Customer Reviews
By
Reconnecting To My Childhood "Time Won't Let ... (TOP 500 REVIEWER)
A scene at a clothing store in which John Edgar Hoover is told he has bad credit finds him telling them that they are incorrect, they must be speaking of another John Hoover. They ask if he is indeed John Hoover and he says yes but adds that he signs his name different ways, not usually just plainly as John Hoover but with his middle name or E initial included (his mother did always call him Edgar). The shop owner then tells Hoover to open up a new account and sign it with one name and to go by that name. John takes the application form and writes J. Edgar Hoover.To me this scene is symbollic of the larger f ilm. J. Edgar Hoover is a film about a man who, like many of us, had many sides and aspects that composed who he was. He was greatly conflicted about which side he should portray publicly and stumbled rather awkwardly in his younger years, illustrated wonderfully in the film, until finally deciding that J. Edgar Hoover was who he was going to be. That was the side he was going to live publicly and the person he was going to be, right or wrong, with full conviction. The rest of the film shows us the consequent problems, struggles and complications that follow from this choice.I was concerned that this film wouldn't live up to my expectations, others have been rating it rather ordinary and others negatively, few seem really excited about it after having viewed it. In a way I can see where they are coming from. It is a long film with dark moody colors, almost as if Eastwood wanted it to be black and white, and a lot of dialogue that moves quite fast without much regard for help ing the audience along or spelling things out. All that aside, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and while it didn't blow my mind or leave me with any great revelations about my own life it was a great movie experience and had me thinking and entertained the entire time I was watching it. I'm not sure where all the more negative or critical reviews are coming from, perhaps people have high standards from Eastwood and expected something groundbreaking, perhaps they just expected something different, but after all the negative or ho-hum opinions I had heard about this film I was pleasantly surprised and recommend it for fans of drama or biopics. I especially recommend it for those like myself who have been waiting for a more compelling film this movie-going season.Perhaps I enjoyed it more because I have seen a truly terrible line of recent films in cinemas, Jack and Jill being the latest before seeing this (that movie was awful, so awful. I thought it would be bad but in an over the top funny way, it was just bad). So maybe my enjoyment was raised during this film because other recent films have left me underwhelmed and bored or wanting my money back. I haven't seen an excellently crafted film in theaters since The Help and haven't even thought one merited repeat viewings since the surprise that was 50/50. This film didn't knock me out but I will definitely watch it again and will likely even buy it on Blu-ray because I want it to be part of my collection and think it will become more engaging upon future viewings.People are complaining about the old age make up, it never bothered me once despite other reviewer comments making me more critical than usual. People say there are many impersonations of presidents and such that are distracting, the only one that felt as much to me was Richard Nixon's brief appearance towards the end because it was so over the top. People say it drags, but I was never wanting for it to hurry or speed along, I was always compelled with what was on screen. There are complaints that the broken narrative is confusing and jumps too much, it's fairly straightforward with only two timelines occuring. Hoover in his old age is dictating his past for a manuscript and both these timelines are otherwise chronological and move forward with one another. People say there is no real message or overriding theme to speak of, I think deeper digging and repeat viewings will find them more well constructed than others are giving credit right now. Most of all though, even if some find merit to these criticisms I don't find that any of them would keep the film from being enjoyable as a whole. This film may be getting less positive reviews because people thought it could have been so many things that it isn't. In the end I feel Eastwood and the writer picked a direction and identity for the film and much like J. Edgar they decided to move forward with full conviction. It is what it is and any negatives don't outwe igh all the positives it brings in my opinion, but everyone will judge the film differently I suppose, much like everyone has different opinions on J. Edgar Hoover the man.It may also help me that I'm very interested in history and this time period. Also in how institutions such as the FBI got built up and came to be (the film does an excellent job at explaining how the bureau slowly found ways to gain power and independence). Anyways, give this film a chance, I give it five stars because I may not have LOVED the film but I did love the experience of watching it, if that makes sense.
