“J. Edgar” is a Clumsy and Aimless Snoozefest
J. Edgar Hoover is a misinterpreted American hero. He was a complex individual who achieved a great deal. Unfortunately, underneath his successes, was a man filled with rage, jealousy, ambiguity, and resentment. For decades Hoover willingly obstructed people’s basic liberties, all for the sake of personal power. In the end, he was left very little.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as the titular character in director Clint Eastwood’s tragic retelling of Hoover’s life, spanning from his early 20s to his deathbed, is unquestionably one of the director’s worst cinematic endeavors.
J. Edgar is a woefully disappointing picture, plagued with didactic and convoluted storytelling, embarrassingly bad makeup work, and a stale script lacking many of the rich themes Eastwood has been lauded for in the past.
The screenplay, written by Dustin Lance Black (Milk), tracks nearly 50 years of Hoover’s life and is interwoven with three different timelines. First as a child, secondly as an up and coming officer (who ultimately takes over the FBI), and lastly as an old man in his 70s, recounting his life through a memoir.
We learn Hoover was a very reclusive man. Throughout his lifetime we see only a few people who could be considered close to him. His mother, Annie (Judi Dench), his secretary Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), and his best friend Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) – all of which have different, unique relationships with Hoover.
The latter of those three people, Clyde, is perhaps more than just a friend. Eastwood and Black firmly depict Hoover as homosexual, a long-debated rumor. The relationship between Hoover and Clyde is an interesting one, well, at least at first glance. Eastwood doesn’t give the insight necessary to make us care for them. This is especially evident in the film’s breaking point, where Clyde gets upset when Hoover mentions a possible Mrs. The argument turns into a physical match, and eventually, a scene of confused romance.
Unfortunately, that scene speaks as a living testament to the pictures downfall: even in its most heated exchange, J. Edgar fails, time after time, to rouse genuine emotions. Eastwood’s longwinded tale does delves into exciting events in American History. Including the capturing of John Dillinger and the deconstruction of the Bolshevik-Communist party.
On the flipside, traumatic events such as the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the theft (and murder) of Charles Lindbergh’s young child also occur here. It’s quite amazing how much happened in Hoover’s 79-year lifespan and how often he was a part of it all.
However, the film does the man very little justice. The makeup is pitiful and thoroughly distracting. DiCaprio and Hammer just look downright ridiculous in the latter scenes – and this effectively make it impossible to take anything that transpires in those moments seriously.
While I admire Mr. Eastwood’s dedication to exploring new topics film after film, his conventional filmmaking that has garnered him a plethora of respect in the past is now wearing thin. If for not the outstanding performances from everyone in the cast, J. Edgar would be thoroughly deplorable.
It’s a shame, really, that a man as fascinating as J. Edgar Hoover is reduced to a prolonged, cinematic snooze. Clint Eastwood merely plays hopscotch with his life, aimlessly bouncing around from topic to topic, and along the way forgetting the purpose of the film.
C
2 stars out of 4
You can follow me on twitter @DukeSensation.
19 Comments
That’s a shame. Was looking forward to seeing this at the cinema, but it just sounds like something that would be better seen in the comfort of my own home.
On the subject of the make-up, looked wobbly on the trailer. I know it shouldn’t make a difference, the acting should stand out blah blah blah, but it’s about the visual as much as acting.
Most definitely Jaina.
I don’t really care about the makeup. Nothing could be worse than the de-aged Patrick Stewart of Wolverine.
What a comparison Fitz.
I am intrigued- many have said that the movie is bad, but some praise Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance. Will he finally get an Oscar for a role in a very bad movie? we shall wait and see!
Has he not won an Oscar? Wow. Didn’t know that.
After having seen this last night I don’t get the critical reception to the film. The cinematography leaves a lot to be desired and Hammer’s make-up is bad, but everything else is up to snuff.
It all depends what you consider to be adequate snuff
The biggest problem I had with this film is that it’s so ponderously boring. If this movie walked up to you at a party and struck up a conversation you would be looking for ways to escape in about two minutes.
Haha… Nice analogy there.
For openers I thought that DiCaprio’s make-up as the older Hoover was terrific, Naomi Watt’s just fair, and they did a dreadful job with Hammer’s Clyde Tolson. Reader Aziza discussed Leo’s performance and I think an Oscar Nomination is possible for him.
But we are in definite agreement that the film was disappointing. In my review I called it dark, depressing and dull.
Thanks for a fine review. If you like you can read my review of J. Edgar at:
http://jmmnewaov2.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/j-edgar/
JustMeMike
Thanks for reading.
Just a tip: Never link your reviews in the comment section of another site – makes you look like a self-serving ass. No offence, of course.
I really had no desire to see this movie. Eastwood biopics always come across like snoozefests to me and your review, Sam, just confirms my suspicions.
Really? Have you given any a shot?
Oh God, yes. Changeling, Invictus, both the Iwo Jima films, none of them did it for me. I feel like in his biopics he just recites historical events in the order they happened without getting behind the obvious exterior of the characters.
Bird was imperfect but did some interesting things, but that was the younger Eastwood.
On the flip side, Million Dollar Baby is my 2nd favorite movie, so, you know, like I always preach, NO MORE BIOPICS, CLINT.
I didn’t mind Changeling, but that maybe because Angelina was fantastic in it
Eastwood films are a hit and miss for me, too bad this one falls in the latter. I still might rent it though, but based on your review, it doesn’t seem worth seeing on the big screen.
Most certainly not.
When my sister and I saw this, both of us (especially her) were frustrated with the disjointed nature of the film. While there were some nice and interesting transitions between periods of time, many times it felt like the film was bouncing around too much.
I’m curious as to what you consider “embarrassingly bad makeup work.” It seemed like there was something off to the way Leo DiCaprio looked (weird hair? dark eyes? something?), but I couldn’t put my finger on it. His accent (along with many of the other castmates) was quite distracting too.
One of my biggest complaints was the length of the film. It just dragged on and I wondered what the point was so that the film could get to it already. Unfortunately, Eastwood did NOT deliver on this movie. Looks like DiCaprio’s going to need another film to win an Oscar for now.
Trackbacks