The Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI for short, has sustained as the one of the most powerful organizations in America since its inauguration in the early twentieth during Theodore Roosevelt's presidency. Hollywood tycoon Clint Eastwood attempts to strike not specifically on the history of the organization but the company's most powerful figure. And that man was John Edgar Hoover, who served as the head of the FBI during World War II, The Korean War, and the Vietnam War and for eight consecutive presidents. Who would better suit the role as the the FBI's head honcho than Leonardo DiCaprio? As debatable as it is, DiCaprio's portrayal sets a major highlight that triumphs above everything that makes the film less than memorable proceeding. While Eastwood has the noblest intentions, his rendition of the story focusing on the titular man fail to capture the legacy that made Hoover one of the most respected figures in American history. What transpires in the 136-minute runtime is a long series of historical facts presented with a script ad storytelling that feels too uneven for its own good. This film focuses on J. Edgar Hoover (played by Leonardo DiCaprio), from his rise to becoming the director of the FBI, to his tackling on notorious crimes such as the Lindbergh kidnappings and gang activity by the infamous John Dillinger, to his attempts on fighting the communist threats during the Cold War. With his career in the office spanning over five decades, this film focuses on impressing issues such as his relationship with his assistants Clyde Tolson (played by Armie Hammer) who appeared to be his possible lover, and his erratic relationship with his secretary Helen Gandy (played by Naomi Watts) as he went to great lengths of challenge the ethical boundaries of his position as the head of one of America's most profound organizations. Clint Eastwood and writer Dustin Lance Black, who wrote the script for the biopic 'Milk', spit plenty of textbook information about Hoover during his fifty-plus years running the FBI. But Eastwood's take on the absorbing subject matter feels all too conventional and falls short of the legacy behind Hoover's career. This results in those who bear interest in the history surrounding Hoover going in and being fed a more than a truck load of information about him, but coming out learning very little of what made him one of the powerful figures in the complicated world of law and justice. What Eastwood manages to capture throughout the picture are facts that are at least interesting, but on a fraction of what the film throws at us is remotely remarkable. The film deals with a man who worked seemingly endless days fighting against the Communist movement that nearly ran amok during the Cold War and the violent gang activity by some of America's most notorious criminals. But the film too often keeps everything surface level and fails to dig deeper into the landmark aspects that made his career truly defining. The best aspect Eastwood manages to wring out from the history surrounding the central figure is the look of both the pre and post-World War II era, which he obtains through a desaturated color tone. Lucky for us, Leonardo DiCaprio is the man who keep the portrayal of Hoover lively. With the story flashing back and forth to early years and later years of Hoover's career, DiCaprio is covered in make-up to obtain the old age look of Hoover during his close-to-retirement age. His assistant played by Armie Hammer goes through a similar process, except with make-up that looks more subpar than DiCaprio's when the story jumps the two in their old ages. It is safe to say he plays the role out fine though. J. Edgar is a middle-of-the-road biopic that falls short of its potential in place of an uneven script and a portrayal of the titular figure's checkered history that feels way too conventional. Compared to Clint Eastwood's previous works, this one feels a little dull. That is not to say Leonardo DiCaprio isn't a revelation behind the bright side of the picture. Sadly, Eastwood's take on the subject matter fails to leave much of an impact.

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...

Creating a biopic about one of the most powerful man of the 20th century, who built and made what the FBI is nowadays is something of a challenge.But Clint Eastwood is a director whose talent is not to be proved anymore. His movies are always masterpieces and always brings a lot of emotions. J.Edgar is not an exception even if this movie is less known and much underrated than his others pictures.To impersonate a charismatic and powerful character such as Hoover, you need someone who has to be as charismatic and smart as him. Leonardo Di Caprio is the perfect choice. Since Titanic, he has impressed me in each new movie he starred in. In each movie I can see how easily he can get into the skin of the character he is suppose to play. Seeing him as Edgar Hoover is mesmerizing. He is always in the just tone and attitude. Charismatic and powerful when he should be. More vulnerable when he has to. I loved his scenes with Dame Judi Dench who stars as Hoover's mother. We can feel how powerful the relationship between Hoover and his mother was. He impressed everyone he encountered but he was impressed and influenced by his mother. And Leo and Mrs Dench is playing it as perfection.The fact that Clint Eastwood used flashbacks to tell the most important events of Hoover's career at the head of the FBI is well thought and shot but sometimes I felt lost between them. Maybe another approach like a continued story would have been preferable. But besides that, the movie is admirably shot and the recreation of the 1910s and 1930s environment is really well done.It would be also unfair to not notice the beautiful performance of Armie Hammer and Naomi Watts respectively as Clyde Tolson and Helen Gandy. The romantic scenes between Hammer and Di Caprio are really emotional. Seeing those two men loving each other can make some feeling uncomfortable but the relationship between them was not a secret. Naomi Watts was graceful as Miss Gandy and I could feel that she was secretly in love with Edgar Hoover even if they both decided to keep professional. Naomi Watts is also a talented actress and she proved it again in this performance.In conclusion, I'm giving a 8 out of 10. Despite his slow pace, this is still a very beautiful film to enjoy. And if you are a big fan of Leo and Clint then it's definitely worth the view.

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.