GamerTab That was an excellent one.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Benas Mcloughlin Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

generationofswine My only real complaint about Leonardo DiCaprio is that he looks like, well, Leonardo DiCaprio and that is a shame given that given that he doesn't play Lenardo DiCaprio, he plays whoever the script says he is and we all think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread because of that.Except in J. Edgar where, for the first real time, DiCaprio doesn't look like DiCaprio, he looks a lot like the cross-dressing fascist he's portraying.And being Leo, he acts like him too.THANK YOU. For once the studio didn't bank on his face and it paid out.So we not only get to see Leo acting the part, but for the first time we get to really see him looking the part too and the last time he did that was in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape." And on top of it all we have Clint Eastwood directing and, honestly, not a fan of him as an actor, love him as a director.Given his politics I walked in thinking Right Wing Love Story...I walked out with "honest depiction" and that helps a lot.Not only does that help, but the scandal around Hoover's sexuality was done appropriately, that is to say it didn't take center stage, J. Edgar did...and, as I said, you were watching J. Edgar and not Leo doing his best to be the man while having to still look like himself.it's just a win all around...except it could have benefited for time. Trim it down a bit. I know he's hugely important to history and Eastwood is a great director with a great cast but...it got a bit long in the tooth at places and that hurt the flow of the film.

grantss Great, reasonably balanced, biopic on a highly controversial figureA study on J Edgar Hoover, famed long-serving director of the FBI. Explores his drivers and motivations, and personal life. Told through flashbacks as he narrates his career for his biography, we see how he built the FBI from scratch, some of his higher-profile cases (eg the Lindbergh baby), his obsession with Communists and anyone else he deemed enemies of the US and his relationship with Clyde Tolson, Assistant Director of the FBI, closest confidant and more. A good study on a controversial, divisive, almost mystical, figure in US history. Not entirely complimentary, it gives a stark, and balanced, look at a very powerful, shaping force figure in US history.Great performance from Leonardo DiCaprio in the lead role. Good support from Armie Hammer and Naomi Watts.

James Once upon a time, when everybody still looked like they had stepped out of a picture by Edward Hopper or Jack Vettriano, there was a rather weird guy who built an empire which he then pursued to the point of obsession, at the expense of all else and in a way that actually did himself harm and hurt many others... Let me guess, a never-really-bettered film made with (and by) Orson Welles 74 years ago? No. OK, then maybe Howard Hughes as portrayed in "The Aviator" by Leonardo DiCaprio? No, but (very) close - J. Edgar Hoover as portrayed in the film of the same name by Leonardo DiCaprio! Supplementary question: how many more times is Leo going to age slightly unconvincingly in a movie? Answer came there none. To be fair, I learned some things about America I did not know from "J. Edgar", most especially in the first few minutes of the film about the period immediately after the First World War. However, for the most part (about 2 hours) we get to know a bit about a rather unpleasant man doing rather unpleasant things in what seems like a rather unpleasant country. This is actually a bit unfair on the FBI, since obviously they must have done plenty of good stuff. (So much in fact that the "X Files" and especially (Olivia Dunham in) "Fringe" make this reviewer personally feel regular regret that he did not sign up for a job at the Bureau years ago!) But here, Hoover tries to protect his position - obviously in the name of America, its Constitution and people - from just about anybody he feels like, and also from politicians out to get him who publicly might seem like heroes, and indeed say much themselves about America, its Constitution and people, but privately are at best flawed and at worst criminal, crooked, merciless or all three. Right and wrong simply melt away in such contexts, and we cease to care. All the more so, when the general atmosphere of uncertainty about America's democratic credentials leave us wondering if the film itself takes a slant we are not aware of! These are near-unsurmountable problems where a film has to make us care about at least something...If I want a history of the FBI, I'll read a book - hopefully one written by a Brit. If I want more about Kennedy or Martin Luther King, well there are films on that (documentaries and otherwise). For all its flaws (and length!) "JFK" is a true work of film art. If I want to know about America in the 30s-60s, I could go with that similarly fine film "The Butler", which takes its stance, knows what it wants to say and sticks with that, in impressive if controversial manner. If I want to see what a bad guy Hoover was, this film won't do it, given that everybody else is bad too, and maybe even America as such (sadly enough, given its superficial reputation). If I want to get to know Hoover as a person, I need less of the history and more of the man - even if they are rather inseparable. If I want to know that - beneath it all - Hoover was a good guy, then this film also won't cut it, despite the odd tender moment. If I want to know that Hoover was a real person, warts and all, this film is not the best vehicle for that either, given that it seems fantastic in places, not least because of that makeup department, in which "warts and all" are what we get, absolutely literally!Sadly or happily, films are not books, and they have to take some kind of line at some point, and not just splurge together past, present and future, private and public life, institution and man, and hope that some kind of sophisticated analytical picture emerges from the chaos. For it does not, and there is just the chaos...

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.