J. Edgar

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. (05/10/2013)

Eastwood’s idiosyncratic depiction of the life of one of the most powerful men of last century. Clear values and clear rules. Both Clint and Edgar stick to firmly traced course of the character development of a proper leading figure, just to get unstuck at the end. The acting performances are wonderful, mainly the could-be old age pensioner Armie Hammer excels and DiCaprio improves the quality of his acting even further. Certain stages in their lives could maybe have been developed better, I mean Dillinger only gets a couple of mentions, but this is a very decent picture. The scene in the Library of Congress library works particularly well. A perfect promotional video for catalog cards. Information is power. (17/02/2012)

An unpleasant disappointment that Clint had in store for me. I refuse to accuse him of any old-age senility, but even his firm personal style is mired in a dramaturgically-muddled film that only knows what it wants when it touches on a more historically significant event with which Hoover was associated. The rest of the film - though I wasn't expecting some cheap tabloid controversy where he wants to look under the FBI director's skin - is languid and dull, like the old-man mask that underlines the deadness of the actors' performances, and is the perfect repellent to the audience's empathy. God knows why it's as much of a fail for me as Scorsese's Shutter Island was. (17/02/2012)

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. (15/04/2014)

Just like with Lincoln, I won’t agree with most people that J. Edgar is an average film, as I will remember this film long after watching it. Even though I’m not a fan of political matters, I was captivated by all the facts I heard in the film. With all the knowledge I gained, I expanded my understanding of American history. Clint Eastwood once again outdid himself, delivering one of the best biographical films I’ve ever seen. Everything about the film was handled perfectly, without a single small mistake. Leonardo DiCaprio was in a league of his own, and his performance will remain unforgettable for me. The same goes for Armie Hammer. The flawless chemistry between them radiated even from the actors themselves. This is exactly what sets ordinary actors apart from those naturally gifted. The ending was very emotional, but it was expected that it had to end this way. And thank you to Mr. Eastwood for the brilliant music. I give it 90%. (27/08/2016)