Los archivos privados de Hoover

A lot of commenter's seem to focus on the fact that it was cheesy or low budget or whatever--but i thought it was a rock solid biography of Hoover's tenure at the FBI. I never knew there was rampant corruption in that bureau for years and years until he took over. (look it up its true!) Movie doesn't praise him entirely nor does it condemn him either----its a completely low key sort of monotonous look at the man's life.

There are a lot of great details that are included here along the way. A lot of moments--in fact i would say the movie is worth seeing because of these moments. The scene where Hoover mourns the loss of his mom for example...or the scene where Hoover is determined to unmask Martin Luther King Jr as a fraud (wrongly of course--but still the movie's not condemning Hoover for believing that MLK Jr was some sort of anarchist---its what the guy believed and rightly or wrongly it is what happened and makes for an amazing scene between Broderick Crawford and Raymond St Jacques as MLK Jr.) There's a fantastic scene at the beginning where Hoover is busting some gangster or bootlegger or something and the guy (and the guy's girlfriend) are insulting him relentlessly and Hoover just stands there and smirks.

Broderick Crawford actually is wonderful as Hoover---you don't realize it while you're watching it because he's so stoic and sorta stone faced the entire time--but you absolutely know what he's thinking and feeling throughout every scene that happens---and not just because of the screenplay--you're able to get what J Edger Hoover is feeling because of what Crawford is doing--weather its slumping forward or grabbing onto his longtime friend's (and possibly gay lover) hand or just staring dead ahead while receiving awful news---he really brings Hoover to life in a way that somehow merges old school acting (just the facts ma'am reeling of paragraphs of dialog at a time) with new school method acting (really projecting an inner life through reactions or body movements) in many ways Mr. Crawford's role here really intermingles the 2 styles in a way that you don't realize while watching it was pretty damn revolutionary. (and not something that George Clooney could pull off as easily in "The Good German" tho he tried really hard to.) its not a great movie by any means--its a little long...and more then a little rambling in parts--but it is a very good portrait of a very complicated individual---and i do wonder why its not better known given Hollywood's love of making biographies of every known famous person under the sun.

The story of the late J. Edgar Hoover, who was head of the FBI from 1924-1972. The film follows Hoover from his racket-busting days through his reign under eight U.S. presidents.

Writer-director Larry Cohen considers this his best film, and if nothing else, it certainly is ambitious. There are flaws. For one, it is more a summary of history than any real biopic, and has little meat. To tell this story properly, another hour would have had to be added -- if the viewer does not already know the history, much of this might be confusing.

We also get some strange impressions of the presidents. Franklin Roosevelt, in particular, seems pretty bizarre. But shortcomings aside, this is something of a definitive film about Hoover. If nothing else, all other films since had to either borrow or refute the topics covered.

Biopics that try to cover decades always fall into the trap of being a highlight reel of a long life. This picture suffers from that as well as choppy editing and a cheap look. The picture really comes together when Bobby Kennedy comes into the story. The first scene of Hoover and Kennedy together is the high point of the whole film. The dialogue and cat and mouse interplay between Broderick Crawford and Michael Parks just about redeem the film. Both turn in great performances in a film filled with reliable actors wasted in small roles. The Rip Torn subplot really doesn't go anywhere but just seems to provide an excuse for him to narrate the film. That said, a surprising amount of research went into this film, released just 5 years after Hoover's death.

That particular phrase from Lord Acton about absolute power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely is always the one that brings to mind J. Edgar Hoover and his Federal Bureau of Investigation. And it's altogether fitting and proper we should describe the FBI as his, seeing as how he ran it for 48 years and under 8 presidents.

I am glad that they showed that Hoover came into the Bureau as a reformer. It was a patronage cesspool under previous directors, in fact it had existed for 17 years before J. Edgar Hoover took over and had four previous directors. Hoover did do those kinds of reforms, made it a merit based agency given his ideas of what was meritorious. He set up a national fingerprint data base, something one can't conceive of in law enforcement now. And certainly the FBI did do yeoman service in apprehending and eliminating some of the well known gangsters of the twenties and thirties.

If Hoover had retired in 1945 with the close of World War II his historic reputation would be just about where it was in 1945. Sad to say he didn't, he got heady with power because he had dirt on everybody who was anybody in any field you want to name. That's intoxicating stuff.

I've never thought of Hoover as gay, a crossdresser or anything else in a sexual way. I think the man just had a low sex drive. A lot of that was rumors put about by enemies. He certainly made a legion of them. If power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, than Hoover never tasted those kind of rewards.

Broderick Crawford does a good job as the implacable and austere Hoover, however the film is essentially a one dimensional look at a most complex man. If Hoover was gay, his relationship with Clyde Tolson is handled most discreetly even five years after Hoover died.

This turned out to be the farewell film performance of Dan Dailey who played Tolson. Tolson apparently could smooth a lot of Hoover's rough edges out and on at least one occasion the film shows Tolson saving the publicity minded Hoover from a real public relations disaster.

A lot of familiar players dot the cast of The Private Files of J. Edgar Hoover so if you're a stargazer you'll like the film. Still Hoover's long and varied career over some tumultuous American history requires a better study than this.

I saw this film theatrically (in a revival) and was astonished. It was an attempt to turn Hoover into Citizen Kane, with the supposed "burning" of Hoover's secret files the equivalent of the burning of "Rosebud." Crawford does make an interesting Hoover - considering he was most famous for playing America's first TV cop in "Highway Patrol," seeing him play a deliberately abusive cop is fun. But he's the only actor who pulls off his part convincingly; the other actors look distracted, like they're worried that their paychecks might not clear. The script plods from event to event - blackmail on Roosevelt, Martin Luther King and others - and gets numbing. (The film came out before revelations that Hoover may have been a transvestite and homosexual - seeing Crawford in drag might have provided an extra kick.) Supposedly, this was filmed without official approval around the original FBI headquarters in Washington, which caused some official heat. But aside from that courage, you don't get the feeling of getting inside Hoover's life, which other movies have done. You get the feeling you're being told this story by a gossipy wife under the hair dryer in a salon.