Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: J. Edgar anyone?

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bergen County, NJ
    Posts
    20,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    J. Edgar anyone?

    Seeing it tonite, have been pretty excited to see it, but was ponderous about the lack of promotion--it just came out of no where about 3 weeks ago--and the reviews (critics and viewers) have been mixed.

    I am disappoint if this isn't any good.

    How do you screw up an epic story about an iconic and divisive American figure, starring Leo and directed by Clint. :dunno:

    _

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JStokes;4228310]Seeing it tonite, have been pretty excited to see it, but was ponderous about the lack of promotion--it just came out of no where about 3 weeks ago--and the reviews (critics and viewers) have been mixed.

    I am disappoint if this isn't any good.

    How do you screw up an epic story about an iconic and divisive American figure, starring Leo and directed by Clint. :dunno:

    _[/QUOTE]

    You worry too much.

    Love,
    FF2

    PS: Do you buy candy there or sneak some in?

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,949
    Post Thanks / Like
    Allegedly, the story swings through too many of the historical events rather than focusing on a few of the mainstays...

    I haven't seen it yet, we saw Immortals yesterday instead.

    Not great. Not bad. Definitely Netflix worthy.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Hades
    Posts
    2,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    big fan of eastwood and dicaprio but this one looks just ok

    then again i said the same thing about invictus and it was awesome


    a director is like a gm/coach/qb combined...its on him to make everything work.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Hades
    Posts
    2,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4228312]Allegedly, the story swings through too many of the historical events rather than focusing on a few of the mainstays...

    I haven't seen it yet, we saw Immortals yesterday instead.

    Not great. Not bad. Definitely Netflix worthy.[/QUOTE]

    tell me u didnt see it in 3d...i hate that 3d bull****

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    He was a cross-dresser :eek:

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,949
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Bearded_Achilles;4228314]tell me u didnt see it in 3d...i hate that 3d bull****[/QUOTE]

    Can't, glasses give me some kind of weird motion sickness. So nope, regular.

  8. #8
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,442
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JStokes;4228310]Seeing it tonite, have been pretty excited to see it, but was ponderous about the lack of promotion--it just came out of no where about 3 weeks ago--and the reviews (critics and viewers) have been mixed.

    I am disappoint if this isn't any good.

    How do you screw up an epic story about an iconic and divisive American figure, starring Leo and directed by Clint. :dunno:

    _[/QUOTE]

    from what i heard, they screwed it up b/c it was a crappy script. i guess the guy who wrote it was the same guy who wrote Milk, and that movie definitely sucked. WSJ review on it from yesterday crapped all over it.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Hades
    Posts
    2,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4228317]Can't, glasses give me some kind of weird motion sickness. So nope, regular.[/QUOTE]

    hah same here

    i saw transformers 3 in 3D and wanted to puke

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=GMCJETS;4228316]He was a cross-dresser :eek:[/QUOTE]

    So what?

    Why should women get all the the nice soft silky feeling things and men get stuck with chaffing cotton?

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In The Cone of Doom
    Posts
    6,950
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2;4228324]So what?

    Why should women get all the the nice soft silky feeling things and men get stuck with chaffing cotton?[/QUOTE]

    This can only go bad for you....

  12. #12
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,442
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2;4228324]So what?

    Why should women get all the the nice soft silky feeling things and men get stuck with chaffing cotton?[/QUOTE]

    still dont understand why anybody wears underwear anymore?

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,656
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2;4228324]So what?

    Why should women get all the the nice soft silky feeling things and men get stuck with chaffing cotton?[/QUOTE]

    They make silk boxers for men. You need to realize there are other stores besides Wal-Mart to shop for underwear.

  14. #14
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    170
    Post Thanks / Like
    I saw it last night. I enjoyed it a lot. I know it has been criticized for jumping too much but I think it worked. It gives you an idea of just how much this guy did from the Palmer Raids to Nixon. My biggest problem was they took the rumors and the heavily debated topic that he was gay, and ran with it. When its just rumored the way it was, I don't like the way the story just ran with it. And the ending has on odd, surprise that changes your perspective on it all, which I didn't like at first, but 24 hours later I like it more.

  15. #15
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,529
    Post Thanks / Like
    IMO, DiCaprio is horribly miscast, which--most likely--is the cause for the tepid response by critics and moviegoers. The film would have worked perfectly if Eastwood had cast Bill Fagerbakke, Dauber from the ABC sitcom [I]Coach[/I], in the title role.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    21,152
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Borgoguy;4228426]IMO, DiCaprio is horribly miscast, which--most likely--is the cause for the tepid response by critics and moviegoers. The film would have worked perfectly if Eastwood had cast Bill Fagerbakke, Dauber from the ABC sitcom [I]Coach[/I], in the title role.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. I like Dicaprio but he just didn't seem like a JEH to me. I would have picked Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Beerfish;4228438]Agreed. I like Dicaprio but he just didn't seem like a JEH to me. I would have picked [B]Phillip Seymour Hoffman.[/B][/QUOTE]

    +1,000

    :yes:

  18. #18
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,867
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2;4228324]So what?

    Why should women get all the the nice soft silky feeling things and men get stuck with chaffing cotton?[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=The Boston Patriot;4228332]This can only go bad for you....[/QUOTE]

    Lmao...:D

    Him...picturing dudes... picturing him.... in silky unnerpanstses... is a win for him.... so it cant go that bad for him.

    So it can only go right for him, no matter how much we wretch and cancel our JI accounts.


    -

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bergen County, NJ
    Posts
    20,115
    Post Thanks / Like
    Oooof.

    My initial words to my GF and the couple we went with as the credits rolled were "that sucked moose c*ck" and a couple behind us cracked up in agreement.

    Disjointed.

    Exasperatingly long.

    Boring.

    Too much melodrama and not enough of the historical story.

    Had more endings than Lord of the Rings: Return of the Scrotum--could have been 45 minutes [I]shorter[/I].

    The formation of the FBI was given very [I]short[/I] shrift--could have been epic in and of itself--but the movie played too much on JEH's relationship with Clyde Tolson (who when older was made up to look less believable as and old guy than Johhny Knoxville as an old guy in Jackass) and his creepy relationship with his mother.

    Jumped around way too much and didn't focus enough on any one historical issue--Kennedy, Elenanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Vietnam, Nixon, the political climate in the 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s.

    They hit on the Lindbergh kidnapping in pretty good detail and the FBI's involvement was interesting, as well as some of the early take-down of the mob--but that could have been the focus of a very good and different movie.

    The guy from Burn Notice was a dead ringer for RFK, Naomi Watts never lost her shirt :( and Josh Stamberg stole the movie :D

    [QUOTE=Beerfish;4228438]Agreed. I like Dicaprio but he just didn't seem like a JEH to me. I would have picked Phillip Seymour Hoffman.[/QUOTE]

    Couldn't do PSH, you needed someone to portray JEH as a young man. PSH could do the older character, but not the younger version.

    [QUOTE=nycuse;4228334]still dont understand why anybody wears underwear anymore?[/QUOTE]

    Haven't worn underwear since Hamptons summer 1977.

    _

  20. #20
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JStokes;4228514].



    Haven't worn underwear since Hamptons summer 1977.

    _[/QUOTE]

    Too embarrassed to buy underoos in the boys department?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us