J. Edgar (2011)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Lanning :

  
  Geez, I'm in the minority on this one too. DiCaprio should have won an Oscar for this one. It's amazing the way Eastwood dealt with Hoover's homosexuality. And it's also interesting that Eastwood was able to make such a bastard seem almost a sympathetic… More
  Geez, I'm in the minority on this one too. DiCaprio should have won an Oscar for this one. It's amazing the way Eastwood dealt with Hoover's homosexuality. And it's also interesting that Eastwood was able to make such a bastard seem almost a sympathetic character. Nuff said.

• jay n

  
  Darkly lit & dreary with some of the worst old age makeup ever seen and a confusing non linear storyline. Some decent acting is wasted on a dull script.

• familiar s

  
  A top FBI officer rumored to be a cross-dresser and closeted homosexual. That's an interesting dough right there to start with. How could Hollywood afford to miss it?? No doubt, this shady character deserved to be played on-screen, but it fails to do justice enough to this… More
  A top FBI officer rumored to be a cross-dresser and closeted homosexual. That's an interesting dough right there to start with. How could Hollywood afford to miss it?? No doubt, this shady character deserved to be played on-screen, but it fails to do justice enough to this controversial figure's biographical tale. Leonardo continues to excel playing real-life characters, so his outstanding performance wasn't quite a surprise here either. Movies with time jumps back and forth isn't quite up to my taste, but I found myself comfortable with it sooner than I'd ever expected. But another problem was that there was hardly anything worth looking forward to in this story; you already know where it's going, and it shouldn't have been this predictable. Eastwood smartly throws in the Lindbergh kidnapping plot to add to the thrill, but that doesn't help much. Wasn't there any other less known mystery that the guy solved? Or were there, but couldn't be told for they lacked enough thrilling elements??? Whatever. To sum up, the movie aces in performances, but disappoints with its content.

• Jeff "

  
  Clint Eeastwood has pulled yet another masterful film. Eastwood is a powerhouse in the film industry, he keeps on making quality film after quality film. J. Edgar is yet another great film from the director. Starring Leonardo Dicaprio in the title role. J. Edgar is compelling biopic… More
  Clint Eeastwood has pulled yet another masterful film. Eastwood is a powerhouse in the film industry, he keeps on making quality film after quality film. J. Edgar is yet another great film from the director. Starring Leonardo Dicaprio in the title role. J. Edgar is compelling biopic that is very underrated in my opinion. The film is flawed, but the performances delivered by Leonardo Dicaprio more than makes up for its slight mistakes. This is a well conceived film that shows the secret life of J. Edgar Hoover, the first director of the FBI. throughout the film we get a glimpse at how powerful Hoover becomes, and how he uses his wit to influence politicians to create the best police force. J. Edgar is a terrific film that details Hoover's secret life, and alleged homosexuality. Now, before you dismiss this film as a "gay film", this is really not the case. The film though hints on such as aspects of Hoover's sexuality, it shows how Hoover became a man feared and revered. Clint Eastwood is a great director and presents us with a terrific film, his eye for substance over cheapo thrills is what makes his film unique films to watch. This is Eastwood's best biopic si9nce Bird and J. Edgar is a well crafted film with a great cast. Dicaprio is excellent in this role, and in my opinion he delivers one of his best performances since The Departed. What really stands out with this film is the fact that Leonardo Dicaprio and Clint Eastwood collaborated on this film. The result is a stunning biopic with a great story. I really don't understand why this film has gotten so much flack. I thought it was a brilliant, near flawless picture that told a terrific story. The only weak points of the film is that I felt they could elaborated more on the wave of bank robberies in the early 1930's, as John Dillinger was one of the first criminals to really establish the FBI as a Federal police force. Before Dillinger, the bureau of investigation didn't have that much power. However after the criminal careers of Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd and Baby Face Nelson. These criminal precipitated the need of a Federal task force, and in many ways helped form the modern FBI. I felt that it was something that could have been elaborated a bit more, however for the most part, the film does a great job at being a thrilling biopic. Some people May be disappointed by this film of course, but this is a biopic, so go in expecting a story, people talking with a bit of action, and you may not be disappointed. This is a smartly crafted film that is held together by a compelling story and phenomenal acting. The film will appeal to people interested in history, as this one tells an important story that is essential to the formation of modern crime fighting in America. Clint Eastwood tackles his subject with great understanding of its topic. Ultimately that's what we get on-screen, a portrait of a man bent on doing what's right for his country, only to be conflicted by the secrets that could destroy him. Leonardo Dicaprio does a phenomenal job at playing a man conflicted by his own personal morals. If you're looking for one of 2011';s most underrated films, and ultimately the most underrated performance, J. Edgar is a fine flick to watch. Expect a film that is clearly misunderstood, and if you're a Clint Eastwood fan, like I am, you'll appreciate the film for what it is, an underrated work of misunderstood brilliance. Clint Eastwood has delivered yet another film and this is probably going to be seen as one of his most underrated works as a director.

