J. Edgar Hoover

With the advent of time (15 years) after the late FBI Director's death, one would think this an agreeable amount of time to assess the triumphs and failures of such a figure. After all, he clung to power for 48 years in a city where anyone's career can be reduced to piffle in a matter of moments.

Why then, such a dull and lifeless biographical movie, as this? There's no insight, no private or public turmoil, no revelations, no interesting conjecture as to the why or wherefore pertaining to certain abuses, the nature of his relationship with Clyde Tolson, the Assistant Director of the FBI, etc.etc.

All we're allowed to see is the by-the-textbook timeline, following his rise and his death, and the President's he serves along the way. Nothing of real note here, unless you entertain yourself by comparing how much the actors look like the people they're supposed to be portraying.

An earlier made for tv movie, made in 1977, called "The Private Files of J. Edgar Hoover," rates far superior (and that's not saying much) to this. However, at least the latter is entertaining, which is more than can be said for this red herring.

Lenny Maltin speaks of it as an average piece of work. I don't agree. This is a very interesting TV movie, which shows aspects of the FBI boss that Clint Eastwood did not in his 2011 movie starring Lenny Di caprio. Of course Trat Williams plays sometimes in the Brando GODFATHER way, especially in the final scènes when he fires Sullivan. You think here a s a kind of Alan Pakula manner of filming. Louise Fletcher is pretty good too as the Hoover's mum character. Yes I recommand it.