Fantastic!

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

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

it is a great History lesson; and should be used as such....Hoover apparently went totally mad....and kept "dirty tricks" files on all prominent people in Washington....I have read two books that strongly implicated Hoover in the Murder of JFK.....a man he detested....as a Kid growing up in the fifties and 60's.....we always thought the FBI was the word of God.....Hoover; being gay; used tapes of OTHER Gays in Washington to blackmail people and too keep his job. Seeing a Movie like this; makes you Know our "heroes" are people just like the rest of us; many with serious faults; and even insanitys. Read Jim Marrs' Books about the JFK assassination....it will strongly bring forth the notion that Hoover would do anything; including murder; to keep his job....

a great director. a delicate subject. and a real good work. because it is a film about power- its price, its limits- more than a film about Hoover. it is an exercise of honesty about a man who creates and lead and transforms America. and the courage and subtle science to not present a statue but a vulnerable man, with obscure aspects of life, with desire to impose rules , the mixture of patriotic attitude and egocentric acts, the force who transforms people and events, the images of childhood as windows to the single man, the strange definition of family and the purpose who build a career, Leonardo Di Caprio in one of his splendid roles, all represents arguments for admire Eastwood's work.

I picked this up in a remainder bin. That should have told me a lot.Let me count the ways this overly long biopic fails:(1) The lighting while intended to be atmospheric capturing the 1930s/40s, starts to get very irksome a wee way in. I want to see the characters not squint through the entire film.(2) The writing fell far short of exploring the complex character of J. Edgar, traits are lightly touched on and then irritatingly withdrawn or totally incomplete - i.e. his rampant racism and hatred of MLK is offered without explanation.(3) The aspect of Hoover's homosexuality is barely touched upon and his cross-dressing shown as a one-off event after his mother's death.(4) The makeup was completely over the top, especially but not limited to Armie Hammer playing his lover Colson. More suited to a comedy skit.(5) The sequence of events is all over the place, very distracting and also Hoover's lies about events are depicted as if reality and much much later revealed to be fantasy.(6) Overall a shambles of a film. But lawd, how they tried.4 out of 10.

Before watching J. Edgar I, as usually, checked out the IMDb score. I try not to be influenced by it that much, but have to admit that the thought of the low score the movie had received, didn't leave my mind the entire time. And I kept asking myself - is it because of actors, plot, writing or something else? It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't a successful one as well. Because I'm not an American, the history of FBI and Hoover was quite unknown for me. And I usually like movies that can teach me something new or at least make me do some research, especially if it's related with historical events and people. But there's a negative side to it as well. Sometimes movies fail to explain simple things in an understandable way and it keeps you in the dark through the whole movie. I had a notion that this is going to be the case, so I opened Wikipedia already from the start and followed the movie time-line and some of the characters. Is it really the task of the audience to read additional materials or it is writer/director that has to provide this information? I don't want to write a full review here, but in short - DiCaprio was excellent as always, but couldn't save the whole movie. Other characters lacked emotion and their personalities weren't deep enough. I lost the confidence and belief because of poor makeup and dark lightning. Not going to watch it again, sorry.