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
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)
5
SpangleApr 14, 2017
J. Edgar is a flawed biopic from Clint Eastwood that continues to show that his late period fact-based stories always seem to lack something that to make them rise above the trappings of the facts they are based upon. Starring LeonardoJ. Edgar is a flawed biopic from Clint Eastwood that continues to show that his late period fact-based stories always seem to lack something that to make them rise above the trappings of the facts they are based upon. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio as the head of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, the film focuses on him starting the agency and the period right before his death. Both show a man fearlessly holding onto his baby and ensuring that it is established as the foremost expert on all matters of crime. Along the way, we see the impact his mother Anna Marie (Judi Dench) had on him, his clearly gay relationship with Associate Director Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), his trusty secretary Miss Gandy (Naomi Watts), his obsession with communists, his obsession with organized crime, assisting in the Lindbergh baby case, his dealings with political leaders such as MLK, and his dealings with presidents. All the while, he builds up the agency to nearly being the behemoth we see today. Though well-constructed, J. Edgar has some fundamental flaws that keep it from being successful.

Foremost is the make-up. It may be odd to start here since there are some narrative issues and cinematography issues that also plague J. Edgar, but it only makes sense given how absolutely horrific the make-up is in this film. While DiCaprio and Watts' old age make-up are quite bad, it is really the make-up caked onto Armie Hammer's face that stands as the worst. Throughout much of the film, particularly when Tolson has a stroke, he looks more like a CPR test dummy than a man. His emotions and facial expressions are necessarily overdone and too expressive as Hammer must force his way valiantly through the make-up that undoubtedly made him feel caged within his own body. That said, he is hardly the only one with bad make-up in this film. DiCaprio's is also very bad and never looks authentic. It looks like DiCaprio wearing a lot of make-up and never really makes the audience suspend their disbelief regarding his characters' age.

Narratively, the film never finds a way to use the make-up either, which may make it even worse. Overly convoluted and confusing for a biopic, Eastwood's film freely skips between the 1920s/1930s to the 1960s/1970s without ever really letting you know what year we are in and what situations we are in beyond just tossing Hoover into major cultural touchstones of the 20th Century. Having Hoover dictate his autobiography to a staff member - which was not true anyways - reveals just how slipshod this film really is as we jump from year-to-year without order and go long stretches in the past or present before the film seems to realize we have not seen the other time period in a long time. While it may make sense to use this screenwriting shortcut to tell the story, it really makes the film feel incredibly disjointed and lacking any sort of cohesion. This convoluted approach to telling a story where Eastwood constantly leaves off in the middle of a timeline before jumping to a new one really hampers J. Edgar and makes it feel overlong, poorly paced, and exasperatingly dull.

J. Edgar also struggles when considering the lighting. Now, I love noir films and shadows. Yet, this film is too much. Now, it is not noir, but the chiaroscuro feels pulled directly from those under-budgeted 1940s Warner Bros. noirs and Eastwood seems to try and capture that feeling for this biopic. It is ill-fitting and overdone with faces sometimes entirely obscured by shadows. This really hinders many moments in Hoover's office where we can hardly see the man or the people he is talking to. This may be hinting at some thematic considerations on the part of Eastwood, but if they are, they are never fully realized and really miss the mark.

