User reviews

A lot of commenter's seem to focus on the fact that it was cheesy or low budget or whatever--but i thought it was a rock solid biography of Hoover's tenure at the FBI. I never knew there was rampant corruption in that bureau for years and years until he took over. (look it up its true!) Movie doesn't praise him entirely nor does it condemn him either----its a completely low key sort of monotonous look at the man's life.

There are a lot of great details that are included here along the way. A lot of moments--in fact i would say the movie is worth seeing because of these moments. The scene where Hoover mourns the loss of his mom for example...or the scene where Hoover is determined to unmask Martin Luther King Jr as a fraud (wrongly of course--but still the movie's not condemning Hoover for believing that MLK Jr was some sort of anarchist---its what the guy believed and rightly or wrongly it is what happened and makes for an amazing scene between Broderick Crawford and Raymond St Jacques as MLK Jr.) There's a fantastic scene at the beginning where Hoover is busting some gangster or bootlegger or something and the guy (and the guy's girlfriend) are insulting him relentlessly and Hoover just stands there and smirks.

Broderick Crawford actually is wonderful as Hoover---you don't realize it while you're watching it because he's so stoic and sorta stone faced the entire time--but you absolutely know what he's thinking and feeling throughout every scene that happens---and not just because of the screenplay--you're able to get what J Edger Hoover is feeling because of what Crawford is doing--weather its slumping forward or grabbing onto his longtime friend's (and possibly gay lover) hand or just staring dead ahead while receiving awful news---he really brings Hoover to life in a way that somehow merges old school acting (just the facts ma'am reeling of paragraphs of dialog at a time) with new school method acting (really projecting an inner life through reactions or body movements) in many ways Mr. Crawford's role here really intermingles the 2 styles in a way that you don't realize while watching it was pretty damn revolutionary. (and not something that George Clooney could pull off as easily in "The Good German" tho he tried really hard to.) its not a great movie by any means--its a little long...and more then a little rambling in parts--but it is a very good portrait of a very complicated individual---and i do wonder why its not better known given Hollywood's love of making biographies of every known famous person under the sun.

The story of the late J. Edgar Hoover, who was head of the FBI from 1924-1972. The film follows Hoover from his racket-busting days through his reign under eight U.S. presidents.

Writer-director Larry Cohen considers this his best film, and if nothing else, it certainly is ambitious. There are flaws. For one, it is more a summary of history than any real biopic, and has little meat. To tell this story properly, another hour would have had to be added -- if the viewer does not already know the history, much of this might be confusing.

We also get some strange impressions of the presidents. Franklin Roosevelt, in particular, seems pretty bizarre. But shortcomings aside, this is something of a definitive film about Hoover. If nothing else, all other films since had to either borrow or refute the topics covered.

In the period of 1924 to 1972, J. Edgar Hoover was not only the powerful director of FBI, but also a very arrogant, corrupt and manipulative man, full of obsessions and paranoia. 'The Private Files of J. Edgar Hoover' shows along 112 minutes running time, parts of the personal and political life of this American personality. There is lots of insinuation that J. Edgar Hoover was homosexual, but anyway the movie shows a very complex and destructive man, who destroyed many lives and having many politics in his pocket. The movie summarizes too much the period of forty-eight years that J. Edgar Hoover was ahead of FBI and is afraid of taking position about his homosexuality, but anyway is a good movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): 'FBI – Arquivo Secreto' ('FBI – Secret File")

Casting Broderick Crawford as Hoover was a stroke of genius on the part of the casting director of this film. He's perfect for the part. He brings out the gruffness and arrogance of the character, while simultaneously showing the insecure, low self-esteem inner man that Hoover is portrayed as being.

We see him first as a young idealist, working in the Justice Department, wanting to protect the legal rights of immigrants and fighting the internal corruption of the FBI in the 1920's. Then he becomes the "Top Cop" of the nation and a publicity seeker with the help of Walter Winchell. And finally as an old man jeolously guarding his power and firmly entrenched in the political system. But more importantly, we see the dual nature of his morality: on the one hand, his fastidious approach to sexuality and his ego crushing sensitivity to his own unattractiveness; and on the other hand, his sessions-------bottle in hand--------listening to the sexual encounters on FBI surveillance tapes.