• Pedro H

  
  <i>The Most Powerful Man in the World</i> <b>Nicely Done</b> Clint Eastwood nails it again, and so does DiCaprio. This is a good film, not amazing, but a <b>good</b> film that will only appeal and please political heads or history geeks, but… More
  <i>The Most Powerful Man in the World</i> <b>Nicely Done</b> Clint Eastwood nails it again, and so does DiCaprio. This is a good film, not amazing, but a <b>good</b> film that will only appeal and please political heads or history geeks, but either than that if you aren't under those categories you should watch this. The movie tells the internal and external conflicts of J.Edgar Hoover, the director of FBI and hence one of the most important man on earth. From his political conflicts to his sexuality, Eastwood does a good job in creating an interesting autobiography of Mr.Hoover. DiCaprio has really made his way out from being a silly actor to being one of the most looked up for and serious actors of our generation. He really stands out in this movie, he develops a complex character that Hoover really was and thereby paints a vivid and legit picture of this character. Eastwood is also one of those directors that has really gotten to me lately. I've only became a fan of his work since Million Dollar Baby, but since then he has shown some serious, not western passion for film making, and is truly talented. The makeup in this movie is <b>divine</b>. Well only really Hoover's because Tolson's is awful. But definitively something impressive. Overall a good film, only recommended to those interested in slow political films that's gist is to elaborate on one of the worlds most famous and powerful icons. <u>J. Edgar Hoover:</u> <i>" It's time this generation learns the difference between villan and hero. Even great men can be corrupted." </i>

• Martin S

  
  This was a interesting story. I heard some people complaining in the theater that it was very slow. But if you expect big explotions and car chases and all that...you're not gonna get it. Cause it's a real story. And it's not slow if you know what to… More
  This was a interesting story. I heard some people complaining in the theater that it was very slow. But if you expect big explotions and car chases and all that...you're not gonna get it. Cause it's a real story. And it's not slow if you know what to expect...there's allways something happening. And you can allways take some time of just to enjoy the acting. And the makeup looks pretty good as well.....At least Lenny D's makeup. Clint did a good job behind the camera. Nothing spectacular...but solid

• c0up  

  
  'J. Edgar'. A strange love story featuring a fine Leo DiCaprio, but a weak script and even weaker make up.

• Candy R

  
  Leo is my favourite actor but I was disappointed with J Edgar. This is probably the least favourite of his movies. Leo gives an excellent performance as always but J Edgar Hoover is just such an unlikeable person. He had a formidable career as the head of the FBI for 48 years, the… More
  Leo is my favourite actor but I was disappointed with J Edgar. This is probably the least favourite of his movies. Leo gives an excellent performance as always but J Edgar Hoover is just such an unlikeable person. He had a formidable career as the head of the FBI for 48 years, the movie touched on some of his cases but mainly focused on his relationships with his PA, assistant and mother. I found the movie slow moving and the make up that made the characters old wasn't very convincing. Judi Dench portrays his mother who is very domineering. Some of the scenes between Edgar and Clyde were quite ridiculous.

• Carlos M

  
  A complete disaster that portrays Hoover as a weak, petty, selfish, insecure and intolerant man but we never find out who he really was or why we should at all empathize with him. Besides, the over-unsaturated cinematography and the dragging pace keep the audience even more… More
  A complete disaster that portrays Hoover as a weak, petty, selfish, insecure and intolerant man but we never find out who he really was or why we should at all empathize with him. Besides, the over-unsaturated cinematography and the dragging pace keep the audience even more emotionally distant, while most of the actors are over-the-top and the makeup is atrocious.