Now, all of that said, the acting is quite good. As is typical, for DiCaprio, he delivers an excellent lead performance as Hoover and really captures his great power and presence, while still maintaining the other elements of his life quite capably. In particular, these "other elements" include his homosexuality, which is nicely portrayed by Eastwood with a gentle approach. Showing the secrecy that they must live in with Edgar and Colson restricted to slight touches of the hand and two brief kisses, the film shows both the troubles at the time and gives a tender look at the personal and intimate life of such a tough man. Their relationship is not just well-written and nicely handled, but DiCaprio's excellent performance is matched by a similarly terrific performance from Armie Hammer, who plays the only man that really ever understood Hoover at his most vulnerable, being able to quickly tell if he is lying or not.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
TVJerryNov 14, 2011
Leonardo DiCaprio gives a memorable portrayal as J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI for almost 50 years. He modernized crime fighting, while wielding his power through intimidation and force. During it all, he had a seemingly chaste, butLeonardo DiCaprio gives a memorable portrayal as J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI for almost 50 years. He modernized crime fighting, while wielding his power through intimidation and force. During it all, he had a seemingly chaste, but devoted relationship with his aide, Clyde Tolson, What starts as a biopic outlining the highlights of his career, ends up being a tender story of his frustrated love. Since this is a Clint Eastwood film, you can expect efficient storytelling and powerful performances, but this time there's an artistic flair to the period recreations and cinematography. Writer Dustin Lance Black has penned a multi-layered story that adds to the resonance. Even though it's a bit slow and long, this film manages to create a character that's complex and compelling. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
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
7
Tss5078Mar 26, 2017
Clint Eastwood's films are extremely historically accurate. The academy and critics love his work and especially the way he manages to get the best out of his leading roles. That being said, his films also tend to be extremely long and veryClint Eastwood's films are extremely historically accurate. The academy and critics love his work and especially the way he manages to get the best out of his leading roles. That being said, his films also tend to be extremely long and very dry, J. Edgar was no different. J. Edgar Hoover was the man who started the FBI. He is the man solely responsible for creating a fingerprint database, cataloging and investigating forensic evidence at crime scenes, and he was also completely paranoid and spied on just about everyone he could. It was sad to see just how lonely, narrow minded, and repressed this man was his whole life. He was so narrowly focused his entire life, that he didn't seem to ever enjoy anything besides his work. As for the film, Leonardo DiCaprio gives another stunning performance, one that rivals all his other work. People who worked with Hoover, in his later years, say that DiCaprio was so good that it was like seeing Hoover himself back in charge. When he was first starting out, people thought DiCaprio was just another pretty face, who would do films like the Beach his entire career, but they couldn't be more wrong. He has emerged as one of the best leading men in all of Hollywood and J. Edgar is a prime example of this. You can't have a DiCaprio greatest hits compilation without including this performance, it really was that good. I learned a lot from this film and the performances were truly fantastic in every sense of the word. How DiCaprio's performance didn't get nominated for an Academy Awards is beyond me and does lend some credence to the theory that the Academy is bias towards him. As for the rest of the film, it's long, very long and parts of it just don't move at all. You'll learn a lot and from a historic stand point, I think this is one of those film everyone should see, but at times it's not easy to sit through. Don't expect much in the way of action, comic relief, or deviation. It's just a lot of vintage Eastwood, DiCaprio, and criminal justice history. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TokyochuchuAug 7, 2012
As one of the greatest cloak and dagger artists in history, there is a lot of scope for drama in the tale of J. Edgar Hoover's life. Unfortunately, most of the more remarkable aspects of it are only dealt with as footnotes. The movie spreadsAs one of the greatest cloak and dagger artists in history, there is a lot of scope for drama in the tale of J. Edgar Hoover's life. Unfortunately, most of the more remarkable aspects of it are only dealt with as footnotes. The movie spreads itself far too thin, giving you tiny snippets about this and that but nothing in any detail or depth. As such, J. Edgar is a disappointment. Sadly, the movie is at it's best when dealing with it's repressed homosexual love story (even when the two male leads have almost no chemistry). With fine acting and period detailing, J. Edgar is entertaining enough but ultimately forgettable. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
foxgroveDec 9, 2012
Entertaining but fairly conventional biopic with Leonardo Dicaprio turning in another excellent performance as the tortured politician. Armie Hammer lends good support, and the production values are all on the money, the ageing make-up asideEntertaining but fairly conventional biopic with Leonardo Dicaprio turning in another excellent performance as the tortured politician. Armie Hammer lends good support, and the production values are all on the money, the ageing make-up aside which is variable to say the least. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
lasttimeisawSep 21, 2012
Mr. Eastwood
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
StevenFFeb 25, 2013
Perhaps quite an anticipated biographical film, J. Edgar tells the story of, at the time, "the second most powerful man in America", FBI director J. Edgar Hoover.
Leonardo DiCaprio gives a masterful performance as the ruthless lawman, who's
Perhaps quite an anticipated biographical film, J. Edgar tells the story of, at the time, "the second most powerful man in America", FBI director J. Edgar Hoover.
Leonardo DiCaprio gives a masterful performance as the ruthless lawman, who's unquestioned part in the growth of crime fighting helped to solidify his status as the birth of modern policing technology.
J.Edgar is told in non-linear fashion, it jumps throughout the film, focusing on Hoovers later years as he is telling the story and going right back to 1919 during his rise in the Bureau.
This is very much a tale of how Hoover appeared to influence and maintain his public image as the face of the Bureau of Investigation, his awkward and consistently questioned homosexual relationship with his longtime assistant Clyde Tolson, played confidently by Armie Hammer. We see Hoover's attempts to increase the funds for the FBI in an attempt to detain criminals through concrete evidence, the introduction of fingerprint databases and forensic laboratories.
