MovieChat Forums > J. Edgar (2011) Discussion > Why this movie bombed

Why this movie bombed

posted 4 years ago by Redsfan001 (6146)
7 replies | jump to latest

The man's life was too eventful for a full scale biopic.

He lived and held incredible power through so many years that it was a mistake to have this film span so many. All history buffs like me came away disappointed.

Better to focus on maybe 5-10 years MAX of his life. Either the 1930's or 50's or 60's take your pick, just not all three.

That way the story can go into some of the details that history buffs like me crave.

Love Eastwood's work, this one however, was a miss.

[–] pioneergrrrl (2408) 4 years ago

agree it was too broad.....would have been interesting to narrow in on the 60's/70's.....a brief intro WAS needed to show how he became obsessed with tracking people/why

The stuff about the 30's-40's was meh. Should have skipped ahead.

[–] Redsfan001 (6146) 4 years ago

Yeah 60's would have been my pick.

[–] pioneergrrrl (2408) 4 years ago

Both Hoover and Nixon were very secretive paranoid people. Interesting interplay there

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

These are a full reasons why I think. Nobody cares about J. Edgar, Americans dont want to be portrayed as homosexual, nobody wants to see Leonardo Dicaprio as a homosexual, the matter and the lighting of the film was extremely dark. The film was under promoted. The history that revolves around it is too harsh for people to want to remember. It’s not a theater movie and by time it came out anyone could see it anywhere plus I think it was early released as a bootleg. It has many subjects people hate and cant deal with. Being a phoney, being elitest, having deep secrets, black mailing, high scale corruption, communism, baby killing, homo shaming, terrorism, the list goes on and on.

I loved the film.

[–] Redsfan001 (6146) 4 years ago

You make some good points, very dark subject matter, and DiCaprio as a homosexual is not a box office draw.

A man who held so much power for so long will always be a fascinating figure for historians. A more focused and well written movie would have done better.

Your statement that nobody cares about J Edgar is a little blunt. MILLENNIALS and Gen Z don't care, which is what the box office sales usually represent. But Boomer's do, and their movie needs are not really sought out by movie studios.

I am guessing that the studios experts after watching the final cut decided not to promote it full tilt because the finished product was not, shall we say...Oscar worthy.

[–] liscarkat (18388) 3 years ago

Part of the problem is DiCaprio. He's a good actor, but in every role, no matter how old he gets or how much facial hair he grows (none in "J. Edgar, of course), he still has the face and voice of a teenager. I can't accept him as masculine historic figures like Hoover (who did present himself as masculine) or Howard Hughes. I keep hearing that he's going to play T. Roosevelt. I hope that does not happen.

[–] Redsfan001 (6146) 3 years ago

I'm a sucker for a historical drama, so I'll watch it whomever stars...but I do agree that his face looks nothing like FDR...Tom Hanks is starting to look like him though 😀.