• Daniel P

  
  A good movie, but by the standards Di Caprio and Eastwood usually set, not a very good movie. Clint is starting to wobble in his late years: his films are getting longer, less efficient, less original, and less affecting. This movie, particularly, uses one interesting twist in the way… More
  A good movie, but by the standards Di Caprio and Eastwood usually set, not a very good movie. Clint is starting to wobble in his late years: his films are getting longer, less efficient, less original, and less affecting. This movie, particularly, uses one interesting twist in the way it tells its story: putting the narrative in the hands of Hoover, writing his autobiography. Also, where this one comes up short is in the music, which Eastwood and his son have yet again written on the same three piano keys. When Clint's good, he's great, but J. Edgar is not one of those occasions. The story is too linear, and loses steam in its thorough faithfulness to the details. It's an accurate biopic, and interesting because of the fate of the most important information Hoover collected at the FBI. It's also a good follow-up to Milk in writer Dustin Lance Black's career, and solidly written. However, as with Invictus, the expectations for this film are too high. It's decent, but don't go in expecting any more than that - you'll be disappointed.

• Brad W

  
  J. Edgar is not as great as I had hoped but it was still a good movie that was definently worth seeing, if only to watch one of the best performances from Leonardo DiCaprio. Critics seemed to be very harsh on the film mostly for a very slow story, weird make-up, and even non… More
  J. Edgar is not as great as I had hoped but it was still a good movie that was definently worth seeing, if only to watch one of the best performances from Leonardo DiCaprio. Critics seemed to be very harsh on the film mostly for a very slow story, weird make-up, and even non coherence. But what the majority agreed was great was the incredible performance from DiCaprio which I agree was the best thing about the film. I understand the critisism to be honest, but I looked past the negatives and looked at the positives, which is why I enoyed it more than others did. The story is about J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) who was the man who started the CIA, and it shows the very serious and important moments in his life that formed him to become arguably one of the most powerful man in the history of America. It also chronicles his life about his racism, his relationship with lifelong partner Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), his relationship with his strict mother (Judi Dench), and some of the crimes he had solved in his years in the CIA. The plot of the film was very slow and confusing to be honest, but that is not to say it was as bad as critics said. I found it very hard to follow but I began to understand better and better as the film went on. True it was pretty pointless showing Edgar as old man when we are already trying to understand his younger years but only a minor problem with the story. I think it would have been an incredible story if they had just had coherence and had made it clearer what was going on, but I still enjoyed learning about Hoovers life and his relationships he had with people. Some people claimed they had trouble keeping up with all the different stories the film had,which was probably the hardest thing for me as well. The characters were well done because they were real. I have read about these men and I think Dustin Lance Black has kept them true to the historical figures. Overall the plot was a bit of a disappointment on some levels, but on many other levels it was a very decent imaging of the like of J. Edgar Hoover. The cast was the best thing about the film if you ask me, because an incredible cast is lead by one of the best performances of the year from Leonardo DiCaprio. Leonardo DiCaprio has always been my favorite actor, I know to many of you that seems kind of stupid, but he is part of my generation of actors and i have never seen a film of his I disliked. In this film he does not just play J. Edgar, he embodies this man and does one of the best performances he has ever done, and it is just hard to explain how great and Oscar worthy his acting was in this film. Armie Hammer played an incredible role as well. I knew after seeing The Social Network that his career would be going places, and so far I think its true. Judi Dench was great as always, but I did not expect a great actress like her to ever fail in a serious movie like this. Naomi Watts is also good with her role and if you have done your history then you would know that her role was very important to the life of Hoover. The rest of the cast was also great and this was by far the highlight of the film. J. Edgar is not Clint Eastwood's best film by any means, but here he has given us a very decent biographical story on Edgar's life. To be honest I had not known anything about Hoover until I saw this film, all I knew was that he made the CIA and that was it, but with this movie I have been given more information about this man then I could have ever dreamed of so I give credit to Eastwood for at least attempting to make a perfect film about this man, and although it was not perfect, it was still decent if you ask me. With a decent story, incredible cast, and decent direction I believe that this was simply was a pretty good film that is definently worth a watch.

• Michael S

  
  "J. Edgar" is the kind of mediocre and overwrought biopic that always manages to finds it's way into theaters during awards season each year. It's two-dimensional characters and uninvolving, tedious plotting make for a film that isn't just redundant; it's… More
  "J. Edgar" is the kind of mediocre and overwrought biopic that always manages to finds it's way into theaters during awards season each year. It's two-dimensional characters and uninvolving, tedious plotting make for a film that isn't just redundant; it's borderline unlikable! A more hefty running time usually never phases me, but I felt every minute of "J. Edgar." I guess that's just because I didn't care for a single character or situation. Most perplexing is the fact that this film was directed by Clint Eastwood, who over his career has proven to be one of cinemas most iconic and talented figures (both in front of and behind the camera). This is a rare and unexpected misstep, but I assume the problems lie within a screenplay that just wasn't worth committing to film. Leonardo DiCaprio, along with Eastwood's usual tight direction, is the film's best attribute , but even his full commitment can't save a broken product that stumbles almost from start to finish. This is biopic movie making at it's most mundane.

