J. Edgar

[TheBoySeggy]

I'll be brief. Very good film.... terrible make up.

Am I the only one who though DiCaprio as old Edgar looked just like Jon Voight?

7/10

[Kaybeelon]

While I can appreciate a well crafted film, even if it is not to my taste, I think this has a lot of flaws. It has a lot of similarities with The Iron Lady: a controversial historical figure reflecting on their life. Whereas The Iron Lady had spark, moments of tension, and a compelling performance, J. Edgar is rather bland and lacks any kind of drama. The tone never changes and the story stays on one level with no developments to shake up the characters or the script.

DiCaprio does not give a bad performance, but it is not as powerful as I was expecting, definitely not Oscar worthy, and certainly nowhere near the level of Streep. He fared better as the younger Hoover than he did aged with all the make up which made him look puffy and bloated, and was rather distracting.

Whereas The Iron Lady evoked a degree of sympathy and Steep portrayed vulnerability, there is nothing likeable in Hoover. His relationship with Tolson does not have the gravitas it needed and his relationship with his mother was underdeveloped.

It was too long and the acting felt inconsistent (but Dench was excellent as always).

I think this has missed the Oscar mark and the script could have been stronger. 6.5/10.

I absolutely agree with everything funthing wrote including the comparison to The Iron Lady except perhaps the last sentence. I would go further and say the script could/should have been written in the first place rather than just stapling together a lot of transcripts without any developments. Some screenwriting teacher once quoted Hitchcock (?) "film is like life with the dull bits cut out". Here these were all left in. No change of pace, no drama and far too long! Shame, the subject could have been very interesting if handled differently.

[Beate]

Thank you to a_person for keeping our favourite balcony seats, we wouldn't have got them without her today!

Yet again diCaprio proves what a fantastic, versatile actor he is. He gives Hoover depth and this deeply unlikeable man some humanity, even if only by depicting him as a closeted homosexual, which has never been proven and is therefore purely speculative. I do hope though that Eastwood did not try to discredit him by going down that route, as I heard a lot of laughter in the gay scenes, which I frankly found disturbing. Two gay men aren't funny ha ha, especially in the repressed America of that time, and I would have expected the audience to be a bit more grown-up about it.

The ageing make-up was absolutely horrible. Clyde was 72 when Edgar died, yet he looked a hundred years old with all those age spots on his face and his trembling limbs. Edgar himself looked totally bloated and horrible, and disfiguring poor Naomi Watts like that in her later years is a crime against humanity.

The story was confusing, constantly cutting back and forth between the 30s and the early 70s, and I think a more linear timeline might have been a better idea. It did hold my attention though as I thought the story was interesting, however much of it might actually be true, including the destorying of discriminating files by Helen Gandy. It is far too long though and I really resent directors indulging themselves by making loooooong films just because they can.

7.5/10

[funthing29]

'J. Edgar' make-up is incredible, says Armie Hammer

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news ... ammer.html

[Octopus]

Am I the only one who though DiCaprio as old Edgar looked just like Jon Voight?

Haha, yes. He made me think of Brad Pitt in Benjamin Button (obviously)

[kevinknapman]

I actually thought there was a great deal to like about J Edgar.
Very well directed by Eastwood with a great central performance from Leonardo DiCaprio. Well deserving of a few awards nominations I think. The rest of the cast were really good too. Armie Hammer was good as Tolson as a younger man, though I found it difficult to judge his performance of him as an old man (more on that later). Judi Dench was reliably good and the likes of Naomi Watts, Stephen Root and Josh Lucas gave excellent support. Not quite as convinced by Jeffrey 'Burn Notice' Donovan's impersonation of Robert Kennedy and I got the impression that Denis O'Hare had a few scenes cut as he was shown getting hired as one of Hoover's lab technicians but was never seen again. And boy did Lea Thompson look really old (not sure if that was aging make-up or not).
It's depiction if the formation of the FBI was fascinating and I enjoyed the Cagney clips. Overall I found it a very interesting look at the life of a not particularly likeable man.....

....but, and it's a pretty major but, the scenes of the actors as older men, was completely spoiled by some of the worst aging make-up I've seen on the big screen in years. Though I got used to DiCaprio's after a while and Watts wasn't in it enough to be too much of a problem, Hammer's was extraordinarily bad. So bad that it totally distracted from the emotional content that those scenes were clearly supposed to have. I actually found it difficult to tell if Hammer was giving a bad performance as an old man or whether it was just the make-up. It completely took me out of the film. During those scenes I kept wondering how on earth it got passed the test-shoots stage and on to the screen. Didn't anybody involved speak up about how awful it looked? Another problem was that I just got reminded of the bits in Jackass where Johnny Knoxville and Spike Jonze get made up as old men, especially when DiCaprio and Hammer were on the screen at the same time. I half expected them to start recklessly driving mobility scooters down steep hills.

As a result of that, J Edgar was merely a good film when it could and should have been a great one. I still think it's a far better film than The Iron Lady though, which it has (as it's already been pointed out) many similarities with. I think it's use of a back and forth narrative was much better here and I think this is a much better directed film.

[TheDude]

I love Clint, but his recent films have been disappointing. I hope his return to acting in Trouble with the Curve won't be a let down too. Found J.Edgar to be rather dull and underwhelming, similar to Invictus and Hereafter. The make-up on Naomi Watts and Armie Hammer was just awful, and totally distracting. DiCaprio was fine, but this is no Oscar contender for me. 5/10

[Jayman]

I thought this was just OK. Probably my least favourite Clint flick of the last couple of years.
Performances and direction were fine but the content hardly intriguing in the least.

Make-up wise, am I the only one who was reminded of Jack Nicholson in "Hoffa".
And Oh my God, Lea Thompson has not aged well!!! (....or was that some more dreadful make-up?)

[Flabber]

I love Clint, but his recent films have been disappointing. I hope his return to acting in Trouble with the Curve won't be a let down too. Found J.Edgar to be rather dull and underwhelming, similar to Invictus and Hereafter. The make-up on Naomi Watts and Armie Hammer was just awful, and totally distracting. DiCaprio was fine, but this is no Oscar contender for me. 5/10

Felt the same... nothing compelling and gripping to keep the interest. Some giggles (if you can call it that) but nothing to shout 'Oscar' about. Leo was pretty good as Edgar but not great.

[jeanelle]

A bit too long and the flip flopping timeline took a bit of getting used to but it mostly held my attention. Interesting similarities with the Iron Lady as have been mentioned.