The film is not without humor, however. Look for a scene about disposing of a fly in Hoover's office.

In some ways, a waxworks of a film with actors looking and sounding like famous political leaders, but more importantly a record------part fact, part fiction------of a very complex man, who's personality and inner demons helped to form the concept of justice in the American public's mind from the 1930's until his death.

J. Edgar Hoover is one of the most complex and perplexing figures in US history. So, when a movie about his career at the FBI is made, there is simply no way to encapsulate all he was...and would be better off left to a mini-series. After all, he was head of the Bureau for 48 years and during some of most turbulent times in American history...so a film about two hours long seems quite inadequate...which it is.

On the positive side, the film didn't ignore his probable homosexuality. Sure, the film could have taken a firmer stance, but it at least talks about it and leads you to believe the man was either asexual or (more likely) gay. It showed his close relationship with Clyde Tolson...his defacto partner if not sexual partner. The film also does hit many of the main highlights of his career.

On the negative, I was shocked that the film took almost no attempt to get the time periods right...making the film often confusing. Seeing people in the 1940s and 50s dressed like folks from the 70s just took me out of many scenes and I kept thinking 'maybe the film is skipping way ahead' or 'is this looking back at a prior period?'. I didn't like this.

Overall, a good overall look at the man for someone who doesn't know much about Hoover or the times in which he lived. It's episodic and sort of like a Cliff Notes version of his life. Otherwise, buy a book or read on the internet about the man...there is far more to this dangerous man than the film can possibly cover.

That particular phrase from Lord Acton about absolute power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely is always the one that brings to mind J. Edgar Hoover and his Federal Bureau of Investigation. And it's altogether fitting and proper we should describe the FBI as his, seeing as how he ran it for 48 years and under 8 presidents.

I am glad that they showed that Hoover came into the Bureau as a reformer. It was a patronage cesspool under previous directors, in fact it had existed for 17 years before J. Edgar Hoover took over and had four previous directors. Hoover did do those kinds of reforms, made it a merit based agency given his ideas of what was meritorious. He set up a national fingerprint data base, something one can't conceive of in law enforcement now. And certainly the FBI did do yeoman service in apprehending and eliminating some of the well known gangsters of the twenties and thirties.

If Hoover had retired in 1945 with the close of World War II his historic reputation would be just about where it was in 1945. Sad to say he didn't, he got heady with power because he had dirt on everybody who was anybody in any field you want to name. That's intoxicating stuff.

I've never thought of Hoover as gay, a crossdresser or anything else in a sexual way. I think the man just had a low sex drive. A lot of that was rumors put about by enemies. He certainly made a legion of them. If power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, than Hoover never tasted those kind of rewards.

Broderick Crawford does a good job as the implacable and austere Hoover, however the film is essentially a one dimensional look at a most complex man. If Hoover was gay, his relationship with Clyde Tolson is handled most discreetly even five years after Hoover died.

This turned out to be the farewell film performance of Dan Dailey who played Tolson. Tolson apparently could smooth a lot of Hoover's rough edges out and on at least one occasion the film shows Tolson saving the publicity minded Hoover from a real public relations disaster.

A lot of familiar players dot the cast of The Private Files of J. Edgar Hoover so if you're a stargazer you'll like the film. Still Hoover's long and varied career over some tumultuous American history requires a better study than this.

