Posted by William Hanley, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2011 at 1:33 pm

I enjoyed reading this. Having heard that it was not a great movie it was good to get the details. One would just assume DiCaprio and

Eastwood wouled make a great movie. I'll still be looking for another from the duo.

Posted by Gary, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2011 at 3:03 pm

Just curious, did the movie report, accurately, that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy, and that J. Edgar Hoover played a major role in smoking him out?

Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2011 at 3:59 pm

The movie was completely panned by the WSJ this weekend.

Wooden performances poor directing and acting- rambling script--they said.

A real missed opportunity and an unfortunate big fail for Clint Eastwood

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Breakback Mountain in D.C.

Hoover's alleged homosexuality perhaps deserved a mention. Instead it was made the centerpiece. Funny, I thought Hollywood approved of accepting homosexuals into the mainstream.

Posted by Ruby, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2011 at 6:52 pm

Maybe it's the self-loathing, closeted, double-standard bearing homosexuals they detest, if indeed Walter's premise is correct.

Posted by Outside Observer, a resident of another community, on Nov 14, 2011 at 7:25 pm

I think it's simpler than that. Homosexuals are only acceptable if they are liberals. Same thing is true of Blacks, Women, etc, etc.

Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 14, 2011 at 7:46 pm

The simple fact is that it is a lousy movie

Some one should make a good movie of the history of the FBI

Martin Scorsese can do a much better film

This one is a dud

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2011 at 9:38 am
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Overt homosexuality back then would have ended Hoover's career. His secret homosexuality, if indeed it was, harmed no one. Even his Pearl Harbor files, as a private reminder, were not illegal. With today's tolerance, this picture was unnecessary.

Posted by Ruby, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2011 at 9:59 am

"Homosexuals are only acceptable if they are liberals."

Wow, no filter there, eh? One wonders what Log Cabin Republicans think about such a crass, uniformed opinion.

Actually, Observer is probably correct in her little cloistered world. Have the Republicans let Fred Karger into any debates? Web Link Was it only liberals booing an American service member live at a GOP debate? Web Link

Nah, nice try, Observer. Take off your blinders and perhaps your powers of observation would improve significantly.

And for grins, go google "santorum".

Posted by Ruby, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Nov 15, 2011 at 10:01 am

strike "uniformed " replace with "uniNformed"