Clint Eastwood, Dustin Lance Black and Leonardo DiCaprio join forces to understand the 20th century's most admired, hated and controversial man, J. Edgar Hoover (with a tour de force performance by DiCaprio).Let me first say that when I first heard of this project in the works I virtually knew very little about the F.B.I founder. I had however seen great depictions by actors like Bob Hoskins, Vincent Gardenia, Billy Crudup and more recently by Enrico Colantoni. All good performances without a doubt but only two dimensional portrayals. Here DiCaprio creates a 5th dimensional character that the audience can try to more or less understand.The film spans nearly 50 years in the history timeline, jumping timeframe by time frame and creating a rich tapestry of political drama and turmoil in our nation's history. DiCaprio plays both the young, ambitious and advanced Hoover as well as the old, embittered czar whom all politicians feared by the 1950's.Armie Hammer plays his protege and second man in the Bureau Clyde Tolson. Hammer is the soul and conscience of the film as well as Hoover's constantly ignored emotions. Judi Den ch, Naomi Watts and Jeffrey Donovan turn in great performances as well. The screenplay is rich and meticulously researched and Eastwood's direction has perfected greatly to the point of crafting his most ambitous, and richest project since his excellent "Flags/Letters" duo.If you enjoy history, historical dramas, this is for you. A thought provoking, psychological insight into this man's soul and heart and the effect he had on this nation's history. One of the most chilling moments in the film happens toward end when a anxiously devastated Hoover witnesses the inaugural of Richard Nixon amd almost forsees the devastation that will befall the U.S. with the race riots, Vietnam, protesting students and assasination of MLK and etc, while "Star and Stripes Forever" plays in the background and if the audience undertands it, they begin to mourn the death of our nation.Eastwood almost mirrors Oliver Stone in a more calm way but by the end of the film your opinion is yours and yours alone. I watched this 5 times in theatres and I would damn well watch it again because it is simply an American Masterpiece from an American Master who has clearly matured and seen the significant changes in our country. I can only hope this review does this film justice for all the misjudgements there have been about it. Frankly, it is the best picture of the year!!
By
Jacques COULARDEAU "A soul doctor, so to say" (OLLIERGUES France) (REAL NAME)
I will be short on this film because it probably is one of the best by Clint Eastwood.First the actors. They have to cover a whole life and it starts in their early twenties and ends in their late seventies with diseases and dea th. It is not only a question of special makeup effects but it is a question of deportment, behaviour, rhythm, flexibility, credibility at any age in their facial expressions and their language. It takes time, a lot of training and great talent to do that. If it were easy they would all do it. Very few actually can.Second the institutional subject. The creation of the FBI. Its transformation from a semi-clandestine agency to a scientific, well trained and very effective and diligent institution. The film is clear how difficult it was to get laws passed and finances granted by Congress. Some of the arguments were opportunistic and some were logical, but they all had only one aim: to get what it needs to become the best. J. Edgar Hoover was in a way irritating in his way to serialize the action of the FBI for the nascent mass-media that the radio and the cinema were becoming. He was extremely disturbing in his umbilical ego-centeredness or ego-centricity. But that was him and the actor is able to render this cold, calculated and very tense character who had a problem with public elocution and had managed to overcome it with an extremely strict discipline.That leads to his action and his vision of the FBI. He was extremely authoritative and manipulative. He never took no for an answer and for him one no was always a disguised and hidden yes. He accumulated information on all the people he could one day depend on, politicians, congressmen and justices or judges, to blackmail them if necessary. He generally had his way and one of his major failures was with Martin Luther King that he could not blackmail into refusing the Nobel Peace Prize. The film is at times on the very verge of being embarrassing, though it only speaks of dead figures because it is dealing with rumors on Eleanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Richard Nixon and a few others. I am not even sure some of the information is not frankly false.But Clint Eastwood is a patriot and he shows the patriotic side of the character with insistence and weight, to the point of reaching bigotry at times, for example on the subject of racism. He built the FBI in the fight against the anarchist and communist movement in the 20s and 30s, against the gangsters of the 20s and Prohibition, against the Germans in the 30s too, without specifying the political innuendo of the national reference in 1934 among Americans questioned by the FBI about someone who had a German accent. No nuance. Clint Eastwood gives