Connect with us


In Your Opinion: J. Edgar

J. Edgar, directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Leonardo DiCaprio, is obviously Oscar bait. But is it good?

According to Rotten Tomatoes, the critics are slightly indifferent to the film even though DiCaprio gives it his all. The critics gave the film an overall score of 41%, and the audience was much kinder, giving it a 67%.

The consensus of the critics, according to Rotten Tomatoes, “Leonardo DiCaprio gives a predictably powerhouse performance, but ‘J.Edgar’ stumbles in all other departments with cheesy makeup, poor lighting, confusing narrative, and humdrum storytelling.”

When I saw the first trailer, I actually didn’t think the makeup was all that bad, but the more I saw of it, the more I thought it wasn’t as polished as it could be. I guess a good comparison to the makeup in “J. Edgar” would be the aging makeup used in “Watchmen,” and that wasn’t that good at all.

What makes the film’s reception even sadder is that there’s a ton of powerhouse actors in it, not just DiCaprio. Naomi Watts, Dame Judi Dench and “Gossip Girl”‘s Ed Westwick is also part of the cast, as well as Armie Hammer, Josh Lucas and Stephen Root.

What did you think of the movie? Do you think it’ll be nominated at all, or passed by? Give your opinion in the comments section below.

J Edgar

Continue Reading

Monique Jones blogs about race and culture in entertainment, particularly movies and television. You can read her articles at Racialicious, and her new site, COLOR . You can also listen to her new podcast, What would Monique Say.

1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Brian W. Fairbanks

    November 14, 2011 at 11:44 pm

    The makeup looked just fine to me, and the performances, particularly by DiCaprio and Armie Hammer, were outstanding. Despite its length, it moved along at a remarkable pace, which is high praise in itself. A 137 minute movie that speeds by has been put together with remarkable craftsmanship. I thought the non-linear approach was perfect for this story since the amount of time covered in the film was too vast for a straight-forward, and I think dull, year-by-year narrative. As excellent as I think it is, I nonetheless think its very subject – an emotionally repressed man whose life was probably all about amassing and holding onto power at the expense of a personal life – prevents its from being truly great. As Owen Gliebrman noted in his review at Entertainment Weekly, the film, like its subject, has a buried heart. Still, it’s very much worth seeing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top