In a well-crafted semi-documentary style, this film traces the career of John Edgar Hoover across the 48 years of his directorship of the FBI. The drama is interlarded with genuine news footage of key events, and as a whole the movie works well as a hybrid of fact and fiction. Broderick Crawford gives the performance of a lifetime as the pugnacious, jowly control freak with a vulnerable core. The essential contradictions of the man are cleverly exposed: the 'top cop' who never really was a policeman does not scruple to violate the constitution when it suits him, and the priggish crusader against moral laxity gets his quirky thrills listening to wiretaps of sexual liaisons. The casting is inspired. Quite apart from the marvellous Crawford, several Hollywood veterans turn in first-class performances - Dan Dailey is Hoover's sidekick Tolson, Jose Ferrer is the cynical McCoy, and Lloyd Nolan is impressive as the Attorney-General. Among the younger actors, William Jordan is convincing as John Kennedy, and Michael Parks' Robert Kennedy captures the vocal inflexions of the real man admirably: it is just a shame that the 'look' isn't quite right. Bobby was nothing if not clean-cut and athletic, and Parks plays him as a slightly dishevelled, shambling figure. Larry Cohen wrote, directed and produced the film, and his enthusiasm for the project occasionally leads him into error. Hoover is given too much credit (or blame) for the unravelling of Watergate. Where the film scores highly is in its depiction of the power struggle between the young intellectual Robert Kennedy and the declining but still formidable Hoover. The movie is also spot-on in showing how Hoover clung to office long after he had anything left to contribute. The politicians left him undisturbed because they feared him. Of the presidents and attorneys-general portrayed in the film, Nixon alone fails to emerge from the shadows. This can no doubt be explained by the fact that he was still alive in 1977: all the others were in their graves: dead men don't sue. There must have been a real temptation, when putting this film together, simply to trash Hoover as an unbalanced megalomaniac. Wisely, Cohen resists that pull, and shows his subject as a psychologically-deformed man who nevertheless believed that he was holding his country together and devoted his life to the cause. Hoover comes across as a cruel self-publicist, but also as a lonely man racked with hang-ups and inhibitions. He had no private life worth speaking of. He never married and was unwilling (or unable) to retire to a life of leisure. At one point in the film, his G-men describe him as a priest. And so he was - if you consider the guardianship of a nation's dirty linen to be a holy office.

Biopics that try to cover decades always fall into the trap of being a highlight reel of a long life. This picture suffers from that as well as choppy editing and a cheap look. The picture really comes together when Bobby Kennedy comes into the story. The first scene of Hoover and Kennedy together is the high point of the whole film. The dialogue and cat and mouse interplay between Broderick Crawford and Michael Parks just about redeem the film. Both turn in great performances in a film filled with reliable actors wasted in small roles. The Rip Torn subplot really doesn't go anywhere but just seems to provide an excuse for him to narrate the film. That said, a surprising amount of research went into this film, released just 5 years after Hoover's death.

The life and career of America's "top cop", J. Edgar Hoover, whose tenure as Director of the FBI lasted more than fifty years, is here presented in this docudrama style film by maverick director and writer Larry Cohen, with a solid A and B list cast of actors. Focusing on Hoover the man and the Director, the film seeks to portray his psychology and ruthless tactics, as well as his confrontations with presidents and other national figures. There's Hoover the small minded closeted homosexual prude and Hoover the ruthless power hungry force, a weird and dangerous combination that wielded unchecked power for decades from his office. With James Wainwright playing the younger Hoover, who takes over a struggling and demoralized FBI and remakes its public image with publicized staged arrests and the use of gossip monger Walter Winchell who proved to be his eager accomplice. The later, older Hoover morphs into Broderick Crawford, and has now become embedded in the job, impossible for any President to force out. The uniqueness of the film lies in the Cohen style which is as evident here as it is in Q or any other of his films. It definitely isn't Hollywood, though the faces are.

Larry Cohen's biopic of the man who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a staccato, star-studded affair. It covers his professional life from the Palmer Raids - played by James Wainwright - to the older man - played by Broderick Crawford - as the evolution of a man from a rights-obsessed young lawyer, into an older man, jealous of his public image and power, willing to blackmail politicians and fire men who wear too-flashy ties.

Given the length of Hoover's career (52 years in total), it turns into a highlights in history affair, with long gaps. Not only are the six years between the Palmer Raids and his appointment as Bureau Director ignored, but almost twenty years between the beginning of US involvement with the Second World War and the Kennedy administration.

