So this week we all toddled off to see Clint Eastwood/Leonardo diCaprio collab J Edgar. With that kind of Hollywood pedigree we had to be on to a winner, right?
Read on to find out…but beware those pesky spoilers!
KURT ‘What a load of boring tosh.’
‘I don’t understand why the older Arnie Hammer couldn’t have been played by someone like Peter O’Toole, who actually looks like him. He looked like a wrinkly thumb.’
‘I thought Leo was very good, both as young and old Edgar. He got Edgar’s speech patterns down which was impressive. He’s also becoming a bit of a biopic regular after The Aviator…’
‘The thing I loved the most about this film was that Arnie Hammer’s idea of “old man acting” was just shaking. Judi Dench was very good, but then when is she ever bad?’
‘I’m sure one day someone will make a thrilling film about Hoover, but this just isn’t it. DiCaprio gave it his all, but this is more a soap opera than serious film. Eastwood really needs his next film to be a good one to convince people he’s not ready to be put out to pasture.’
JEFF ‘A huge disappointment.. Hoover has an interesting story, this just wasn’t how it should have been presented, in the slightest…the subject matter was totally mishandled. I really enjoyed the Lindbergh baby bit but once they cut away from it, it was back to Snoozeland.’
‘The make-up was a sheer disaster. Horrid end product and I have no idea how it was approved.’
‘I love DiCaprio, but this may be my least favourite film of his. It sounded too much like Leo putting on an accent and I just started to feel bad for him being constricted by that awful latex work.’
‘Armie worked fine as young Clyde, but sweet Jesus, how horrible was his whole old man routine? It was really descending into farcical territory.’
CELINE ’1 word: prosthetics!’
‘I didn’t like the present/past structure of the movie; the present definitely didn’t bring anything to it. They would have done better if they had focused more on young Hoover, I think.’
‘Leo was good, especially in his younger Hoover; I was too distracted by his double chin to really pay attention to his acting in the ‘older’ parts. At some points you could even see the shine of the glue down his neck!’
FIONA ‘This did not live up to its potential. So much history to draw from, yet the film glossed over or ignored key events. The script lacked gravitas and failed to have any tension or drama so the tone felt very one note.’
‘The overall result is a long, underwhelming movie with very dodgy make up for the aged characters. Leo looked bloated and puffy, and Armie looked beyond awful!’
‘The problem here is the script. No drama, no excitement and no tension, which really limits the enjoyment.’
‘I thought Leo was good but I was expecting so much more. I think the make up on older Leo totally ruined the performance though, he looked so bloated and puffy which was distracting.’
MARK ‘Historically it was a mess… it took a guy we all know to be pretty a horrid individual and sort of managed to break him down into a troubled American hero. But, taken as a film, it was so measured and confident that it just kind of won you over after a while.’
‘I was impressed by Leo in the way you can be impressed by someone you know is going to be a quality performer going in – it’s sort of like being impressed by white bread. I did like pretty much everyone around him, but he was kind of a known quantity.’
‘This felt like more of an ensemble to me, with Hammer and Watts and folks shinning more with him as the anchor.
‘A quality production about a deeply troubled man. It shouldn’t be taken as a history lesson, but I found enough to like it.’
IVAI ‘I didn’t really know much about J. Edgar Hoover going in, and the film was watchable but not exactly a thrilling or deeply engaging story.’
‘Brilliant performances from all involved. In all though, it was a tad boring.’
‘I agree that the makeup was a bit dodgy, they looked like the guys from Jackass!’
MIKE ‘It wasn’t as boring as some other biographical films I’ve seen, but it skipped over or missed out a lot of vital points in Hoover’s life. Eastwood was selective.’
What also troubled me was how much speculation was included: Edgar and Clyde’s relationship, his domineering mother, his cross dressing; all based on nothing but rumour, there’s no evidence to confirm any of it. Mixing that with the factual, historical content felt like a massive contradiction.’
‘Di Caprio gave a strong performance, even if the older version of him (and more so Armie Hammer) did look like beat up skinless sausages.’
‘Leo was the strongest aspect of it by far. I think Eastwood tried to take on a little more than he was capable of and approached it from all the wrong angles.’
BEN ‘I had high hopes for this, being a fan of Eastwood’s unfussy directing style, but I think the script was disappointing and there was only so much Clint could have done with it.’
‘All the scenes with the very old Tolson were awful; all I could think about was the horrible powdery make-up.’
‘DiCaprio was very good, particularly as a young Hoover, but it won’t win him an Oscar. Can’t fault the rest of the cast either, they all did OK.’
‘I didn’t hate it but I didn’t love it either. Eastwood and the cast did their best, but the film suffered due to the poor script. A wasted opportunity to tell a fascinating story.’
