is that he wanted to offer the real alternative to the then popular gangster figure while he was like his enemies, a momma's boy who had too much to prove, a gangster on the right side of the law. Hoover had his secrets, like everyone else. Yes, it is highly plausible that Martin Luther King wasn't a saint, nor was Gandhi and that any good man had secrets that could potentially ruin their legacy, let alone not-so good men.

The script from Dustin Lance Black takes us back between the present where Hoover dictates his memoir to the various events that shaped his convictions. We see the evolution of the man from a bigoted Conservative to a patriotic enforcer, at times he's playing the bad role, at others, he's indeed a superhero going into a legitimate crusade against crime his finest hour being his role in the Lindbergh case, its resolution... and resolutions. Whether he's the unreliable narrator of his deeds (he exaggerated a little) or if he was driven by ego is besides the point, he orchestrated the Baby kidnapping investigation like a badass hero. I doubt Eastwood would hold Hoover in high esteem but he'd just reveal the layers without trying to force us to take a firm stance and that's all to his credit, he makes his Hoover controversial enough not to make his film an act of rehabilitation but develops so many intimate scenes that we can at least makes hints of connections.

On that level, the scenes between him and his mother and moral conscience provides a few hints and the botched romance with Mrs. Gandy his secretary might look like the catalysis of a life of so-called secrecy. Judi Dench and Naomi Watts are effective as the two women behind the (great?) man. Now ,the real challenge was to turn Leo into a convincing Hoover, his handsomeness is somewhat a drawback because it's hard to believe this dashing young man would be so awkward with the ladies, the performance was excellent and he's strangely more convincing as an old man but sometimes he's just too looking to let his image overshadows our vision of Hoover who wasn't exactly a handsome playboy. As a matter of fact, Kevin James would have made a more convincing Hoover. Arnie Hammer is also remarkable as the one man behind the man and their chemistry provides the same kind of behind-the-scene intimacy that reminded me of Joan Allen's performance as Pat Nixon.

The trick is to make the whole movie engaging and on that level too, the film is a semi-success, there's a feeling of strange emptiness when the film concludes, Eastwood embraced the man's shadow so much he made his film rather moody and depressing. I was just watching "The Untouchables" and I regretted that Eastwood had to make his Hoover in such a somber and gloomy mood. More was needed but as far as the portrayal of the man is concerned, the film does a good job to the degree it gives you the general idea about Hoover, whether twisted, misunderstood or legitimate, the man had ideals and abhorred ideologies... an attachment to security and so many insecurities, a living paradox that called for a more lively film.

Maybe Eastwood didn't relate much to his own protagonist and so the heart wasn't in it, maybe this is the kind of material more suitable for a director like Oliver Stone, who knows... the film is a good biopic but not in Eastwood's Top 10 Best... or Leo's for that matter.

Just got back from a screening in Vancouver~ Thanks to Clint Eastwood, it was almost free (only one dollar per ticket) I will try to keep my review spoiler-free~

Personally, I thought it was a great film. Not exceptional in anyway, but still great. The tone reminds me a bit of Changeling. Makes sense since the stories are from the same period. I have to say, with Eastwood, Leonardo DiCaprio and Dustin Lance Black all on board, I was kind of expecting something a bit more than this.

I thought the weakest link was the script. It was interesting, but flawed. Also, the story was not very intriguing. Having watched Milk (also written by Black) and really liked how the story unfolded, I was expecting a great story about how J. Edgar Hoover rose to power and how he gradually transformed into the monster he became in the end. But instead, the story was told by shifting back and forth in time countless times, which at some point made me feel emotionally detached from the story and the characters. The bad bad makeup (I guess we can all agree on that~) was also very distracting. The elderly characters looked like wax figures to me.

That said, I really LOVED Eastwood's score. It was moving and really fit the mood of the film. His direction and camera-work were masterful as always. Leo was very convincing as J. Edgar, although I keep on seeing bits and pieces of Howard Hughes in his performance. Judi Dench and Naomi Watts were both great, however the same thing can not be said about Armie Hammer. I thought he was much better in The Social Network. There were a few good moments between him and Leo, but his performance as the elderly Clyde Tolson was darn right awful. I blame the horrible makeup.

