A scene at a clothing store in which John Edgar Hoover is told he has bad credit finds him telling them that they are incorrect, they must be speaking of another John Hoover. They ask if he is indeed John Hoover and he says yes but adds that he signs his name different ways, not usually just plainly as John Hoover but with his middle name or E initial included (his mother did always call him Edgar). The shop owner then tells Hoover to open up a new account and sign it with one name and to go by that name. John takes the application form and writes J. Edgar Hoover.

To me this scene is symbollic of the larger film. J. Edgar Hoover is a film about a man who, like many of us, had many sides and aspects that composed who he was. He was greatly conflicted about which side he should portray publicly and stumbled rather awkwardly in his younger years, illustrated wonderfully in the film, until finally deciding that J. Edgar Hoover was who he was going to be. That was the side he was going to live publicly and the person he was going to be, right or wrong, with full conviction. The rest of the film shows us the consequent problems, struggles and complications that follow from this choice.

I was concerned that this film wouldn't live up to my expectations, others have been rating it rather ordinary and others negatively, few seem really excited about it after having viewed it. In a way I can see where they are coming from. It is a long film with dark moody colors, almost as if Eastwood wanted it to be black and white, and a lot of dialogue that moves quite fast without much regard for helping the audience along or spelling things out. All that aside, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and while it didn't blow my mind or leave me with any great revelations about my own life it was a great movie experience and had me thinking and entertained the entire time I was watching it.

I'm not sure where all the more negative or critical reviews are coming from, perhaps people have high standards from Eastwood and expected something groundbreaking, perhaps they just expected something different, but after all the negative or ho-hum opinions I had heard about this film I was pleasantly surprised and recommend it for fans of drama or biopics. I especially recommend it for those like myself who have been waiting for a more compelling film this movie-going season.

Perhaps I enjoyed it more because I have seen a truly terrible line of recent films in cinemas, Jack and Jill being the latest before seeing this (that movie was awful, so awful. I thought it would be bad but in an over the top funny way, it was just bad). So maybe my enjoyment was raised during this film because other recent films have left me underwhelmed and bored or wanting my money back. I haven't seen an excellently crafted film in theaters since The Help and haven't even thought one merited repeat viewings since the surprise that was 50/50. This film didn't knock me out but I will definitely watch it again and will likely even buy it on Blu-ray because I want it to be part of my collection and think it will become more engaging upon future viewings.

People are complaining about the old age make up, it never bothered me once despite other reviewer comments making me more critical than usual. People say there are many impersonations of presidents and such that are distracting, the only one that felt as much to me was Richard Nixon's brief appearance towards the end because it was so over the top. People say it drags, but I was never wanting for it to hurry or speed along, I was always compelled with what was on screen. There are complaints that the broken narrative is confusing and jumps too much, it's fairly straightforward with only two timelines occuring. Hoover in his old age is dictating his past for a manuscript and both these timelines are otherwise chronological and move forward with one another. People say there is no real message or overriding theme to speak of, I think deeper digging and repeat viewings will find them more well constructed than others are giving credit right now. Most of all though, even if some find merit to these criticisms I don't find that any of them would keep the film from being enjoyable as a whole.

This film may be getting less positive reviews because people thought it could have been so many things that it isn't. In the end I feel Eastwood and the writer picked a direction and identity for the film and much like J. Edgar they decided to move forward with full conviction. It is what it is and any negatives don't outweigh all the positives it brings in my opinion, but everyone will judge the film differently I suppose, much like everyone has different opinions on J. Edgar Hoover the man.

It may also help me that I'm very interested in history and this time period. Also in how institutions such as the FBI got built up and came to be (the film does an excellent job at explaining how the bureau slowly found ways to gain power and independence). Anyways, give this film a chance, I give it five stars because I may not have LOVED the film but I did love the experience of watching it, if that makes sense.

Clint Eastwood, Dustin Lance Black and Leonardo DiCaprio join forces to understand the 20th century's most admired, hated and controversial man, J. Edgar Hoover (with a tour de force performance by DiCaprio).

Let me first say that when I first heard of this project in the works I virtually knew very little about the F.B.I founder. I had however seen great depictions by actors like Bob Hoskins, Vincent Gardenia, Billy Crudup and more recently by Enrico Colantoni. All good performances without a doubt but only two dimensional portrayals. Here DiCaprio creates a 5th dimensional character that the audience can try to more or less understand.