DiCaprio, along with director Clint Eastwood, have created Hoover in a brilliantly diverse image of intimidation, isolation, but most of all, an undying will to get what he wants. DiCaprio's delivery of Hoovers confident speaking and his tactics to appear better than the rest, are truly some of the best parts of the film, and defining moments in DiCaprio's career.
The inclusion of various notable political figures throughout Hoover's expansive career make appearances including Richard Nixon and Bobby Kennedy, attempt to show the influence that Hoover had over these powerful people, and undoubtedly the numerous investigations after his death, which looked into his methods, including wire tapping and possession of confidential files of leading people.
There are small things which perhaps bring the film down, the lighting is particularly concerning, perhaps they were trying to put a different feel on a film set during the Depression,, but at times its quite difficult see expressions, due to the very dim colours, the make-up used for the later stages of the characters lives is also questionable, DiCaprio's is just ok, but Armie Hammer's face looks more a severe case of a burn victim rather than an ageing man, and the film does perhaps jump to much for many to follow and hold onto its narrative.
But overall, a truly compelling and engaging biographical drama, with a spellbindingly powerhouse performance from Leonardo DiCaprio, and excellent supporting roles from Naomi Watts, Judi Dench and the excellent Armie Hammer, J.Edgar might just be excellent craftsmanship of how one man can rise the ranks, and Eastwood has created a man not many fully understand, but who unquestionably remains historic in more ways than one.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
BHBarryNov 30, 2011
J. Edgar" is, as you might expect, the story of J. Edgar Hoover, at one time one of if not the most powerful man in the nation as he formed and led the Federal Bureau of Investigation for at least 48 years. Leonardo DiCaprio stars as theJ. Edgar" is, as you might expect, the story of J. Edgar Hoover, at one time one of if not the most powerful man in the nation as he formed and led the Federal Bureau of Investigation for at least 48 years. Leonardo DiCaprio stars as the world's most famous G Man and Armie Hammer plays his faithful confidant and friend, Clyde Tolson while Naomi Watts portrays the role of Helen Gandy, J. Edgar's ever loyal secretary and girl Friday. The film was written by Dustin Lance Black and produced and directed by Clint Eastwood,. Although interesting from the point of view of the history of the nation's most famous crime fighting organization, I'm sorry to say that the film was much too long. Instead of shortening Hoover's name in the title of the film, the editors should have deleted a lot of unnecessary footage as the movie struggles to find itself and its proper pace. In this case FBI could stand "For Boring Individuals". Even good things should end in a timely manner. This is not the Clint Eastwood we came to know in "The Unforgiven" or his other great films. It was almost as if pride of directorship and artistic endeavor overrode the necessity to make the film work in a tighter vehicle. Perhaps trying to cover such a complicated character over so long a period makes the extraordinary length of the film inevitable but not necessarily pleasant to watch. I give the film a score of 7,5 with the suggestion that a good cup of strong coffee prior to viewing it would be a good idea., Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
sanyrubJan 18, 2013
Clint Eastwood returns after a couple of average at best films (Invictus and Hereafter). I´m not into biopics and these American powerful men don´t interest me at all, so I wasn´t expecting much. But when the film starts you can smell thisClint Eastwood returns after a couple of average at best films (Invictus and Hereafter). I´m not into biopics and these American powerful men don´t interest me at all, so I wasn´t expecting much. But when the film starts you can smell this Eastwood´s way of making great cinema. Cinematography is great and Leonardo Dicaprio makes you love and care for the character (despite being an obsessed man who did so many questionable things). The first hour is good... but to my surprise it got better after that when the character´s personal life finally comes to the front, like it should be in an Eastwood´s film. Judi Dench is always great, Naomi Watts is good and... another surprise is how good Armie Hammer is. Wasn´t expecting some of the scenes in the last part coming from a director like Eastwood. I give it a 7/10, with a Dicaprio deserving of an oscar nomination which didn´t come (again) and a good way to know something about the US recent history Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
chwOct 18, 2014
J. Edgar was a decent film. It wasn't either Leonardo DiCaprio or Clint Eastwood's greatest or one of their greatest's, but still a very good movie well acted.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
cabritaSep 22, 2012
What starts off as an engrossing subtle objective take on Hoover's life by the end turns into a film with a certain agenda. I did not feel for Hoover as much as I found him an interesting man which is why I found the beginning to be great.What starts off as an engrossing subtle objective take on Hoover's life by the end turns into a film with a certain agenda. I did not feel for Hoover as much as I found him an interesting man which is why I found the beginning to be great. However the last 45 minutes fail to move the story but instead the agenda of the screenwriter. Dicaprio delivers an outstanding performance in one of the best looking films of the year. It had great potential too bad both of Eastwood's recent directorial outings have started off great but slowly fall apart. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Andys_ReviewsFeb 3, 2013
Although well made, I found the subject matter all a tad too dry; there was little excitement and what there was appeared very sporadic. I did like the look of the film though; the muted colours matched the mood; Eastwood always has a goodAlthough well made, I found the subject matter all a tad too dry; there was little excitement and what there was appeared very sporadic. I did like the look of the film though; the muted colours matched the mood; Eastwood always has a good eye for a shot and it shows. I also quite liked the original music, also written by Eastwood, nothing too ostentations, but nicely matched to the action. The performances were all very good with DiCaprio easily standing out but I thought Naomi Watts was woefully underused. Over all, I can’t say I was entirely thrilled with this one. I felt the whole thing was maybe too ambitious. If they had concentrated on (say) the Lindbergh kidnapping and used that as the backdrop to the narrative then maybe it would have worked better. But sadly this is not one I can recommend I’m afraid.

