FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Suman Roberson It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Anthony Iessi Is J. Edgar the best cinematic tribute to the infamous creator and 1st director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover? Maybe yes, maybe no. But it's unclear how else you could have done other than Clint Eastwood's stoic interpretation. This is a by the books biopic, reminiscent of takes from old Hollywood. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Hoover, in what was obviously a gunning for the Academy Award, but falling way short. But in his performance, he encapsulates precisely the kind of man Hoover was. A self-aggrandizing, paranoid political animal about as concerned about his grasp of power as he was about his closeted feelings for other men. An angel he clearly wasn't. Lying to the press about his heroic accomplishments, to going so far as penning a virtual death threat to Martin Luther King Jr. Eastwood allows the audience to draw their own conclusions as to the lore of the FBI, and whether or not you can trust it from it's founding. But he does so with reverence to Hoover all the same, and how he created one of the most powerful judicial apparatuses our country has.

adrian-43767 I have to say that J. EDGAR surpassed my expectations. Direction is assured and, despite the jagged narrative, with flashbacks and flashforwards. it generally flows. Photography is competent, screenplay likewise, and dialogue held my interest throughout, even if the central character is repellent as a human being (at times he did not seem to be one, although he had the capacity to love utterly his mother, his male lover, and his secretary). I would have liked to see more in connection to his role in the HUAC case and Hollywood, even if Senator McCarthy was the driver there, I believe Hoover also had some influence. Ultimately, the film is anchored by two superlative performances from di Caprio and Naomi Watts.

Grumpy I saw this film (finally) on Netflix and I found myself glued to the screen for two and a half hours--not entertained, exactly, but fascinated by the way that so many talented people could produce something so "not good." This movie is not really good. It's acceptable, but not special enough to deserve more than a six out of 10, and that's including two stars for the script, which was clever and concise, and that's high praise for a movie script.The problem with the movie wasn't the cast or the script, it was the director. This film needed a firm hand on the wheel but there was no such guidance. It just drifts off message and runs into the rocks. It reminded me of "Hoffa," which also featured a weird biography of a famous (infamous?) character, that was fascinating because it was so weird. "J. Edgar" desperately needed to show us something about, well, J. Edgar. It needed to demonstrate just how he rationalized his crimes and emphasized his heroism. I think the script originally attempted to do that--to show a tortured soul coming to grips with the distance between his reach and his grasp, between his actions and his motives, but the execution is off. We needed to have a pause or two in the action, where "Speedy" Hoover would slow down, or even stop, the camera could give DiCaprio an opportunity to convey the internal hurricane that could result in the man like J.Edgar Hoover. But Clint Eastwood's direction never takes a break and we speed along like a cheap tour bus of Famous Homes of Washington--never pausing to take a breath and never having the chance to imagine what it must have been like to be one of the most famous men on Earth and, also, one of the most secret.This movie was a missed opportunity. Clint Eastwood seems to produce some mighty fine motion pictures when horses, horsepower and shooting and punching are on the menu. When the evil that men do is quietly done by those wearing spiffy suits and ties, he's out of his depth. This film suffers from too many answers and not enough questions. To understand a man like Hoover, a few good questions go much further than all the bogus "answers" in the world. Somebody, at some time, during the filming of this should have made the "too on the nose" gesture and told Clint not to be so literal.

Brigid O Sullivan (wisewebwoman) I picked this up in a remainder bin. That should have told me a lot.Let me count the ways this overly long biopic fails:(1) The lighting while intended to be atmospheric capturing the 1930s/40s, starts to get very irksome a wee way in. I want to see the characters not squint through the entire film.(2) The writing fell far short of exploring the complex character of J. Edgar, traits are lightly touched on and then irritatingly withdrawn or totally incomplete - i.e. his rampant racism and hatred of MLK is offered without explanation.(3) The aspect of Hoover's homosexuality is barely touched upon and his cross-dressing shown as a one-off event after his mother's death.(4) The makeup was completely over the top, especially but not limited to Armie Hammer playing his lover Colson. More suited to a comedy skit.(5) The sequence of events is all over the place, very distracting and also Hoover's lies about events are depicted as if reality and much much later revealed to be fantasy.(6) Overall a shambles of a film. But lawd, how they tried.4 out of 10.