As for the Oscars, this film will get a few nominations, but I doubt that it would become a strong contender. Though Leo's performance was not without its flaws, I thought it was more than enough to secure his leading actor nomination. Nods for best art direction, best cinematography and best score are also quite possible.

This film had the potential to become a masterpiece, but fell short of my expectations mainly due to the uneven script. While far from being one of his best, it is nevertheless a welcome addition to Eastwood's portfolio.

8/10

This is an interesting film for me, mostly because I take interest in both history and forensic investigation (i.e. CSI). I'm also a fan of DiCaprio's more recent films, and I had high hopes in this one. However, the actor who stole the show was, surprisingly, Armie Hammer. DiCaprio's fake accent and old makeup weren't believable at all to me, which was distracting... and I ended up feeling that he's DiCaprio instead of J. Edgar. Hammer on the other hand, was magnificent. It was mostly his scenes that saved this film for me - his scenes were the only ones that made me FEEL something.

The rest of the film was just there - it just went on, telling one story after another, as flat as DiCaprio's narration tone. And most of the time, I found myself wondering: why is this film so freaking dark? Why do the characters do everything in unnaturally dark environment? I understand that maybe it's some kind of symbolism, but whose office is ever that poorly-lit during working hours? What family eats their dinner in the dark - even with unlit candles on the table? I found myself thinking, why won't you guys just light up those candles already?

It was Armie Hammer who managed to bring some soul amidst this history-book-ish storytelling. It was shocking to see his emotions in the hotel scene - I felt truly touched by his performance. It felt like a burst of colours in a monochromatic film. Even in other scenes, he manages to tell a huge part of Tolson's stories, feelings and emotions merely through his eyes. I understood more from his eyes than from the long train of heavy words in DiCaprio's fake-accented narration.

In the end, it did keep my attention although it might be because I have a higher tolerance for historical documentaries than most people (as evident by how my friends were already rolling around doing other things a few minutes into the film). And it IS a good story, even though it's being told slowly, heavily, and in darkness... literally.

J. Edgar (2011)

This is a particular kind of movie--the based on fact biopic--done with great attention to period accuracy. If that's what's important, getting a bit of American history into a vivid big screen format, then this works pretty well. On top of that, Leonardo DiCaprio is excellent, very professional.

But "J. Edgar" not a terrific movie. If a movie is meant to be gripping and moving and beautiful and fun and all those things, this is none of those. It isn't boring or tepid or clumsy or insulting--but not being those things isn't exactly a compliment.

And the reasons for this are clear. Mainly there's the format. Between Dustin Black and Clint Eastwood a decision was made to "tell" the story by means of the character, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, literally telling the story to a typist. This is a dry and painful way of any kind of drama. It's even a boring way to teach a class, and sometimes you get the feeling we're being "taught" things about our history we need to know.

Be careful, if you watch only half the movie, you'll be filled with misconceptions that the movie itself corrects, in the last few moments during a final important conversation. That problem of course is a new kind of "unreliable narrator," since the story is being told by the protagonist himself. And no one is very honest, truly, in an autobiography. In a way that makes the movie the most interesting it can be. I'm also not sure what the director and writer really feel about Hoover's sexual orientation, at least as it applied to his doing his job.

There are some familiar Eastwood slants on content that might irk a few of you familiar with his politics. For example, he makes very public his appreciation for civil rights and equality, but in a way that's so showy you begin to suspect the motivation (that he believes what he preaches but he also wants you to like him for it). But then he also has little to say about the heavy handed FBI (and pre-FBI) days when lots of innocent people got followed and railroaded and jailed and worse. The mood is set that in those old days things were different and we really needed a megalomaniac at the FBI to keep this darned country safe from the Commies. Something like that.

As a drama, which is maybe the secondary consideration, the plot moves between a present day 1960s crisis (between the Kennedy and Nixon years) and the early days. It flips back and forth a lot (too much for me) and keeps DiCaprio's narration flowing right through a lot of it in part to hold it together. The result is fragmented as a story, and stilted as a dramatic flow.

Just a heads up on the format and the flow. Again, if it's content you want, and you can enjoy the way it gets cobbled together, there's a lot of stuff here to sort out.

