J. Edgar (2011) Dir. Clint Eastwood
R 137 mins.

 How do you cram a career spanning 50 yrs. into a 2hr. movie? I don't know, I'm not a filmaker. Were the events they chose to highlight accurate? I don't know, I'm not a historian. Was this film better than Eastwood's last directorial outing? I don't know, I'm not a film critic.
 Okay,it was better than Hereafter. but really that's not saying too much. I Look at Mr. Eastwood's very impressive directorial resume, and I'm growing concerned at his last two efforts. Now this is not a terrible movie. And I gain more respect for DiCaprio with every performance, this one included. The rest of the cast is fine too. Naomi Watts, as his ever faithful secretary, Dame Judi Dench, as his slightly overbearing mother, and Armie Hammer as Hoover's "partner" in more ways than one. I haven't yet  viewed The Social Network, so this portrayl is my first impression of Hammer. Honestly he kinda gives me the "willies".  Maybe that's  because of the role he played, maybe that's a testament to his acting skills, I don't know.
 On a side note Hammer was cast in the failed Justice League movie, as Batman. Thank God that project was returned to development hell where it belongs. Armie Hammer as Batman? - No Thank You!.
 Anyways, way off topic here, What left a lasting impression with me regarding J. Edgar were the makeup effects and the lighting. It was so dark, half the bloody movie was covered in shadow. Intentional or not, I found it too dark. Then there was the makeup. The movie bounced around a lot, from J. Edgar as a young 20's something, right up until his death. There were various settings in time that required DiCaprio and friends to "look their age" so the appropiate level of aging makeup was applied, but if the makeup is distracting, someone hasn't done their job. Especially with Armis Hammer's character, He looked horrible in more than one scene. Maybe these are superficial critisims, maybe the film's a damn masterpiece. What the hell do I know. Rent it yourself.