It has a large number of older actors, which should please fans of old movies. Its cast includes Jose Ferrer, Celeste Holm, Dan Dailey (in his last movie), Howard Da Silva, June Havoc, and Lloyd Nolan. They certainly add a luster to the production, as do the old automobiles on the streets in the early scenes, and scenes shot on actual location around Washington D.C. However, the vast array of incidents allows little depth in the story. Perhaps a mini-series is called for, if anyone still cares.

I saw this film theatrically (in a revival) and was astonished. It was an attempt to turn Hoover into Citizen Kane, with the supposed "burning" of Hoover's secret files the equivalent of the burning of "Rosebud." Crawford does make an interesting Hoover - considering he was most famous for playing America's first TV cop in "Highway Patrol," seeing him play a deliberately abusive cop is fun. But he's the only actor who pulls off his part convincingly; the other actors look distracted, like they're worried that their paychecks might not clear. The script plods from event to event - blackmail on Roosevelt, Martin Luther King and others - and gets numbing. (The film came out before revelations that Hoover may have been a transvestite and homosexual - seeing Crawford in drag might have provided an extra kick.) Supposedly, this was filmed without official approval around the original FBI headquarters in Washington, which caused some official heat. But aside from that courage, you don't get the feeling of getting inside Hoover's life, which other movies have done. You get the feeling you're being told this story by a gossipy wife under the hair dryer in a salon.

I was very disappointed with this so called documentary/biography emphasizing the significance of all the classified information that the long serving FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had on so many high level influencers and politicians. Broderick Crawford plays Hoover rather boorishly and there is little to near innuendo of his homosexuality.

This is the kind of film that is supposed to be realistic but such as the US politics are fake and pompous so is The Private Files of J. Edgar Hoover.

Very disappointing. I give it a 3 out of 10 IMDB rating.

I believe Broderick Crawford's performance as the legendary J. Edgar Hoover stands the test of time. Dan Dailey's Clyde Tolson is heartbreaking to watch. The film does ask about the true nature of the men's relationship. Hoover and Tolson were inseparable in public. According to a biographer, their relationship has been disputed. Hoover was married to his job and perhaps to his dogs. The two men lived separately. They were more like brothers than lovers. The film is a made for television film with familiar names I the cast. Despite his accomplishments for the FBI and the country, Hoover was a swarthy figure. Crawford brings him to life complicated and all. The film is more recommended than the other Hoover film by Eastwood. This film does a more accurate account of his life.

I was intrigued to see this film, hitherto unknown to me, listed on one of the cable channels. Curious about the presence of some fairly reputable names - Crawford, Lloyd Nolan, Jose Ferrer, Celeste Holm, Rip Torn, Howard daSilva, I gave it a shot. I must agree with the consensus of negative opinions expressed here. The film is stunningly awful. The only decent thing about it is the technical quality of the cinematography. Broderick Crawford phones in his lines. The other big names do a decent job with the wretched material they are given, but the rest of the acting is at the high school drama club level. Particularly awful is the guy who plays Hoover as a young man. The movie also can't seem to decide on its own outlook. If Hoover is to be considered a consummate wretch and and evil person, the movie does not do enough to convey that. There is altogether too much of the "a great man gone wrong" attitude. In short, there's a reason this movie is largely forgotten.

And Ellen Barber was hot. But nobody looks anything like the historical figures they portray. still an entertaining 2 hours

Despite being sketchy, possibly because of a lack of available material, (1) this was an informative examination of Hoover's personality and career, (2) Crawford did a fine job as the title character, (3) I was startled at the facial resemblance between my brother's first wife and Broderick Crawford.

While there have been many on screen portrayals of J. Edgar Hoover, I urge you to watch Broderick Crawford's version. As a veteran actor of tough guy roles, it was great casting for Broderick Crawford to play the immovable J. Edgar Hoover. However, there are a couple of scenes that go against his gruff persona, and he's so vulnerable, it feels like we're eavesdropping on a private conversation - pun intended. The "private" insinuation of the title is correct, as we see him battling his inner demons. As he looks down on sin, he has secret urges of his own.

