ÉVALUATION IMDb
6,5/10
135 k
MA NOTE
J. Edgar Hoover, puissant chef du F.B.I. depuis près de cinquante années, fait le point sur sa vie professionnelle et personnelle.J. Edgar Hoover, puissant chef du F.B.I. depuis près de cinquante années, fait le point sur sa vie professionnelle et personnelle.J. Edgar Hoover, puissant chef du F.B.I. depuis près de cinquante années, fait le point sur sa vie professionnelle et personnelle.
- Prix
- 5 victoires et 17 nominations au total
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesAccording to Armie Hammer, Leonardo DiCaprio and he proposed to producer and director Clint Eastwood to depict the sexual relationship between the characters as graphic, but he refused, arguing the screenplay didn't call for it.
- GaffesNeither Hoover nor Agent Melvin Purvis killed John Dillinger. Dillinger was actually gunned down by agents Clarence Hurt, Charles Winstead, and Herman Hollis. Most historical accounts give Winstead credit for delivering the fatal shot to the back of Dillinger's head. Ironically, given the film's depiction of Hoover as constantly claiming credit for the deed, Winstead received a personal letter of commendation from Hoover for it.
- Citations
J. Edgar Hoover: Do I kill everything that I love?
- ConnexionsFeatured in Ebert Presents: At the Movies: Episode #2.16 (2011)
Commentaire en vedette
J. Edgar (2011)
This is a particular kind of movie--the based on fact biopic--done with great attention to period accuracy. If that's what's important, getting a bit of American history into a vivid big screen format, then this works pretty well. On top of that, Leonardo DiCaprio is excellent, very professional.
But "J. Edgar" not a terrific movie. If a movie is meant to be gripping and moving and beautiful and fun and all those things, this is none of those. It isn't boring or tepid or clumsy or insulting--but not being those things isn't exactly a compliment.
And the reasons for this are clear. Mainly there's the format. Between Dustin Black and Clint Eastwood a decision was made to "tell" the story by means of the character, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, literally telling the story to a typist. This is a dry and painful way of any kind of drama. It's even a boring way to teach a class, and sometimes you get the feeling we're being "taught" things about our history we need to know.
Be careful, if you watch only half the movie, you'll be filled with misconceptions that the movie itself corrects, in the last few moments during a final important conversation. That problem of course is a new kind of "unreliable narrator," since the story is being told by the protagonist himself. And no one is very honest, truly, in an autobiography. In a way that makes the movie the most interesting it can be. I'm also not sure what the director and writer really feel about Hoover's sexual orientation, at least as it applied to his doing his job.
There are some familiar Eastwood slants on content that might irk a few of you familiar with his politics. For example, he makes very public his appreciation for civil rights and equality, but in a way that's so showy you begin to suspect the motivation (that he believes what he preaches but he also wants you to like him for it). But then he also has little to say about the heavy handed FBI (and pre-FBI) days when lots of innocent people got followed and railroaded and jailed and worse. The mood is set that in those old days things were different and we really needed a megalomaniac at the FBI to keep this darned country safe from the Commies. Something like that.
As a drama, which is maybe the secondary consideration, the plot moves between a present day 1960s crisis (between the Kennedy and Nixon years) and the early days. It flips back and forth a lot (too much for me) and keeps DiCaprio's narration flowing right through a lot of it in part to hold it together. The result is fragmented as a story, and stilted as a dramatic flow.
Just a heads up on the format and the flow. Again, if it's content you want, and you can enjoy the way it gets cobbled together, there's a lot of stuff here to sort out.
This is a particular kind of movie--the based on fact biopic--done with great attention to period accuracy. If that's what's important, getting a bit of American history into a vivid big screen format, then this works pretty well. On top of that, Leonardo DiCaprio is excellent, very professional.
But "J. Edgar" not a terrific movie. If a movie is meant to be gripping and moving and beautiful and fun and all those things, this is none of those. It isn't boring or tepid or clumsy or insulting--but not being those things isn't exactly a compliment.
And the reasons for this are clear. Mainly there's the format. Between Dustin Black and Clint Eastwood a decision was made to "tell" the story by means of the character, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, literally telling the story to a typist. This is a dry and painful way of any kind of drama. It's even a boring way to teach a class, and sometimes you get the feeling we're being "taught" things about our history we need to know.
Be careful, if you watch only half the movie, you'll be filled with misconceptions that the movie itself corrects, in the last few moments during a final important conversation. That problem of course is a new kind of "unreliable narrator," since the story is being told by the protagonist himself. And no one is very honest, truly, in an autobiography. In a way that makes the movie the most interesting it can be. I'm also not sure what the director and writer really feel about Hoover's sexual orientation, at least as it applied to his doing his job.
There are some familiar Eastwood slants on content that might irk a few of you familiar with his politics. For example, he makes very public his appreciation for civil rights and equality, but in a way that's so showy you begin to suspect the motivation (that he believes what he preaches but he also wants you to like him for it). But then he also has little to say about the heavy handed FBI (and pre-FBI) days when lots of innocent people got followed and railroaded and jailed and worse. The mood is set that in those old days things were different and we really needed a megalomaniac at the FBI to keep this darned country safe from the Commies. Something like that.
As a drama, which is maybe the secondary consideration, the plot moves between a present day 1960s crisis (between the Kennedy and Nixon years) and the early days. It flips back and forth a lot (too much for me) and keeps DiCaprio's narration flowing right through a lot of it in part to hold it together. The result is fragmented as a story, and stilted as a dramatic flow.
Just a heads up on the format and the flow. Again, if it's content you want, and you can enjoy the way it gets cobbled together, there's a lot of stuff here to sort out.
- secondtake
- 19 mars 2012
- Lien permanent
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Hoover
- Lieux de tournage
- Warrenton, Virginie, États-Unis(Fauquier County courthouse exteriors)
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 35 000 000 $ US (estimation)
- Brut – États-Unis et Canada
- 37 306 030 $ US
- Fin de semaine d'ouverture – États-Unis et Canada
- 11 217 324 $ US
- 13 nov. 2011
- Brut – à l'échelle mondiale
- 84 920 539 $ US
- Durée2 heures 17 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant