J. Edgar

Okay, a few blog entrees ago I mentioned that a certain actress should win the Oscar for best female performance in a major motion picture. I am here to tell you that while I really didn't like J. Edgar, if DiCaprio doesn't win best male performance then someone was paid off. Seriously, you don't realize how freakishly talented Leo is as an actor until you've seen him portray the maniacal, paranoid, egotistical, closeted gay, coward that was J. Edgar Hoover. Directed by Clint Eastwood, the ONLY reason to see this film is for Leo and if I had a vote in who walks away with the golden statue, it would be him. He carried this disjointed excuse of a movie from beginning to end and does an outstanding job.

Starring alongside Leo is Naomi Watts who plays Helen Gandy, Hoover's extremely loyal right hand and personal secretary. Dame Judi Dench plays Anna Marie Hoover, the overbearing and over nurturing mother of J. Edgar. Geoff Pierson stars as Mitchell Palmer, the man who gave Hoover his start, and Armie Hammer as Clyde Tolson, the one true love of Hoover's life. It is truly an impressive cast but they were all undone by the way this movie jumps all over the place. One moment Hoover is a young and eager patriot hunting down the Bolshevik threat to America and the next he's an old germaphobic man with liver spots. There is very little in the way of character development for anyone in this film and that includes Hoover himself. Written by the Oscar award winning writer Dustin Lance Black who won for Milk, I'll just say J. Edgar wasn't his best work.

But wait, maybe it wasn't Dustin's fault. Maybe the fault lies squarely with the director. I have never really been a fan of Eastwood's movie making even though I did enjoy his Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, Unforgiven, and Million Dollar Baby films. The issue though has always been his penchant for a sever lack of color which makes his films look almost black and white and the pacing. His films at times can put an insomniac to sleep. So maybe Dustin wrote a phenomenal linear screenplay, rife with provocative word play and serious character development and Clint decided to cut it all out. Maybe Clint chose to forgo Dustin's straight ahead story telling and decided to take us the viewer on a trip through time, zig zagging back and forth through eras because he thought that showed just what an artist he was. Or was he hiding Dustin's shortcomings? Who's to say? All I know is that the incessant back and forth through time disappointed rather than impressed.

What did impress me though, other than Leo were the suits. The clothes were sharp and worn extremely well. Everything from the hats to the shoes, this was a handsome film and Emmy award winning costume designer Deborah Hopper should be in the conversation for Oscar consideration, in my humble opinion of course. Scored by Eastwood, the music was sparse yet intense which is rare for him. The movies he's scored in the past have all had sweet melodic themes but lacked any vigor or intensity until now. Not worthy of going out and buying the score but it was a job well done.

I just wish I could say that about the film itself. I would pass on J. Edgar and see something else unless you are a fan of history. Even then though I dare say you would walk out disappointed as the credits rolled. The only saving grace is Leo so on that note, on a scale if one to four I give J. Edgar one and a half junior G-Men badges. I'll see you at the theater.