Who saw J. EDGAR? Members' Comments (WARNING: SPOILERS ALLOWED!)

[The Schofield Kid]

I saw it today and was pleasantly surprised. I didn't want to get my hopes up like I do with some films so going in with no expectations think worked. I'm not a big fan of films that switch back and forth between different era's as this film does. One minute it's the late 60's, then it's the 20's/30's and then back again in a matter of minutes. That was probably my only quibble.

The music score didn't bother me. As soon as I heard the first few notes over the Warner Bros. logo at the start, it did come across as similar to his last few scores but during the film I never really heard it come over the film and distract me.

I liked the look of the film especially the 1920/30's scenes, just as I did for Changeling. The acting was fine by all. Disappointed the Kennedy's weren't shown more. Only two scenes with Robert Kennedy (Jeffrey Donovan) who's acting for that short time was OK by me.

I think reading those two books last year on The FBI and J.Edgar Hoover certainly help me follow the stories in the film. The Lindburgh kidnapping, the gangsters in the 1930's and how Hoover built up the FBI as he did. I agree with what Doug said about the film makers taking it a little easy on Hoover regarding the way he went after people. He was relentless. I mean it is shown but to me not as hard hitting or confronting as it could've been.

I did get worried when I looked at my watch and it was only at the hour mark. Always a bad sign for me but the next time I looked it was just past the 2 hour mark and I thought what happened to the last hour? The film didn't drag and I was interested throughout.

I wouldn't say it's a masterpiece or the best thing Clint has directed but it's not the worst either.

And I can finally say that I've seen Jimmy Cagney on the big screen.

4/5.

[Lin Sunderland]

I am so pleased you liked it SK. I will be ordering it on DVD and could even receive that before I get to see it on the big screen. Gee Richmond is so behind with movies. 

[Gant]

Well I've gotta be honest... I went into this film not expecting too much.. and tho it was in no way a bad film..
I certainly didn't think it a great one.
I'll keep it brief..
The score didn't bother me.. It didn't stand out either, but certainly didn't intrude or spoil the movie for me.
I thought Eastwoods direction was more workmanlike than craftsman-like this time round  and strove so hard to portray Hoover so even handedly and balanced that to me the end result was a  little dull.
I did think DiCaprio's central performance was very strong but although I didn't think the make-up was particuarly bad..  the fact that the film jumps back and forth so much , the heavy make-up and prosthetics are more apparent and do distract from his performance.. he looks like he's really buried under all that stuff..  His head must be about twice it's normal size in the older scenes..
 The film just wasn't dramaticly punchy enough for me..
It's a very worthy film.. but possibly not a very enjoyable one..

I do think Larry Cohens film "The Private Lives of J Edgar Hoover" was a lot more fun..

[Hemlock]

I finally saw J.Edgar (a week or so ago) and I liked it and thought it was very well made all around but still it was just "ok"-film to me.
DiCaprio was good as was most of the actors but he has been better in other films (for example Shutter Island).

This is already third"mediocre"film from Eastwood in a row.I wish the next one would be more in the line with a films like Gran Torino,Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby to name a few.

[The Schofield Kid]

Watching this again on the weekend and there was a scene that struck me as odd. We see J.Edgar eating dinner with his Mother at home with a young girl who looks about 10 years old. During the scene, I'm thinking who is this girl and where did she come from all of a sudden. It isn't until the very end of the scene that we find out it's J.Edgar's neice but we never see her again in the film.

I just can't work out why this girl was in the scene at all?

[KC]

I haven't read the published screenplay all the way through, but glancing through it, there's a scene where "Edgar and his NIECE, 12" are smoking Lucky Strikes—actually, he's teaching her to smoke. ("Hold it in your lungs or it'll do you no good.") They probably excised that for obvious reasons (children smoking in films is something heavily frowned upon by the societal arbiters). There may be other scenes with the niece, as well. When Eastwood cuts things out of scripts (either before or after filming them), there are sometimes some rather puzzling loose ends.