LOUISE ‘Overall I thought it dragged a little bit but I did like it, and thought Leo was amazing. The only reason I wanted to see the film was for Leo. He’s always so good in everything and it’s such a different role for him. I thought he was brilliant.’
‘I thought Armie was good but his old man prosthetics were soooo much worse than Leo’s. It was slightly off putting to start with! I did love him though.’
‘Bits of it were great, but overall it was too long and slow at times. I wouldn’t recommend it but it wasn’t a complete waste of my time.’
CHRIS I quite liked it, whilst it’s true that it could have covered a bit more history the stuff it did cover interested and educated me.’
‘I thought the makeup was good and Leo pulled off an outstanding, if not Oscar-worthy performance. Dench’s performance really stood out for me too, I wouldn’t want her to be my Mum!’
‘Overall I enjoyed the film. I learned things I didn’t know previously, Leo was good to watch as usual and I wasn’t bored watching. 3* for this film from me.’
KATIE ‘Not normally a film i would go see at the cinema but it was good, I found it interesting as I didn’t know much about J Edgar. It’s quite fascinating that he changed the FBI to what it is today.’
DAVE ‘I thought this film was awful to the point of annoyance.’
‘Armie Hammer was great until the point when he’s older, with a face like a testicle who is going to take you seriously? His make up felt like an afterthought.’
‘It should have just zoned in on a particular time in his life, I felt the editing going back and forth was so sloppy that it lost my interest. And I hated the reveal at the end.’
‘Eastwood is hit and miss, sometimes I love his work but sometimes not. This was definitely a stinker, but I think that was down to the script.
‘I really disliked J. Edgar. Eastwood will definitely make more good films, not all directors can have a perfect record and I do feel it was the script, make up and some bad acting that let the film down – not his direction.’
LYNN I was really looking forward to J Edgar but I was very badly disappointed in it all.’
‘I had no problems with the acting; Leo in particular was very good but the script at times was quite dull. I did feel a little bored on more than one occasion.’
‘The makeup techniques used were horrendous. I have no idea what the budget was for this film but surely they could have spared a little more than they obviously spent. I have seen kids Trick or Treating wearing better and more believable “old person” masks!’
‘This wasn’t the biopic I hoped for and feel that Eastwood has let down his stars as they did the best they could with what they were given.’
We’re just going to come right out and say it. We were disappointed. And pretty bored.
Don’t get us wrong, it’s superbly well-acted. DiCaprio is amaze in everything he does and this is no exception – his voice pattern is completely unrecognisable and there are a few points where he’s downright scary.
Also, kudos to him for getting his chops around some seriously cumbersome dialogue (and he spends most of the film talking). His supporting cast are brill too but it’s definitely The Leo Show. Even if we can’t see his lovely face behind all that dodgy latex.
It’s kind of a shame that the old-age makeup is quite so bad, seeing as how we spend half the movie listening to old-man J dictating his memoirs. There were several points where we just stared at Leo’s waxy plastic face instead of listening to what the hell he was on about. And don’t even get us started on poor Armie Hammer.
Where the film goes really wrong is in the script, which is light on…well, everything. Hoover ruled the FBI for 37 years, but only a few of them get mentioned. Yes, it’s a 2-hour movie. They’re never going to get everything in. But when one specific event gets an hour of screentime and other equally important ones get nada…you see what we mean.
Even the personal stuff is kind of vanilla, as writer Dustin Lance Black chooses to focus on how Hoover presented himself to his public rather than delving deeper into what really made him tick. Of course, most of the chatter about his private life is just rumour, and we get that that’s the point – maybe we’re not supposed to connect with Hoover – but it’s hard to feel anything for a character we never really get to know. Other than the fact he’s kind of an odd dude and he lives with his mum.
One more thing. Why is this movie so dark? Surely Eastwood’s budget could have stretched to a few extra spotlights!
But just what is this Film Club malarkey all about? It’s simples, really. Each week we send a pair of cinema tix (ODEON or Cineworld, whichever is best) to 10 of our most active Facebook/Twitter followers. We put the film we’re going to see to the vote, and the winning film is the one we all go to see. Then we all sit around on Facebook on the Sunday night (6.30) and chat about it. Magic. Sound like something you want to get involved with? Drop us a line at twitter.com/f_t_r_c or on Facebook at on.fb.me/d4dMv8
January 24th, 2012
Categories: Film Club . Author: admin . Comments: No Comments
FROM DUSK TIL DAWN George’s first big movie, shot in 1996 before he was quite such a silver fox. He plays lowlife scumbucket Seth Gecko, who happens upon a strip club full of vampires while running from a bank robbery. Don’t you just hate it when that happens?
UP IN THE AIR Travelling up and down the country firing people probably sounds more fun than it actually is. That’s certainly the case for Clooney-character Ryan Bingham in this flick, anywhos. 
Loading ...