James Wainwright plays the young Hoover, and he's very good as well. He had to act both as young Broderick Crawford and J. Edgar Hoover, and he blended both into his onscreen performance. There's a large supporting cast in this movie, so as the years tick by, keep your eyes peeled for different cameos. Dan Dailey and José Ferrer are Brody's loyal sidekicks - but will they always be? Rip Torn is a young upstart at the bureau, whose loyalty does not lie with his boss. Celeste Holm is a female friend who has a lot of history with Brody, and friendship is all she'll get out of him. As for notable historical figures, you'll see Howard Da Silva as FDR, George Wallace as Joseph McCarthy, William Jordan Raymond St. Jacques as Martin Luther King, Andrew Duggan as LBJ, and James LaRoe as Nixon. I'd never seen (or heard of, I admit) Michael Parks before this movie, and now I always say, "Oo! The Robert Kennedy guy!" when I see his name in the opening credits. He'll always be the fellow who played RFK, to me, because he was so convincing.

I have great admiration for writer and director Larry Cohen's screenplay. It was very daring, and not only in its portrayal of the title character. When you keep in mind this movie was made in 1977, it's remarkable that the Kennedys and FDR were not written to be perfect. Tons of real records were referenced while he wrote his story, and authentic filming locations were used as well. If you like taking a peek inside Pandora's Box while watching this movie, try another 1970s political drama Tora! Tora! Tora! It's even more shocking.

What a surprise from director and screenwriter Larry Cohen who was known mostlly for famous horror features as a maker and writer too. IT'S ALIVE, IT LIVES AGAIN were excellent horror movies. You'll have to watch J EDGAR from Clint Eastwood, in 2012, to see something equal about the FBI big boss: J Edgar Hoover. I still hardly believe that Larry Cohen gave us such a material. And Broderick Crawford is the perfect choice for such a character, I could not have imagined anyone else. We although feel some lack of budget in this production, despite the good script and good acting. But we can forget this flaw, the facts, historical, remain rather faithful to real history. And I will always be amazed to see this move produced by AIP, Roger Corman's "home" production fetish company. Mostly speciaalized in horror or cheap actionners, certainly not political dramas such as this one, and a very good one indeed.

"The Private Files of J. Edgar Hoover" is a rambling, disjointed summary of the career of the FBI head from the early 1920's through his death in 1972. Much of the writing plays out as less a dramatization of the subject's eventful life than a sort of adaptation of newspaper headlines into dialogue. The disjointed flow of events suggests a TV movie with the commercials edited out.

One interesting thing about this humdrum affair is the all-star cast, or some might say the all-has-been cast, led by Broderick Crawford who looks and acts as if he had just been released from a wax museum fire shortly before meltdown. For some reason he takes over the character of Hoover in his early forties from James Wainwright who also looks and moves like an animated corpse, even when he's playing twentysomething. Aside from these two the movie is bursting with B-list name actors in very small parts. Semi-well-known performers including Jose Ferrer, Celeste Holm, George Plimpton, Rip Torn, Dan Dailey (as Hoover's associate/companion Clyde Tolson), Howard Da Silva, Raymond St. Jacques, Lloyd Nolan, Andrew Duggan and Jack Cassidy appear sometimes for mere moments playing such famous people as Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King Jr. and Damon Runyon. June Havoc appears in about two brief scenes as... Hoover's mother! (Havoc was actually YOUNGER than Crawford!!) The most effective of the supporting performers is Michael Parks who not only does a nuanced impersonation of Bobby Kennedy, but gets far more screen time than the other non-leads.

Hoover's career highlights (appointment to the head of the bureau, arming of the "G-Men" in response to the plague of organized crime in the 1930s, his adoption of wiretapping, his alliance with Joseph McCarthy's anti-communist crusade, his spying on Martin Luther King Jr.) are put on pause at several points to focus on his apparent sexual dysfunction and commitment to sartorial fastidiousness. A few scenes explore how Hoover and his Tolson handled the persistent rumors that they were a homosexual couple. Crawford's scenes get meatier as the saga progresses and we see him grappling with his internal demons whereas for much of the film he simply stands in the frame observing action and muttering almost incoherently.