J. Edgar

Eastwood’s idiosyncratic depiction of the life of one of the most powerful men of last century. Clear values and clear rules. Both Clint and Edgar stick to firmly traced course of the character development of a proper leading figure, just to get unstuck at the end. The acting performances are wonderful, mainly the could-be old age pensioner Armie Hammer excels and DiCaprio improves the quality of his acting even further. Certain stages in their lives could maybe have been developed better, I mean Dillinger only gets a couple of mentions, but this is a very decent picture. The scene in the Library of Congress library works particularly well. A perfect promotional video for catalog cards. Information is power. (02/16/2012)

I don't consider J. Edgar to be the worst Eastwood film, but to make such a below-average spectacle from such an amazing concept and with such an amazing cast is deserving of a few slaps. And when I consider the difference between the result and the ambitions, unfortunately from my point of view, it is Eastwood's biggest directorial failure. Eastwood disappointed me as a storyteller, his direction lacks ideas, and the script is also no masterpiece. When I compare J. Edgar to Il Divo by Paolo Sorrentino, Eastwood embarrassingly fails in the field of biographical films. Maybe it could work as a TV movie, but not as a great story about a great legend of American politics and criminology and the founder of one of the most famous institutions in the USA. Overall impression: 40%. (05/05/2015)

Clint Eastwood decided to make a film about one of the controversial and interesting figures in world criminalistics and he said that he would shoot the film coldly, almost without emotions. It's a shame because from the beginning, the viewer has problems getting involved in the plot. Emotions enter the film only in the second half, and I'm not sure if it wasn't a bit too late. Most of the characters have a minimal presence in the film, making it essentially impossible to form a connection with them. Leo convinces me, though, that he can handle any role. He doesn't stand out much here, but the film definitely doesn't fall with him, rather with its boring sterile concept. (04/15/2014)

An unpleasant disappointment that Clint had in store for me. I refuse to accuse him of any old-age senility, but even his firm personal style is mired in a dramaturgically-muddled film that only knows what it wants when it touches on a more historically significant event with which Hoover was associated. The rest of the film - though I wasn't expecting some cheap tabloid controversy where he wants to look under the FBI director's skin - is languid and dull, like the old-man mask that underlines the deadness of the actors' performances, and is the perfect repellent to the audience's empathy. God knows why it's as much of a fail for me as Scorsese's Shutter Island was. (02/16/2012)

A lot of great work went into the editing, acting, set design and period stylization of J. Edgar. It is definitely a more fun and livelier movie than Lincoln. However, it should have focused more on what makes it attractive to the audience. Hoover’s attempt to introduce the revolutionary idea of collecting fingerprints (the most interesting storyline) is not finished, and his physical relationship with an actress whose portrayal could help explain his complicated sexuality is missing completely. Even though the second half of the film is more about his inner demons and intimacy, it is just as interesting as the crime-oriented first half. Anyway, it is a respectable monument to a controversial personality and has indisputable educational value. (10/04/2013)