• Everett J

  
  J. Edgar is a biopic about J. Edgar Hoover, the face of law enforcement in America as the head of the F.B.I. Honestly I didn't know anything about him before the movie, and after I know a little, but still not much. Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Hoover, and gives one of his best… More
  J. Edgar is a biopic about J. Edgar Hoover, the face of law enforcement in America as the head of the F.B.I. Honestly I didn't know anything about him before the movie, and after I know a little, but still not much. Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Hoover, and gives one of his best performances. He is the best and really only good thing about the movie. You can hardly tell it's DiCaprio at all. He looks and sounds totally different. The rest of the cast is good, especially Armie Hammer as Clyde, Hoover's assistant/homosexual companion. The movie is very dialogue heavy, and drags. It's overall a very dull movie, but DiCaprio makes it worth at least one watch. Clint Eastwood directed, and he has done so much better work than this. Glad, Leo is getting award recognition for the role, but the movie shouldn't get anything else other than that. Watch it you want, but your probably better off skipping this one.

• Randy T

  
  As much as I like DiCaprio, I'm never not aware that it's him playing a part. That fact keeps me from losing myself in the story. Perhaps Eastwood would have been better served with someone equally talented but lesser known(?).

• William D

  
  "J. Edgar" in some ways is very traditional and in other ways quite daring, particularly coming from Clint Eastwood. The film begins as a fairly standard exploration of J. Edgar Hoover's career, particularly his fierce battle with Communists and other radicals and his… More
  "J. Edgar" in some ways is very traditional and in other ways quite daring, particularly coming from Clint Eastwood. The film begins as a fairly standard exploration of J. Edgar Hoover's career, particularly his fierce battle with Communists and other radicals and his founding of the FBI. He's presented heroically, as being almost single-handedly responsible for keeping America from going Communist 100 years ago. This might be exaggerated, but it's not too far from the truth. But gradually the movie morphs into a heart-wrenching account of Hoover's loneliness and his inability to live a full life as a gay man. If this account is historically factual, and all indications are that it is, the unmarried Hoover spent most of his private time with Clyde Tolson, the man who was the great love of his life. The depiction of Hoover and Tolson's love is so powerful and beautiful that it is both inspiring and devastating. Inspiring because of how deeply in love they were, devastating because their sick society terrorized them into life-long chastity. They can barely bring themselves to touch each other's hand. I'll always remember the scene where Tolson cradles Hoover's dead body, sobbing inconsolably. Tolson is brought to life by the actor Armie Hammer, last seen as the Winklevoss Twins in "The Social Network." Hoover is played by Leonardo diCaprio. Also tragically memorable is the scene in which Hoover cannot bring himself to utter the words "I love you" to Tolson's face. He must wait until Tolson has left the room. DiCaprio is not a great actor, but he's one of the best of our middle-tier actors. And he does an impressive job mixing love and anguish here. Hammer does an equally good job with Tolson. One can truly feel the love between these two men -- and without a single traditional "love scene." Eastwood, who has never directed any gay or even semi-gay content and having been for decades almost the definition of the ultra-manly straight man, does a remarkably assured and capable job with this part of the film. It's inspiring to see Eastwood still pushing himself to grow as a filmmaker at the age of 80. Eastwood knew he would need help from a gay man for this project, which he got from screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (Oscar-winning screenwriter for "Milk"). But while the basic shape of the story comes from Black, it's Eastwood who gives it its tone. It was Eastwood who found a way to make two straight male actors find it in themselves to fall in love with each other. This is quite a directorial achievement. What of the film's weaknesses? Why only a 7 rating? Ultimately the film is just too simple and straightforward. It has a tragic undertone, but not in a way that's different from a made-for-TV movie. Eastwood and Black were dead-set on making a mainstream movie. This is fine. But it ends up being so mainstream that it has no jagged edges. If it had been a little less built for the suburban multiplex, it might have been more interesting as a work of art. There are also many long patches that are repetitious and boring, and the running time is quite long. The cross-cutting between the various stages of Hoover's career is also not elegant. It zigzags back and forth across time periods so often that I sometimes felt dizzy and confused. Finally, the stage make-up applied to diCaprio and Hammer to make them look old was among the worst I've seen in the past 20 years. It's reminiscent of the kind of make-up you'd see in a Saturday Night Live sketch. At times it's almost laughable. But "J. Edgar" still is an important, moving, and courageous film. I even suspect that it might get an Oscar nomination as Best Picture. But there's no way it would win. One can't help but stand back in wonder at the idea that the FBI was founded by a gay man. It's so counter-intuitive. It just goes to show how ridiculous the gay stereotype is. There are many gay men that fit the stereotype, at least in some ways. I'm not denying that. But there are SO many gay men that don't. It's also wonderfully surprising that it would take Clint Eastwood to help the country see this. That's the last thing I'd expect Eastwood to do as the capstone to his remarkable career in film.