his matter raw and uncooked at all.But Clint Eastwood reaches beyond these elements to capture the real personal and intimate dimension of his character. And here he is not using innuendo and allusions. J. Edgar Hoover's relation with his direct deputy is seen as a sentimental relation on the side of the deputy and an emotional relation on the side of J. Edgar Hoover himself. The tremendous condemnation of any gay orientation by his mother creates in him a tremendous struggle due to his attachment to his mother. The truth will come at the very end with a friendly even paternal kiss to his deputy on the night before dying. He will explain how he recruited him because he needed someone and he knew that young man needed a strong paternal figure that he accepted to be.Of course the revelation of the love of that young man for his boss is dramatized by Clint Eastwood, and maybe even too much because that was the intimate and private life of two men who did not reveal anything in public, far from it. But it is done with such delicacy, tenderness. J. Edgar Hoover appears in the film as having compensated the absence of a father figure and the presence of a strong authoritarian mother figure on his side, by playing that father figure with his direct deputy who needed such a father figure. The compensated lack of J. Edgar Hoover became the satisfaction of the need of his deputy. So much alike and yet so different.That persona l touch in this film makes the film a lot more fascinating because it speaks of something that may happen to anyone: love is the only thing that survives in life and is stronger than even hatred as J. Edgar Hoover explains as he is climbing the stairs to his bedroom for the very last time in his life.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
By
DavidJohnStock (Western Australia)
While I enjoyed this film from Clint Eastwood it is my belief that it could have been better. The film begins with J Edgar Hoover developing a filing system, so why does the last stages not contain any mention of the FBI adopting computers - as basic as they were in 1972- unless Hoover lost his early fascination with technology ?. Also much is made of using early films portraying the FBI and how there attitude to the G-MEN changed, however there is no mention of "THE FBI" television series for whatever reason ?. And lastly while much time is spent over the Lindburgh child abduction ... much much time ... there is no mention of World War 2, perhaps it was not important enough ?.
By
Juan Camaney "Book Hunter"
First, I must start by saying that I'm not an uncoditional fan of either Clint Eastwood or Leonardo DiCaprio. I find many Eastwood films excessively solemn and on the service of somewhat melodramatic material (like the overrated Mystic River). As for DiCaprio, although his seriousness and commitment to acting has never seemed in doubt, he has seemed somewhat lightweight or miscast in many of his role. But this time, and despite b eing ignored by the Academy, Eastwood and DiCaprio, aided by a superb script by Dustin Lance Black, have stricken gold. DiCaprio has probably never had a role as demanding as this and Eastwood brings out the best in him. And the material perfectly suits Eastwood autumnal, melancholic tone this time, as we are talking about an American Epic, and the history of one of the most powerful men in the history of the United States. One of the most rewarding aspects of Eastwood's history films (as with Flags of Our Fathers), is that the director makes you take a fresh point of view. At this point in history, Hoover is equated in most of our minds with power mad, cross dressing, closeted bad guy, and then the movie reminds you of the man's instrumental role in building the FBI; yes, his tactics were nasty and he always took all the credit, but he helped bring crimefighting to a whole new level. The movie does a good balancing act of showing Hoover the Brilliant Man and Hoover the mons ter, if maybe at the end the portrayal might feel a little too sympathetic or apologetic. This would be more directed at Hoover the person, than at Hoover the politician, who is shown blackmailing several presidents and wiretapping Martin Luther King. When it comes to his personal life, the movie stirred quite a bit of controversy, as some people felt that the fact that Hoover was most likely a closeted homosexual could have been show more forcefully, and that it was just suggested; in fact the movie seemed to me quite clear on the subject. DiCaprio immerses completely in the role, and we finally can forget Leo the pretty boy, and watch the actor: awkard around women, smitten by a handsome new colleague, ferocious and bombastic speaking in public, shameless in playing hardball with people like RFK. It is an amazing performance and probably the best by an American actor in 2011. Equally fine are Arne Hammer, as Hoover's longtime companion, and Naomi Watts, as his lifetime sec retary. It is impossible to come out of a biographical or historical picture with a comprehensive view of its subject, at best it's a starting point to delve deeper in the subjects it explores. In this, J. Edgar does an impressive job, and kudos to Eastwood and DiCaprio for embarking in such an ambitious venture.
No comments:
Post a Comment