The film spans nearly 50 years in the history timeline, jumping timeframe by time frame and creating a rich tapestry of political drama and turmoil in our nation's history. DiCaprio plays both the young, ambitious and advanced Hoover as well as the old, embittered czar whom all politicians feared by the 1950's.Armie Hammer plays his protege and second man in the Bureau Clyde Tolson. Hammer is the soul and conscience of the film as well as Hoover's constantly ignored emotions. Judi Dench, Naomi Watts and Jeffrey Donovan turn in great performances as well. The screenplay is rich and meticulously researched and Eastwood's direction has perfected greatly to the point of crafting his most ambitous, and richest project since his excellent "Flags/Letters" duo.

If you enjoy history, historical dramas, this is for you. A thought provoking, psychological insight into this man's soul and heart and the effect he had on this nation's history. One of the most chilling moments in the film happens toward end when a anxiously devastated Hoover witnesses the inaugural of Richard Nixon amd almost forsees the devastation that will befall the U.S. with the race riots, Vietnam, protesting students and assasination of MLK and etc, while "Star and Stripes Forever" plays in the background and if the audience undertands it, they begin to mourn the death of our nation.

Eastwood almost mirrors Oliver Stone in a more calm way but by the end of the film your opinion is yours and yours alone. I watched this 5 times in theatres and I would damn well watch it again because it is simply an American Masterpiece from an American Master who has clearly matured and seen the significant changes in our country. I can only hope this review does this film justice for all the misjudgements there have been about it. Frankly, it is the best picture of the year!!

J. EDGAR is a cinematic accomplishment of the first order! From the screenplay (Dustin Lance Black) as acted by a host of consummate actors and directed with extreme sensitivity by Clint Eastwood, the sum of the parts is an extraordinary achievement in presenting a portrait of one of the strangest men in history. The manner in which the life and deeds and personality are woven together presents as full an image of a man of contradictions, a man who planned to have his personal files destroyed after his death in order to maintain the iconic image he so desperately desired, is nothing short of a work of dedicated investigation on parts of everyone involved. And electing to tell this story through the ever-changing chameleon aspects of this bizarre man by shifting from youth to old age in a constant parenthetical manner was a stroke of genius.

The rise of young John Edgar Hoover from a mother-favored child, through the emotional conflicts this mother worship produced, through the sightings of incidents suggestive of early 'Bolshevik' interference/threat in this country that Hoover focused on in his usurping power as the head of the newly formed Federal Bureau of Investigation, provides a background from which we can observe the morphing of this obsessed man. The act of staging press conferences around the Lindbergh case and the capture of the big criminals of the day were manipulated to give Hoover supreme power to investigate 'threatening people of interest' by wire taping, spying, etc. But all of this runs parallel to the personal story of Hoover's private sexual life. From his living with his mother until her death, to his incompetent attempt to force himself on the woman who would be his secretary throughout his career, to his bonding with Clyde Tolson who he chose to be his assistant and never was far from his side, to his final hours when Tolson though suffering from the residuum of a stroke was the only person Hoover could trust as Richard Nixon planned his destruction.

Each of the incidents that highlighted Hoover's long career as founder and head of the FBI is presented well, but it is the de-mystification of Hoover the vulnerable man beneath the tyrannical façade that makes this film so extremely powerful. That is due to the script and the direction, of course, but it is also due in large part to the brilliant portrayal of this enigmatic beast of a pathetic man by Leonardo DiCaprio: he remains credible throughout and moves through the aging process and intermittent flashbacks to his younger days with complete ease and credibility. Likewise the performances of Judi Dench as his strange mother ('I'd rather my son be dead than be a daffodil' - her term for 'gay'), of Naomi Watts as his secretary who thwarts Hoover's initial awkward physical advances to become his lifelong supporter, and of Armie Hammer as Hoover's love interest Clyde Tolson acted with such a full range of emotion and subtlety that he is completely credible - these key roles are all of Oscar caliber as supporting roles.

Eastwood's careful casting of actors for the roles of Charles Lindbergh (Josh Lucas), Eisenhower (Gunner Wright), Franklin Roosevelt (David A. Cooper), Harlan Fiske Stone (Ken Howard), Robert Kennedy (Jeffrey Donovan), Colonel Schwarzkopf (Dermot Mulroney), Bruno Hauptmann (Damon Herriman), Richard Nixon (Christopher Shyer), and Haldeman (Larkin Campbell) gives the audience the opportunity to catch glimpses of the people influenced by Hoover without stooping to caricatures.

But in the end it is the slow dissection of the relationship between Hoover and Tolson that is the most powerful element of this film. The audience is left with little doubt that these men were, in truth, lovers without the expected obvious stereotypical activities and conversations. It is an act of greatness on the parts of all involved, and for this reason probably more than any other aspect of this huge film, this biopic deserves to be in the lineup for Best Picture of the Year. Grady Harp, February 12