J. Edgar tells the story of the man and his agency. J. Edgar Hoover for better or worse shaped the history of the last century as few others have. He was a pioneer in the field of law enforcement a reformer who made the Federal Bureau of Investigation free from political corruption, gave it modern crime fighting methods, and near deity status among the masses. I've always maintained that had Hoover just retired at the end of World War II his historical reputation would be much higher today. But as he points out in this film no one shares power in Washington, DC and few ever give it up willingly.

All this and at the same time being a frightened man, way deep in his closet's closet as a gay man. Most gay folk will tell you now even in this post Stonewall age the hardest part of coming out is to family. In Hoover's case it was his mother played here by Judy Dench who was an imperious Southern bred lady who tells Leonardo DiCaprio as Hoover that above all she does not want to have a 'daffodil' for a son. The gay in him is pretty much repressed until he meets Clyde Tolson who becomes Deputy Director and Hoover's silent partner for decades.

In real life Tolson who is played here by Armie Hammer was something of a stabilizing influence on the real Hoover, many times talking to him or even subtly countermanding moves that would be public relations disasters for the image conscious Hoover. In his life few knew of his role in the agency and fewer in Hoover's personal life.

The other key player in Hoover's life is Naomi Watts as personal secretary Helen Gandy who was that for almost his entire time with the FBI. He tries clumsily to get a romance going, but settles for her just being the woman who kept the secrets for the man who held all the nation's secrets.

Director Clint Eastwood who will make fewer and fewer appearances in front of the camera at his age gets some great performances from his cast in a story that takes up the middle of the American 20th Century. Leonardo DiCaprio is so good you absolutely think you are looking at Hoover himself. Helping in that is one of the greatest body and facial makeup jobs the cinema has ever witnessed.

Henry Kissinger once said of Richard Nixon that he was a brilliant man who might have not fallen or even done the things he did good and bad if he ever felt loved. That could easily have been J. Edgar's story as well. One wonders also if Hoover had been born three or for generations later to see the Stonewall Rebellion in his youth how that might have shaped him as well.

J. Edgar is one remarkable film from the remarkable team of Eastwood and DiCaprio.

How could I possibly have imagined that in this Clint Eastwood film about J Edgar Hoover the driving force is the love Story between Edgar and his life long assistant. That's the only aspect of this sad tale that has any kind of human features. Leonardo Di Caprio who became a hero of mine after "This Boy's Life" and "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" has shown that it's not enough to work with some of the best living directors but training, classical training is vital in the professional life of an actor. His performance here, for the most part is merely that, a performance. Reciting a laundry list of ex-positional lines is not the shortest cut to our understanding and/or feelings. Damn shame if you ask me. To push this story to the verge of camp is Judi Dench's mother. Somewhere between the mothers in "Psycho" and "Notorious" but not nearly as entertaining. Did Robert Kennedy got the news of his brother's assassination through a call from Hoover? Really? Even if it's true I don't believe it. And that goes for the entire pitiful tale.

What a shocking disappointment. A director of Eastwood's caliber, an actor of DiCaprio reputation, giving us this travesty - no pun intended - of a biopic. Claude Rains and Madamr Constantine in "Notorious" someone made that comparison - I wish it had been that entertaining. This one is dull, dull, dull. Not a real insight into the man or, maybe more importantly, about the times of the man. Little, meaningless sketches about enormous events. I wonder what was the intention behind this venture. The "old" make-up was worthy of a B picture of the 50's. Jaw dropping really. I've always sensed that Eastwood, the director, left the actors to their own devices and, unless the devices belong to Gene Hackman or Sean Penn, the performance a rather poor. Here DiCaprio "recites" his lines with grit but without conviction. I couldn't wait for the film to be over and I waited and waited and waited.

J.Edgar (B+) J. Edgar is a American biographical of FBI' first Director "J.Edgar Hoover. who changed the face of FBI by centralizing fingerprint file and creating forensic laboratories to catch criminals. In his almost 50years tenure as director, he became the most controversial person in FBI. J.Edgar Hoover's story is not only fascinating but troubled too. He has caught some of the notorious criminals in the American history & introduced tons of new innovative methods to do so. Clint Eastwood is a great director & in recent times directed some really good movies like Million Dollar Baby, Invictus & Changeling. Just like his previous movies, J.Edger is a victim of poor lighting ..as always not only his subject matters are dark, he shoots the whole movie in dark too, which makes it sometimes hard to see what's happening on screen. This time another disappointment was bad makeup of Leo, Armie & Naomi in their 60plus age. Terrible make up made it really annoying to watch them in their elderly avatar, it seemed like surgery gone wrong. Leonardo Dicaprio's performance was impressive as always. Armie Hammer is charming & in Hotel burst out sequence his performance was simply incredible. (I love his voice ever since Gossip Girl). Naomi Watts was good but she is not aging beautifully. Overall, J.Edgar is good but poor lighting & makeup makes it annoying sometimes plus their is no shock-value in it though J.Edger's life was nothing but Shocking.