• Daniel J D

  
  Given Hoover's clandestine nature, it's difficult, if impossible, to verify much, if any, of the film's story, but the story itself seems relatively plausible, coherent at least. The old-people makeup could've used some help though--or been cut out altogether.

• John H

  
  No Leo. Just no. The only thing worse than your accent/performance is your make-up and costars' make-up.

• Liam G

  
  We know that Clint Eastwood is a terrific filmmaker. Where he succeeds is making emotional, riveting crime films like ''Mystic River'' or even just touching stories like ''Gran Torino''. Recently though, he's tried to tackle biopics.… More
  We know that Clint Eastwood is a terrific filmmaker. Where he succeeds is making emotional, riveting crime films like ''Mystic River'' or even just touching stories like ''Gran Torino''. Recently though, he's tried to tackle biopics. ''Invictus'', though not a full on biopic, told the story of Nelson Mandela and the South African rugby team in 1995, and it was not up to par with Eastwood's earlier films. Sadly, ''J. Edgar'' falls into that same league. It is not bad, but it's pretty underwhelming considering the talent involved. The cast certainly don't disappoint. Leonardo DiCaprio is terrific as J. Edgar Hoover. He nails Edgar's accent, mannerisms at any age and without a doubt is the star of a rather lacklustre show. Armie Hammer is also quite good, though supporting members like Naomi Watts and Judi Dench lack sufficient screen time. Dustin Lance Black, writer of 2009's superb ''Milk'', has written a rather safe script. What I mean by that is that there isn't any real bite or punch to key scenes. Whereas someone like Oliver Stone back in his heyday would leave the audience with a lot of though-provoking moments and spice up a well-known story, Black just lets scenes play out as expected, with no real punch emotionally. ''J. Edgar'' is also rushed, as it tries to cram so much into 2 hours and it flies past some rather interesting aspects of Hoover's life. The makeup is average too, with some of it proving very effective and some of it proving laughable. Eastwood's direction is competent, but lacks the passion that made earlier films of his such as ''Million Dollar Baby'' or ''Letters from Iwo Jima'' work so well. There are more positive points, as the film is never boring and Black and Eastwood have the advantage of telling a truly fascinating story. It's very engrossing. Some pivotal scenes were also executed very well, thanks mostly to DiCaprio's performance. But ''J. Edgar'' could've been much more, soooo much more. It's not bad, but it's not great. And that is rather weak considering Eastwood's involvement.

• Eric A

  
  DiCaprio deserves best actor for his role, hands down. I thought the J. Edgar was brilliant and very interesting. It doesn't matter if you are someone who knows alot on the topic or someone like myself who really didn't, this film will leave you intrigued. The TomatoMeter is… More
  DiCaprio deserves best actor for his role, hands down. I thought the J. Edgar was brilliant and very interesting. It doesn't matter if you are someone who knows alot on the topic or someone like myself who really didn't, this film will leave you intrigued. The TomatoMeter is usually 99% accurate when judging films, but in this case J. Edgar falls in the other 1%......come on critics, what the hell?!

• Tracy K

  
  Any movie that makes J. Edgar Hoover seem boring has got to have something seriously wrong with it. Briskly paced, sure, but actually too brisk - the film swoops and dives through Hoover's life and times in a weird piecemeal fashion, resulting in a disjointed collection of… More
  Any movie that makes J. Edgar Hoover seem boring has got to have something seriously wrong with it. Briskly paced, sure, but actually too brisk - the film swoops and dives through Hoover's life and times in a weird piecemeal fashion, resulting in a disjointed collection of historical vignettes that seem to have little connection with each other or with Hoover himself. I guess I was relatively entertained while watching, but the overall effect is of an unfocused biographical treatment with little clear idea of what it was trying to say. Leo's pretty good in an unusual bit of casting, but in many ways the film remains a rather curious failure.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings