Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: November 9, 2011
6.5
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 207 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
107
Mixed:
81
Negative:
19
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
duanewilliamsNov 24, 2011
This is a mostly boring film about a man who (if you can believe the film) didn't have a life. Just because the man had a lot of power over a long time doesn't make him a good subject for a dramatic film. The makeup job on the characterThis is a mostly boring film about a man who (if you can believe the film) didn't have a life. Just because the man had a lot of power over a long time doesn't make him a good subject for a dramatic film. The makeup job on the character Clyde Tolson in old age was rather grotesque. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
2
DQ_SlotkinsNov 18, 2011
Every second of DiCaprio and Hammer in their rubber old man make-up (complete with terribly cliched old men shaky walks and bad shaky voices) is a blow against an otherwise interesting film. And there are enough seconds to turn the whole filmEvery second of DiCaprio and Hammer in their rubber old man make-up (complete with terribly cliched old men shaky walks and bad shaky voices) is a blow against an otherwise interesting film. And there are enough seconds to turn the whole film into a joke. Dreadful performances. Eastwood really let this one get away from him. Too bad. Expand
6 of 8 users found this helpful62
All this user's reviews
1
m3xcNov 17, 2011
There have been great films of the past that act as biographies, showing the passions, sufferings, scandals and character of the subject. A director best known for these is Oliver Stone, whose prime works include JFK (1991), Nixon (1995) andThere have been great films of the past that act as biographies, showing the passions, sufferings, scandals and character of the subject. A director best known for these is Oliver Stone, whose prime works include JFK (1991), Nixon (1995) and W. (2008).

In taking on a project regarding J Edgar Hoover, Clint Eastwood was perhaps trying to mimic Oliver Stone. It is in this that he succeeded, however, a strong distinction must be made between the works of Stone and Eastwood. While the aforementioned films by Stone represented their characters in a way that enmeshed and provided a solid, entertaining and thought provoking side to the subject, Eastwood makes his film seem like more of a history book, poorly written at that.

The movie itself feels drawn out, lagging from any sort of tension that drives a plot and void of anything that makes the viewer feel involved in the action. With the presentation of the story, which involves jumping chronologically through the life of Hoover, the timing feels choppy and at times confusing. The best part of J. Edgar is that it is long, drawn out and can make one feel very tired after viewing, thus doubling as a sleeping pill. Even in parts that are supposed to be emotionally moving and instill catharsis, more than likely the sedative feeling instilled by the film in its epically banal entirety will dumb the intent so much as to expunge any sort of poignancy to talk about.
Expand
4 of 6 users found this helpful42
All this user's reviews
2
gunnyartNov 12, 2011
My hopes were high being a Clint Eastwood picture. The higher the hopes the further they have to fall. I found it painful. The first half was engaging enough and I was anxious to lean a thing or two about the iconic figure's life and career,My hopes were high being a Clint Eastwood picture. The higher the hopes the further they have to fall. I found it painful. The first half was engaging enough and I was anxious to lean a thing or two about the iconic figure's life and career, but as we rounded the bend for home it just descended into an expose of the tortured soul of the man. I didn't find that compelling at all. As little as is really known about J. Edgar It felt to me that we never got an honest perspective of the man just the salacious rumours of who his detractors imagined him to be. Expand
5 of 8 users found this helpful53
All this user's reviews
0
popcrticNov 10, 2011
The most Painful movie of the year! It was like listening to geriatric elevator music for well over 2 hours. DiCaprio is a one note Johnny actor, one dimensional, screaming bore. The only redeeming value in this film is Armie Hammer. StayThe most Painful movie of the year! It was like listening to geriatric elevator music for well over 2 hours. DiCaprio is a one note Johnny actor, one dimensional, screaming bore. The only redeeming value in this film is Armie Hammer. Stay away from this one! Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
3
C6ZR1Dec 7, 2011
A long and boring gay love story. The previews for this film were extremely misleading. Very disappointing film from Clint Eastwood. Go see the Muppet Movie instead.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
movieboyFeb 10, 2012
How could a film about one of the 20th century's most controversial figures turn out so dull and ponderous. What was Clint thinking. With its endless see saw swing between formative and contemporary times, Leonardo tries his best, but he'sHow could a film about one of the 20th century's most controversial figures turn out so dull and ponderous. What was Clint thinking. With its endless see saw swing between formative and contemporary times, Leonardo tries his best, but he's hampered by a poor script and noodling direction. If only it had Scorsese at the helm. Clint usually is quite masterful, but not here. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
txrangersfan72Jan 29, 2012
Someone let Clint Eastwood near a camera again. I know he buys a lot of the rights to these stories he wants to tell, but I don't know how someone takes a story and life full of potential and create this mess of a film. Leonardo DiCaprio isSomeone let Clint Eastwood near a camera again. I know he buys a lot of the rights to these stories he wants to tell, but I don't know how someone takes a story and life full of potential and create this mess of a film. Leonardo DiCaprio is one of the finest young actors we have, and while his performances can tend to run together, he had an opportunity to shine even more in a role like this similarly to how he did as Howard Hughes in "The Aviator." The difference between "The Aviator" and "J. Edgar" is sitting behind the camera in this one. Clint Eastwood, who has the biggest track record of empty, overrated directorial presentations, just blows it all to Hell in this one. The directing is weak, bringing out the blandest performances with its horrid storytelling. The movie shortchanges the viewer during what appear to be pivotal scenes, yet drags out the ones we knew were coming. Pretty standard stuff from "Bronco Billy." The actors and viewers deserved better. I hope the awful reviews send him a message. I'm glad I only spent $1.25, although I deserve some change. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
MagnificentMDec 23, 2011
It seems Clint Eastwood may be loosing his touch. J. Edgar is just as bad, if not worse, than Hereafter, which came out last year. There is no linear story, just random jumps backward and forwards through Hoover's life. The worst part ofIt seems Clint Eastwood may be loosing his touch. J. Edgar is just as bad, if not worse, than Hereafter, which came out last year. There is no linear story, just random jumps backward and forwards through Hoover's life. The worst part of the film for me was the horrible age makeup that made the characters look like they were wearing above average halloween masks. The performances weren't much better. Leonardo DiCaprio obviously tried his best, but he just couldn't disappear into this role like he did in The Aviator playing Howard Hughes and he seemed to compensate by being overdramatic. Armie Hammer was no better. Naomi Watts at least has an excuse because her character was given no depth or development at all. At leas the film had good costumes and decent cinematography, otherwise it would have been a total disaster. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
MovieGuysJan 11, 2014
Probably about the only movie with Leonardo DiCaprio that I am giving a bad rating. This movie was very disappointing as it had fine actors and a great director. But it was ponderously directed, badly acted, and Leo and Hammer looked bad withProbably about the only movie with Leonardo DiCaprio that I am giving a bad rating. This movie was very disappointing as it had fine actors and a great director. But it was ponderously directed, badly acted, and Leo and Hammer looked bad with the "old man makeup". Just a blip in Leo and Eastwood's filmography, and I think we can forgive them. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews