vsd324 One of the most entertaining ways to learn about history is to see it unfold on the big screen. Sure, a good documentary can be very informative, but with those you're confined to seeing interviews, grainy stock footage and still photos. Some may use reenactments, but they tend to be hokey. The problem with Hollywood history, however, is poetic license. You really never know the historical accuracy of what you are watching. Sometimes, especially with a biopic, you kind of have to apply poetic license in order to make it more entertaining. Sometimes they succeed like the films "Frost/Nixon" (2008) and the George Bush biopic "W." (2008). Sometimes they are accurate and entertaining like "The Aviator" (2004) and "Ray" (2004). The problem with this film is that the facts surrounding the life of J. Edgar Hoover are contested among historians. Mix that in Tinseltown and there's no knowing what's real and what's not. In "J. Edgar" they clearly exploit the juicy rumors of his lifestyle that was taboo at the time, although after doing some research it seems as they these rumors have been disproved. The few facts we can agree on is that J. Edgar Hoover was the brains behind establishing the US FBI as we know it today, and he was a pioneer in forensic science, particularly in his contribution of initializing the creation of a fingerprint database. The film takes us through his life as he politically battles communism and the influence of the Bolsheviks, right through the presidency of Richard Nixon. What more, we learn from the movie that Hoover had a tendency of sensationalizing everything he did. He did it so often he truly began to believe the exaggerated version of events over what really happened. This only farther blurs the lines between reality and fiction. I'm normally not a big Leonardo DiCaprio fan, but I thought he did well with this role. Quite frankly I'm a little surprised he didn't receive more recognition for this role. I thought it was better than some of the other roles he's played that received more merit. I've never heard J. Edgar Hoover speak, but according to this film he had an accent I didn't care for. If that's how he really spoke then so be it, but it was kind of annoying. Hoover lived his entire life in Washington, DC so I'm not sure what the accent was. It sounded almost like Boston, but I think it was supposed to be a slight southern drawl. The bottom line is J. Edgar Hoover led an interesting life. Couple that with some creative screenwriting and you have an entertaining film. Just don't quote this move as a source in an intellectual conversation.

jdurazzo After just finishing the movie having it fresh in my mind still. I thought no better time than now to write this review. Which is my first on this particular website, usually giving suck opinions on my own webpages but many more should be expected to come from here on. Before watching this movie I thought it best to do a little refresher reading up on the boy who became the man we all know him to be. I thought this movie (which was a Movie & not a Biography Based Documentary and should be remembered when giving a review on this particular film about him) was quite on point with how they put it together, with both past & present happening at the same time bouncing from the two different eras in his life. Also being very important times in his life & career. I do love that they also showed his eccentricity without over doing it as well as the struggles with his socializing skills and speech impediment as well as his struggles inside his mind and also his trying to live up to his mother's standards & expectations but always seeming to just fall short of them. They showed how such a powerful man and well respected man, a man who made this country feel safe at some of its scariest moments and made criminals both foreign & domestic began to start thinking twice still had his internal struggles. Struggles as well with his personal life, with family and friends just like everyone else deals with (& FYI:some of his struggles were very hard to deal with, especially during that time period & especially with the job he had those struggles some couldn't even imagine or understand) but for some reason we the regular us citizen think these powerful people don't have the same issues and are perfect when it comes to normal issues cause they have important career issues their personal lives are a easy and nothing but chicken dinners and golf compared to the career struggle. When that couldn't be further from the truth, and he had to hide these personal struggles to ever be able to become who he became. Now about the actor who depicted J.Edgar Hoover, I do feel that Leonardo DiCaprio was a fine pick, the way he nails his accent and just entire demeanor and especially his facial expressions, especially when he depicts him in his elder years down to the half smile and the way he'd frown. Also another movie to add to again show how diverse Leonardo DiCaprio is as an actor and seems to nail every role that's been given to him since Titanic or in my own opinion since What's Eating Gilbert Grape.

Kirpianuscus 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.

Elza 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.