Strong and Moving!

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

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.

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 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.

Though most definitely an interesting subject, the trouble with adapting the life of J. Edgar Hoover to the big screen is that he was such a secretive person. Very few people (most of which took the secrets to their grave) knew the "true story" of J. Edgar, leaving much up for interpretation. Thus, whether you not you perceive this as a good film will largely depend on your faith in director Clint Eastwood.For a basic plot summary, "J Edgar" focuses on, well, the life of the former FBI director (played by Leonardo DiCaprio). From his relationship with his mother (Judi Dench) and a complicated friendship with his "number two man" Clyde Tolson (Arnie Hammer), Eastwood paints a portrait of Hoover while also describing the events that took place to create the modern FBI and intelligence-gathering as we know it.This movie works primarily because it is such an interesting subject. J. Edgar is a fascinating character study in his own right, while the story of the FBI is even more compelling. I knew relatively nothing about either subject going in, and was surprised at nearly every turn.The film's "intangibles" are also solid. Eastwood is his usual masterful self, providing both the framework and the music for the piece. The acting is top-notch and really succeeds in putting viewers inside the time period.The only thing holding this movie back, potentially, was the fact that some of the character arcs were left incomplete (whether intentionally or not I can't say). For example, I never felt as if I really understood Hoover's relationship with his mother, despite the fact that much time was devoted to the pair on-screen. To me, the "FBI stuff" was what really stole the show.All in all, "J Edgar" is a worthwhile view for history buffs and is just a solid movie overall. I trust Eastwood in presenting a decent version of the facts at hand, and thus I was able to enjoy the experience. Your trust level will more than likely determine your feelings as well.

Once upon a time, when everybody still looked like they had stepped out of a picture by Edward Hopper or Jack Vettriano, there was a rather weird guy who built an empire which he then pursued to the point of obsession, at the expense of all else and in a way that actually did himself harm and hurt many others... Let me guess, a never-really-bettered film made with (and by) Orson Welles 74 years ago? No. OK, then maybe Howard Hughes as portrayed in "The Aviator" by Leonardo DiCaprio? No, but (very) close - J. Edgar Hoover as portrayed in the film of the same name by Leonardo DiCaprio! Supplementary question: how many more times is Leo going to age slightly unconvincingly in a movie? Answer came there none. To be fair, I learned some things about America I did not know from "J. Edgar", most especially in the first few minutes of the film about the period immediately after the First World War. However, for the most part (about 2 hours) we get to know a bit about a rather unpleasant man doing rather unpleasant things in what seems like a rather unpleasant country. This is actually a bit unfair on the FBI, since obviously they must have done plenty of good stuff. (So much in fact that the "X Files" and especially (Olivia Dunham in) "Fringe" make this reviewer personally feel regular regret that he did not sign up for a job at the Bureau years ago!) But here, Hoover tries to protect his position - obviously in the name of America, its Constitution and people - from just about anybody he feels like, and also from politicians out to get him who publicly might seem like heroes, and indeed say much themselves about America, its Constitution and people, but privately are at best flawed and at worst criminal, crooked, merciless or all three. Right and wrong simply melt away in such contexts, and we cease to care. All the more so, when the general atmosphere of uncertainty about America's democratic credentials leave us wondering if the film itself takes a slant we are not aware of! These are near-unsurmountable problems where a film has to make us care about at least something...If I want a history of the FBI, I'll read a book - hopefully one written by a Brit. If I want more about Kennedy or Martin Luther King, well there are films on that (documentaries and otherwise). For all its flaws (and length!) "JFK" is a true work of film art. If I want to know about America in the 30s-60s, I could go with that similarly fine film "The Butler", which takes its stance, knows what it wants to say and sticks with that, in impressive if controversial manner. If I want to see what a bad guy Hoover was, this film won't do it, given that everybody else is bad too, and maybe even America as such (sadly enough, given its superficial reputation). If I want to get to know Hoover as a person, I need less of the history and more of the man - even if they are rather inseparable. If I want to know that - beneath it all - Hoover was a good guy, then this film also won't cut it, despite the odd tender moment. If I want to know that Hoover was a real person, warts and all, this film is not the best vehicle for that either, given that it seems fantastic in places, not least because of that makeup department, in which "warts and all" are what we get, absolutely literally!Sadly or happily, films are not books, and they have to take some kind of line at some point, and not just splurge together past, present and future, private and public life, institution and man, and hope that some kind of sophisticated analytical picture emerges from the chaos. For it does not, and there is just the chaos...