VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,5/10
134.771
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Come capo delle forze dell'ordine americane per quasi 50 anni, J. Edgar Hoover era temuto ed ammirato, insultato e riverito. Ma a porte chiuse, egli manteneva segreti che avrebbero distrutto... Leggi tuttoCome capo delle forze dell'ordine americane per quasi 50 anni, J. Edgar Hoover era temuto ed ammirato, insultato e riverito. Ma a porte chiuse, egli manteneva segreti che avrebbero distrutto la sua immagine, la sua carriera e la sua vita.Come capo delle forze dell'ordine americane per quasi 50 anni, J. Edgar Hoover era temuto ed ammirato, insultato e riverito. Ma a porte chiuse, egli manteneva segreti che avrebbero distrutto la sua immagine, la sua carriera e la sua vita.
- Premi
- 5 vittorie e 17 candidature
Trama
Lo sapevi?
- QuizAccording 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.
- BlooperNeither 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.
- Citazioni
J. Edgar Hoover: Do I kill everything that I love?
- ConnessioniFeatured in Ebert Presents: At the Movies: Episodio #2.16 (2011)
Recensione in evidenza
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 mar 2012
- Permalink
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Hoover
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Warrenton, Virginia, Stati Uniti(Fauquier County courthouse exteriors)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 35.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 37.306.030 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 11.217.324 USD
- 13 nov 2011
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 84.920.539 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione2 ore 17 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti