Linkshoch Wonderful Movie

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Anthony Iessi Is J. Edgar the best cinematic tribute to the infamous creator and 1st director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover? Maybe yes, maybe no. But it's unclear how else you could have done other than Clint Eastwood's stoic interpretation. This is a by the books biopic, reminiscent of takes from old Hollywood. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Hoover, in what was obviously a gunning for the Academy Award, but falling way short. But in his performance, he encapsulates precisely the kind of man Hoover was. A self-aggrandizing, paranoid political animal about as concerned about his grasp of power as he was about his closeted feelings for other men. An angel he clearly wasn't. Lying to the press about his heroic accomplishments, to going so far as penning a virtual death threat to Martin Luther King Jr. Eastwood allows the audience to draw their own conclusions as to the lore of the FBI, and whether or not you can trust it from it's founding. But he does so with reverence to Hoover all the same, and how he created one of the most powerful judicial apparatuses our country has.

adrian-43767 I have to say that J. EDGAR surpassed my expectations. Direction is assured and, despite the jagged narrative, with flashbacks and flashforwards. it generally flows. Photography is competent, screenplay likewise, and dialogue held my interest throughout, even if the central character is repellent as a human being (at times he did not seem to be one, although he had the capacity to love utterly his mother, his male lover, and his secretary). I would have liked to see more in connection to his role in the HUAC case and Hollywood, even if Senator McCarthy was the driver there, I believe Hoover also had some influence. Ultimately, the film is anchored by two superlative performances from di Caprio and Naomi Watts.

denis888 What happened? The whole movie could have been a winning formula - directed by Clnit Eastwood, starring powerhouses like Leonardo DiCaprio, Judi Dench among others, depicting life and work of such awesome man as J. Edgar Hoover was, this film should have been excellent. It didn't happen this way. There are several resaons for this flop: 1. Sheer length - 2 hours killed all the potential. 2. Dark light scheme made the film look rather sickly sepia 3.Weaker parts played by several actors, Armie Hammer particularly, made this film a very uneven unbalanced flick 4. Jumps, plot omissions, certain falsified guesses, obvious manipulations with facts added to a very blurred aray of disapponted meh In general, good idea badly spoilt

wondercritic Clint Eastwood is a talented filmmaker. His overall body of work stands up and speaks for itself. But he misses the mark, tragically, in this. He seems to be very interested in Hoover's homosexuality, and there are intensely dramatic scenes involving the protagonist and his lover, Clyde Tolson. But the implicit involvement in conspiracies and cover-ups in the assassination of JFK, RFK and MLK (to say nothing of Malcolm X) are not dealt with at all. Hoover practically had the Warren Commission as his captive audience in the presentation of evidence, resulting in one of the greatest travesties of justice in American history. The film does briefly deal with the blackmailing of MLK, but it is not developed.Apart from this glaring inadequacy, the film under-utilizes the great Naomi Watts, cast as Hoover's lifelong personal secretary. Her scenes are very limited and pedestrian after an initial, awkward attempt by Hoover to court her. It's a strange film with lots of dramatic moments. But don't expect any illumination of Hoover's innumerable instances of suspect criminal behavior. It feels very strongly incomplete, and thus like a missed opportunity.