J Edgar (2011) B+ Leonardo DiCaprio excels in this extraordinary 2¼ hour biopic of the 48 year career of J. Edgar Hoover who developed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). DiCaprio's convincing acting and appearance, supported by Naomi Watts, as his secretary and other good actors held my attention throughout.

Make-up artists in this film deserve high praise.

Watching this biopic is an easy way to be informed and be entertained at the same time.

Screenwriters and directors characterize Hoover's unusual personality, complex sexuality and close relationship to his mother (Judy Dench) and his lover Clyde Tolson. This males a compelling, and I believe accurate, on-screen interpretation of this unusual man who had a strong affect on this country for almost fifty years.

Leonardo DiCaprio's superb acting makes this biopic believable. I know something about Hoover and this time in our history. This movie adds to my understanding.

The tragic Lindberg child murder case was one of the most highly publicized crimes of the 20th century. This and the other segments make J Edgar several movies in one.

May 2012.

Clint Eastwood's boldness and creativity paid off in this excellent portrayal of J. Edgar Hoover's life. A project like that is not pulled off by just anyone, and the fact that a film like that was even made shows the importance of Clint Eastwood. His direction was marvelous, by the way, showing without fear the dark side of the FBI director, but also showing all the good aspects of this very interesting subject. Leonardo DiCaprio is another great reason to watch the film, in one of the most moving performances in his career. His portrayal of a Hoover both ruthless and emotionally vulnerable was superb, and he has excelled once again in studying the character. The make up must also be praised for allowing DiCaprio to portrayal Hoover in many different stages of his life. J. Edgar, if not Clint's best work, is a very interesting and moving film, and the fact that it is so under-appreciated is a mystery to me.

It can happen to the best of us. Spielberg, Scorsese, Hitchcock, and even Clint Eastwood himself are capable of making an instantly-dismissible picture. Sometimes, it seems, a director will find himself in a project without much of a passion for it and looking at the final product, it's kind of hard to see his signature on the screen. That is the case with Mr. Eastwood's biopic on the life of J. Edgar Hoover. The movie, "J. Edgar", is everything I did not expect from Mr. Eastwood considering the deep, thought-provocative and artistic power of his last movie "Hereafter" as well as the many films that he made beforehand. Slow, pretentious, and middling.

Many actors have played the infamous FBI founder over the years (once by Hoover himself, in the 1959 James Stewart movie "The FBI Story"). This time, the role goes to Leonardo DiCaprio. Unfortunately, it seems, his feelings about the movie seemed to be identical to Mr. Eastwood's, as he merely ham-acts throughout the entirety of the movie. The only thing differentiating his performance from scene-to-scene depends on how much phony make-up has been slapped on his face. It's sort of like a "Citizen Kane" portrait of a real-life figure, starting around the time of the man's death and whisking back and forth between the past and the present. Except whereas that great Orson Welles film from seventy years ago did it with precision and aesthetic greatness, the narrative of "J. Edgar" takes such vast leaps that it frequently falls flat on its face.

The screenplay was written by Dustin Lance Black, who won the Oscar for Best Screenplay for "Milk." Once again, he more or less writes this story more as a vessel for a homosexual romance and rights message. And it is here that he strikes his intended gold. Hoover's lover, his right-hand man Clyde Tolson, is played with immense passion by Armie Hammer. And it is the scenes between Mr. Hammer and Mr. DiCaprio that work. A particularly great scene involves the two secret lovers sharing a dinner table with some flirtatious Hollywood starlets and nervously trying to shake off the ladies' sexual advances without giving themselves away. Also fascinating and frightful is a confrontation about homosexuality between Mr. DiCaprio and Judi Dench as Hoover's mother.

