Directed by:
Clint EastwoodScreenplay:
Dustin Lance BlackCinematography:
Tom SternComposer:
Clint EastwoodCast:
Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts, Josh Hamilton, Geoff Pierson, Cheryl Lawson, Kaitlyn Dever, Sadie Calvano, Judi Dench, Josh Lucas, Ed Westwick (more)VOD (1)
Plots(1)
As the face of law enforcement in America for almost fifty years, J. Edgar Hoover was feared and admired, reviled and revered. But behind closed doors, he held secrets that would have destroyed his image, his career and his life. Under the direction of Clint Eastwood, Leonardo DiCaprio stars in the title role of “J. Edgar,” a drama that explores the public and private life of one of the most powerful, controversial and enigmatic figures of the 20th century. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (1)
Reviews (8)
I don't consider J. Edgar to be the worst Eastwood film, but to make such a below-average spectacle from such an amazing concept and with such an amazing cast is deserving of a few slaps. And when I consider the difference between the result and the ambitions, unfortunately from my point of view, it is Eastwood's biggest directorial failure. Eastwood disappointed me as a storyteller, his direction lacks ideas, and the script is also no masterpiece. When I compare J. Edgar to Il Divo by Paolo Sorrentino, Eastwood embarrassingly fails in the field of biographical films. Maybe it could work as a TV movie, but not as a great story about a great legend of American politics and criminology and the founder of one of the most famous institutions in the USA. Overall impression: 40%.
()
A lot of great work went into the editing, acting, set design and period stylization of J. Edgar. It is definitely a more fun and livelier movie than Lincoln. However, it should have focused more on what makes it attractive to the audience. Hoover’s attempt to introduce the revolutionary idea of collecting fingerprints (the most interesting storyline) is not finished, and his physical relationship with an actress whose portrayal could help explain his complicated sexuality is missing completely. Even though the second half of the film is more about his inner demons and intimacy, it is just as interesting as the crime-oriented first half. Anyway, it is a respectable monument to a controversial personality and has indisputable educational value.
()
Clint Eastwood decided to make a film about one of the world's most controversial and interesting criminologists and thought he would make a cold, almost emotionless film. It's a shame because, from the beginning, the viewer struggles to be drawn into the plot. The emotions come into the film only in the second half, and I'm not sure if it wasn't a bit too late by then. Most characters in the film have minimal presence, making it essentially impossible to develop any connection with them. But Leo convinced me that he could handle any role. He doesn't stand out so much here, but the film certainly doesn't fall flat because of it; rather, it's the dull, sterile approach that holds it back.
()
Clint Eastwood's direction is, in my opinion, too old-fashioned and extremely slow. The ambient sound and minimalist set design are fine and bearable, but in my view, there was no place for directorial conservatism this time. The story of J. Edgar Hoover should have been gripping and controversial. What the director didn't achieve, he tries to make up for with one of the best performances by Leonardo DiCaprio, currently, one of the best and most complex actors in Hollywood. It's definitely not a complete disaster, and they chose very good material, but the execution is somewhere on the average and significantly lags behind in entertainment value and digestibility. On the other hand, it is sufficiently dramatic and very unconventional in terms of costumes and cold visual aesthetics.
()
Eastwood's J. Edgar reminds me of Spielberg's Lincoln in a lot of ways. Apart from the direction, which is polished to perfection mainly by the camera, its washed-out colors, the gloomy darkness (every intrusion of sharp daylight is unexpected and somehow inappropriate)... And above all the way the story of the main hero is told. Or is hero the right word? It is probably well known to all that the situation around Hoover was complicated. Still, I was surprised at how much of the controversial chapters of his life Eastwood was able to show without in any way justifying Hoover or making him out to be a saint. This is exactly the kind of documentary-style feature film I like. Fiction, discharged by Hoover himself, alternates between known facts so skillfully that you can't tell what is what, and it's up to you to make sense of this dramatic, but still very sensitive and at the same time poignant theatre. I have no complaints about the actors, Leonardo DiCaprio looked convincing even under the layer of retirement latex, while Armie Hammer's make-up artist didn't do that good of a realistic job, but I still bow down to them.
()
Ads