SteelMonster’s verdict: NOT RECOMMENDED

My score: 4.8/10.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
AkkharMar 24, 2012
J. Edgar may not be one of the best biography film but it does in fact kept its jest for the audience to see it through the end . Sometime it feels that the movie is too long .Movie should have more crime related topic . Leonardo DiCaprio didJ. Edgar may not be one of the best biography film but it does in fact kept its jest for the audience to see it through the end . Sometime it feels that the movie is too long .Movie should have more crime related topic . Leonardo DiCaprio did an amazing work as the title role . although sometimes i felt that he wasn't trying to do J. Edgar's impression but other then that he was super . I never doubted Eastwood's direction and I still stand corrected . Overall J. Edgar has good acting , good direction but still its not so much fun to watch . Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
A_NorthernerAug 31, 2013
J. Edgar is a strange film. While I wouldn't go as far as saying I really enjoyed sitting through it's two hours plus running time, I found the subject matter incredibly interesting and DiCaprio's powerhouse performance as Hoover kept meJ. Edgar is a strange film. While I wouldn't go as far as saying I really enjoyed sitting through it's two hours plus running time, I found the subject matter incredibly interesting and DiCaprio's powerhouse performance as Hoover kept me glued to the screen. The film is certainly not lacking for strong performances as DiCaprio is well supported by Armie Hammer and Naomi Watts.

I think writer Dustin Black struggled to balance the elements of character study with the events taking place around Hoover. The film is definitely at it's most interesting when Hoover is leading the FBI through the pursuit of Dillinger, investigating the Lindbergh kidnapping and plotting against Martin Luther King. When the film remembers it's a biopic it turns to Hoover's personal life and time is spent analysing his relationships with close friend Clyde and his mother, played by Judi Dench. This narrative, from various times in Hoover's past, both professional and private life, to the current day, does jump around without too much coherence but I didn't find it as troubling as many critics seem too have.

J. Edgar will not appeal to those with no interest in American history yet for those keen to understand Hoover's dogged role in the creation of the FBI and some of the major political events of the twentieth century, and willing to forgive it it's flaws, it offers a fascinating look at the achievements and legacy of the man while touching on his character, all told through the great performances.