[The Schofield Kid]

I haven't read the published screenplay all the way through, but glancing through it, there's a scene where "Edgar and his NIECE, 12" are smoking Lucky Strikes—actually, he's teaching her to smoke. ("Hold it in your lungs or it'll do you no good.") They probably excised that for obvious reasons (children smoking in films is something heavily frowned upon by the societal arbiters). There may be other scenes with the neice, as well. When Eastwood cuts things out of scripts (either before or after filming them), there are sometimes some rather puzzling loose ends.

Ahh, that explains it.

Thank You, KC.

[The Schofield Kid]

Anyone notice on the DVD 12 minute special feature that the term "Absolute Power" was used a couple of times regarding J. Edgar Hoover. Maybe that would have been a better title for the film?

[KC]

Yeah, Clint should have called it Absolute Power II!

[palooka]

I've been asked to show a screen cap of my "performance" (sorry it took so long)

Blink and you'll miss it

[The Schofield Kid]

Cool.

Thanks palooka.

[Lin Sunderland]

Thank you for posting those pictures palooka.    It is always great to see you on the screen.   

[Dan Dassow]

Thank you for posting those pictures palooka.    It is always great to see you on the screen.   

Palooka, thanks. This was a brief but memorable scene.   

[Chessie]

I watched J. Edgar last night.  Having missed in theaters I was subject to the various opinions of the overly pretentious film community that I am a part of as I go to film school.  As terrible as I heard it was, I was pleasantly surprised.  My mentor put it well the other night and said "J. Edgar proves that Clint is human."  At the time I thought the comment was very strange and rather off putting but after viewing the film I think I understand.  For a film dealing with a character who is so big as Hoover is, it is a surprisingly intimate film.  Its not very often that Clint does films that are so personal, I would say his most recent film that is personal is Gran Torino.  I was surprised at the subtle way the homosexuality was handled throughout the film, which I wasn't expecting at all being that the script came from Dustin Lance Black, writer of Milk.  The frailty of Hoover's character was so intriguing to me and his dynamic with Clyde was handled so gently that I loved that aspect of the movie.  Clint's directing style, to me, was very paternal nature, which I can't really say about any of his other films, the handling of life, homosexuality, and politics was so straight forward but you still had to pay attention.  So I agree with what my mentor said, human.

That being said, the film, in my opinion, was really anti-climatic, maybe because it seemed to have two climaxes, Hoover's mother dying and Hoover's final confrontation with Clyde.  It bothered me from a screenwriting point of view.  While I generally enjoy Clint's choices of lighting in his films, I thought this film was way too dark, to the point I couldn't distinguish objects, and while I understand from a psychological point of view that the film is tackling the shadiness of government, it could've been slightly more well lit.  I thought Naomi Watts was underused in the film, I didn't feel that she added anything to the part.  And at certain points I didn't know who was who, especially in dealing with the abduction part of the film. 

Overall I liked it, but I won't be watching it again, anytime soon.  Unless we do a movie night for it.

[El Cigarillo]

This is the first Eastwood film in awhile that I wasn't bored for a second!
His last few efforst have been less than scintillating - although the first 2/3 of INVICTUS were very, very, good.

Because of the subject matter , i actually wish this film were LONGER. I would have liked to have seen something along the lines of Oliver Stone's epic NIXON. The film really missed some important points such as Hoover's relationship with Lyndon Johnson (they were neighbor's) and his documented coverup of the Kennedy assassinations.

But, he succeeded for the most part in what he attempted to do - portray the man in an intimate and off-beat manner.
I like biopics that try somethiong new and Clint did just that.

check it out!
bruce

[AKA23]

I haven't seen "J. Edgar" since it first came out, but I remember thinking it was more entertaining than "Invictus" or "Hereafter." Of course, I always prefer to see him acting, but some of his other director-only films, like "Mystic River" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" are good too.