I applaud that Hollywood has done a movie on J. Edgar. He is such a character in history in that we know his legacy, yet little about the man. Clint Eastwood's "J. Edgar" focuses on both of these aspects. Though both concepts seem to make a promising feature, it does anything but that.
The movie jumps around from three different stories/timelines. One is an aging J. Edgar formulating his memoirs. The second is the historic events that a youthful J. Edgar takes part in. The third is both the old and young J. Edgar dealing with the people in his life. These include his mother (Judi Dench), who does not want her son to be a "daffodil," his quiet, loyal secretary (Naomi Watts), and his long time best friend Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer). I do not mind that a film is out of order per se, but there is a tendency in this movie that when one event becomes interesting, another one is thrown into my face. The previous scene may not pop back up until an hour later. It is almost as if the screenwriter had too many ideas at once and did not know what to keep, more or less when to get back to an earlier subplot. There is no sense of consistency. As a result, this makes the movie feel slower than faster.
Another downer is that some historical events that J. Edgar partook was left out, such as his war against the gangsters, McCarthyism, and his issues with the Kennedy's dirty little secrets. Instead, the plot's focus is thrown on the rumor that J. Edgar was a repressed homosexual. Sure, he lived with a guy for 40 years, but that does not immediately make a man gay. This should be hardly surprising for me since the screenwriter who wrote this also wrote "Milk." Then again, maybe J. Edgar was gay. I don't know.
This movie is not terrible though. Leo does not steal the show, for there is a very good supporting cast. Armie Hammer might be looking at a nomination, as could Judi Dench. Leo was decent, but much of his performance reminded me of his earlier work for Scorsese's "The Aviator." His character is very eccentric, particular to detail, paranoid, and even at one-point looks at mirror while saying the same line over and over again. The line though isn't "The way of the future." The makeup design for this film is phenomenal. Whoever is part of that department should win the Oscar. Tom Stern's cinematography is another high point, for like "Changeling," he uses muted colors and dim lighting to capture the lonely, dejecting atmosphere that surrounds the plot. Clint Eastwood's limited music is nice icing added to the cake.
Overall though, Clint Eastwood's "J. Edgar" is not so much about the ruthless, power hungry, governmental figure that history has built him up as, but rather a lonesome, determined, repressed homosexual.
The movie jumps around from three different stories/timelines. One is an aging J. Edgar formulating his memoirs. The second is the historic events that a youthful J. Edgar takes part in. The third is both the old and young J. Edgar dealing with the people in his life. These include his mother (Judi Dench), who does not want her son to be a "daffodil," his quiet, loyal secretary (Naomi Watts), and his long time best friend Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer). I do not mind that a film is out of order per se, but there is a tendency in this movie that when one event becomes interesting, another one is thrown into my face. The previous scene may not pop back up until an hour later. It is almost as if the screenwriter had too many ideas at once and did not know what to keep, more or less when to get back to an earlier subplot. There is no sense of consistency. As a result, this makes the movie feel slower than faster.
Another downer is that some historical events that J. Edgar partook was left out, such as his war against the gangsters, McCarthyism, and his issues with the Kennedy's dirty little secrets. Instead, the plot's focus is thrown on the rumor that J. Edgar was a repressed homosexual. Sure, he lived with a guy for 40 years, but that does not immediately make a man gay. This should be hardly surprising for me since the screenwriter who wrote this also wrote "Milk." Then again, maybe J. Edgar was gay. I don't know.
This movie is not terrible though. Leo does not steal the show, for there is a very good supporting cast. Armie Hammer might be looking at a nomination, as could Judi Dench. Leo was decent, but much of his performance reminded me of his earlier work for Scorsese's "The Aviator." His character is very eccentric, particular to detail, paranoid, and even at one-point looks at mirror while saying the same line over and over again. The line though isn't "The way of the future." The makeup design for this film is phenomenal. Whoever is part of that department should win the Oscar. Tom Stern's cinematography is another high point, for like "Changeling," he uses muted colors and dim lighting to capture the lonely, dejecting atmosphere that surrounds the plot. Clint Eastwood's limited music is nice icing added to the cake.
Overall though, Clint Eastwood's "J. Edgar" is not so much about the ruthless, power hungry, governmental figure that history has built him up as, but rather a lonesome, determined, repressed homosexual.