This is an interesting film for me, mostly because I take interest in both history and forensic investigation (i.e. CSI). I'm also a fan of DiCaprio's more recent films, and I had high hopes in this one. However, the actor who stole the show was, surprisingly, Armie Hammer. DiCaprio's fake accent and old makeup weren't believable at all to me, which was distracting... and I ended up feeling that he's DiCaprio instead of J. Edgar. Hammer on the other hand, was magnificent. It was mostly his scenes that saved this film for me - his scenes were the only ones that made me FEEL something.
The rest of the film was just there - it just went on, telling one story after another, as flat as DiCaprio's narration tone. And most of the time, I found myself wondering: why is this film so freaking dark? Why do the characters do everything in unnaturally dark environment? I understand that maybe it's some kind of symbolism, but whose office is ever that poorly-lit during working hours? What family eats their dinner in the dark - even with unlit candles on the table? I found myself thinking, why won't you guys just light up those candles already?
It was Armie Hammer who managed to bring some soul amidst this history-book-ish storytelling. It was shocking to see his emotions in the hotel scene - I felt truly touched by his performance. It felt like a burst of colours in a monochromatic film. Even in other scenes, he manages to tell a huge part of Tolson's stories, feelings and emotions merely through his eyes. I understood more from his eyes than from the long train of heavy words in DiCaprio's fake-accented narration.
In the end, it did keep my attention although it might be because I have a higher tolerance for historical documentaries than most people (as evident by how my friends were already rolling around doing other things a few minutes into the film). And it IS a good story, even though it's being told slowly, heavily, and in darkness... literally.
The rest of the film was just there - it just went on, telling one story after another, as flat as DiCaprio's narration tone. And most of the time, I found myself wondering: why is this film so freaking dark? Why do the characters do everything in unnaturally dark environment? I understand that maybe it's some kind of symbolism, but whose office is ever that poorly-lit during working hours? What family eats their dinner in the dark - even with unlit candles on the table? I found myself thinking, why won't you guys just light up those candles already?
It was Armie Hammer who managed to bring some soul amidst this history-book-ish storytelling. It was shocking to see his emotions in the hotel scene - I felt truly touched by his performance. It felt like a burst of colours in a monochromatic film. Even in other scenes, he manages to tell a huge part of Tolson's stories, feelings and emotions merely through his eyes. I understood more from his eyes than from the long train of heavy words in DiCaprio's fake-accented narration.
In the end, it did keep my attention although it might be because I have a higher tolerance for historical documentaries than most people (as evident by how my friends were already rolling around doing other things a few minutes into the film). And it IS a good story, even though it's being told slowly, heavily, and in darkness... literally.