So it is in this soulful subplot that Mr. Black's screenplay works, but when he tries to form a narrative arc about the lifetime of J. Edgar Hoover and bounce across decades in a coherent manner, it starts to struggle. Furthermore, apart from the love subplot, there is no chemistry between the characters. Naomi Watts, as Hoover's secretary, is given such insignificant things to do that she may as well have been an extra.

Earlier I mentioned that a passionless project even by a great director, will appear to lose its creators' signature and that is no more evident than in here. Mr. Eastwood's directing, though hardly bad, is rather dull with too many long shots and ponderous slow zooms. And while Leonardo DiCaprio was an inspired choice to play J. Edgar Hoover, he does it almost playfully, without much soul or conviction. Most embarrassing of all is the forced accent with which he enunciates the dialogue. Capped with some truly horrific make-up, when playing the elderly Hoover, the actor appears to be giving a comic stand-up performance at a nightclub. Reputedly, Mr. DiCaprio spent five hours every morning having the prosthetics applied to his face when playing the older version of the character. All I can say is that they should have spent at least six, for the make-up looks like exactly what it is. And the stuff put on Mr. Hammer for his old-guy moments makes him look like he belongs in a 30s Universal horror film.

Just as frightful as the makeup is the hack-job cinematography by Tom Stern. Yes, the same Tom Stern who has lit beautiful images for many of Clint Eastwood's earlier films, including "Changeling" for which he deservedly earned an Academy Award nomination. Mr. Stern's specialty seems to be in low-key lighting. Last year, he did a fabulous job catching the mood of "Hereafter" with clever use of shadows and silhouetting lights. But here, he goes overboard. The shadows in "J. Edgar" are so amateurish and monstrous that (I kid you not) the actors sometime disappear in them. If there is a symbolic purpose behind this, I cannot think of it. And other times, the lights are too soft. Close-ups of characters make them appear to be covered with flour and worst of all is when the camera tracks into a dark room and auto-adjusts to the new light...much like a home-video camera.

I never imagined I would see a Clint Eastwood film where I would look at my watch impatiently before the first hour was even up, but alas the day has come. "J. Edgar" is a dimwitted, passionless project that brings almost nothing to our previous knowledge about the formation of the FBI and the men who made it all possible. Only a couple of sharp, provocative moments from Dustin Lance Black's screenplay really stand out. Now Clint Eastwood has made five or six masterpieces during his forty-year career as a director and about twice as many great films, so despite my disappointment, I am prepared to allow this one to fade from my memory.

Not that that would be very hard. If J. Edgar Hoover had a file cabinet labeled 'Instantly Forgettable,' that is where this film would have gone.

Why are there are these horrible reviews? I just saw this movie yesterday and it was utterly fantastic. I'm not the only one that thinks so. The theater was packed with people, mainly from adult to elderly but it was packed non the less. Everyone was clapping at the end of the movie.

"J. Edger" tells the story of how the man J. Edger Hoover came to power, and goes into his personal life. Clint Eastwood did a wonderful job at bring this amazing story to life, and his so score was beautiful too. Leonardo DiCabrio was unbelievable. I couldn't believe how fantastic he was. It was one of the best performances I personally have ever seen. If he dose not win an Oscar for this, it would be just terrible. Everyone else was great too, everyone. And guess what people, the makeup was FANTASTIC!

Why people are bashing this movie so much is beyond me. It's not for everyone I'll admit. It's for people with a brain who want to see a piece of art instead of some stupid film like the Immortals.

Snipets of history and then a tabloid romance that, in its day, was made of rumor and innuendo. A psychotic, paranoid schizophrenic, as I see it, head of the most powerful Federal Bureau Of Investigation, corrupted by his own power and his obsession with secrecy is a character worthy of Peter Lorre but in this new outing of the prolific Clint Eastwood, J Edgar Hoover is Leonardo DiCaprio! I love both DiCaprio and Eastwood but not in this. I love DiCaprio for Gilbert Grape and Eastwood for The Outlaw Josey Wales and Unforgiven. Here they are both out of their depths. Long, boring film with terrible aging make-up and no real center. The most unexpected aspect was the time dedicated to the romance between J Edgar and Clyde Tolson. It humanized the man without revealing him. That's almost cheating.