The Schofield Kid
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
    
Offline
Posts: 24983

All on account of pulling a trigger.
|
 |
« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2012, 03:50:44 AM » |
|
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.
|
|
|
Logged |
"Winners are simply willing to do what losers won't."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
    
Offline
Posts: 32408

Control ...
|
 |
« Reply #25 on: July 15, 2012, 10:13:25 PM » |
|
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.
|
|
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 01:18:04 AM by KC »
|
Logged |
|
|
|
The Schofield Kid
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
    
Offline
Posts: 24983

All on account of pulling a trigger.
|
 |
« Reply #26 on: July 15, 2012, 11:35:34 PM » |
|
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 Strikesactually, 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. 
|
|
|
Logged |
"Winners are simply willing to do what losers won't."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chessie
Member Extraordinaire
    
Offline
Posts: 2612

You're anything but a simple woman.
|
 |
« Reply #33 on: August 28, 2012, 09:05:03 PM » |
|
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.
|
|
|
Logged |
The old dreams were good dreams; they didn't work out, but I'm glad I had them. - Robert Kincaid, the Bridges of Madison County
|
|
|
|
|