Oh and yes, some of the make-up and prosthetics used on DiCaprio and Hammer during the later years are distractingly laughable.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
JamesLNov 14, 2011
Well, I cannot think of much positive to say about this film. There was nothing new to be learned, no subplots developed, nothing revealed, and it just seemed like Eastwood was lost. Leonardo was packed under tons of makeup to play the elderWell, I cannot think of much positive to say about this film. There was nothing new to be learned, no subplots developed, nothing revealed, and it just seemed like Eastwood was lost. Leonardo was packed under tons of makeup to play the elder Hoover with the film flashing back to key points in the pasts. Yet these key points were nothing we did not already know about and nothing knew was revealed about the. Eastwood focused mainly on his private gay life and partner but should that be the focus of a biography of someone this important in American history. A hugh disappointment to me. Expand
5 of 7 users found this helpful52
All this user's reviews
8
CitizenCharlieNov 26, 2011
For those of us born after 1972, it is routine to see government directors arrive in a new post, serve their designated appointments, and move on to be replaced by another bureaucrat. However, for those a bit more mature, they will rememberFor those of us born after 1972, it is routine to see government directors arrive in a new post, serve their designated appointments, and move on to be replaced by another bureaucrat. However, for those a bit more mature, they will remember the FBI as a place where turnover at the top did not occur. One man, J. Edgar Hoover, molded that organization into the domestic crime fighting force it is today and would react severely towards real and perceived threats to his power, even from multiple Presidents of the United States. As the subject of Clint Eastwoodâ Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
wishmasterDec 25, 2011
Movie disappointed me, a dark assembly not to the movie was going well, make that left much to be desired, unless the actions of rescue Leo DiCaprio and Naomi Watts, a script that had no point of fascination that kept you glued to the screen.
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
7
iCronicJul 11, 2014
good biopical but not a great movie. DiCaprio always delivers
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Spielberg00Nov 14, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Bottom Line: Biographical Eastwood/DiCaprio collaboration is spectacular; by far one of the better films made in 2011.

Clint Eastwoodâ
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Apemonkey666Aug 18, 2012
Clint Eastwood and DiCaprio clearly know their craft and deliver a biopic that isn't affraid to show the man's character flaws and failures as well as the contributions he made to the justice system and society. It doesn't fall in the trap ofClint Eastwood and DiCaprio clearly know their craft and deliver a biopic that isn't affraid to show the man's character flaws and failures as well as the contributions he made to the justice system and society. It doesn't fall in the trap of being judgemental and lets the audience think for themselves. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
audreythomas25Feb 17, 2016
Gordon-Levitt's confidence is appealing, even if the film itself mistakes redundancy for profundity.

Watch this movie here for free http://www.watchfree.to/watch-2a17d7-J-Edgar-movie-online-free-putlocker.html
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
8
NJWolfgangFeb 22, 2012
Interesting film. A bit slow and the makeup was a very serious issue. The film is filled with quite good performances. Overall a lot better than Invictus or Hereafter. Eastwood has made it clear he understands the nature of relationshipsInteresting film. A bit slow and the makeup was a very serious issue. The film is filled with quite good performances. Overall a lot better than Invictus or Hereafter. Eastwood has made it clear he understands the nature of relationships and what is revealed to others by those who are involved in those relationships. Eastwood has proven over and over he can tell a story and he does that here and does it quite well. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
9
gfnyNov 11, 2011
A masterful film directed by a more mature Clint Eastwood. The file shows sensitivity and purpose. It has the feel of a documentary yet more informative and personal, and drama. Leonard DiCaprio was brilliant and is sure to receive anA masterful film directed by a more mature Clint Eastwood. The file shows sensitivity and purpose. It has the feel of a documentary yet more informative and personal, and drama. Leonard DiCaprio was brilliant and is sure to receive an Oscar nomination. Watching this 2 hour and 17 minutes film is like watching a freight train moving in first gear -- slow but powerfully steady. If you are looking for action and explosions you will not find it, this film is one hundred percent dialogue. You could hear a pin drop in the theatre. A brilliant docudrama. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
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
7
Captain_KirkAug 27, 2012
'J. Edgar' sadly isn't the great Clint Eastwood film that I or anyone else was expecting. The film, for me, suffered from not having a plot that moved forward. Instead, the film is told through flashbacks and we go from old Hoover to your'J. Edgar' sadly isn't the great Clint Eastwood film that I or anyone else was expecting. The film, for me, suffered from not having a plot that moved forward. Instead, the film is told through flashbacks and we go from old Hoover to your Hoover several times. With that main gripe aside, the film itself IS good. It's superbly acted by DiCaprio, well directed by Eastwood, and never has a dull moment. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
pdw123Sep 19, 2016
I DO NOT understand the "criminal action" of not putting this up for an AA this year, especially given the outstanding performance by DiCaprio, and the wonderful production/period design and direction by Clint. So Meryl got accolades forI DO NOT understand the "criminal action" of not putting this up for an AA this year, especially given the outstanding performance by DiCaprio, and the wonderful production/period design and direction by Clint. So Meryl got accolades for Thatcher, but personally, I thought "J. Edgar" was a much better film as far as spanning the entire life of a historical figure, whereas "The Iron Lady" only really focused primarily on Thatcher's Alzheimer's and her later life, go figure?? Since "Young Adult" and "Take Shelter" also got snubbed mightily, it's not surprising anymore. The Academy are for the rich and pompous and mainstream. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews