Unpopular opinion alert: J. Edgar is far better than than my colleagues are giving it credit for and it's an engaging piece of work for the most part. Yes, at 2.5 hours its far too long, by the end it's spinning its wheels and painted itself into a corner; it's gone nowhere, but there's lots to like and admire in the picture. And this is coming from someone who hasn't liked an Eastwood picture in forever (Hereafter was unforgivably bad and irresponsibly undramatic). Leo is solid in it, technically it's great (will earn Oscar nominations in many of these categories) and it's Eastwood's best movie since the underrated "Changeling," which suffers from the same problems, goes on for too long and drags, but starts out really well. Eastwood is really in his element in these period pieces, he has an eye and affinity for it and the look, costuming and art direction is aces. Yes, those things don't make for a good movie, but I deeply disagree with those that hated it. It's probably only a C+ (which is what our review gave it), but I guess it's all relative. It's certainly uneven, bloated and can't close well, but compared to the last few films, it's practically a winner.
Also, many have deep-sixed it from their Oscar picks because critics hated it. Critics don't have anything to do with older Academy voters who love Clint, have nominated most of his films of late and go for these sorts of sweeping/sprawling biopics -- even the mediocre "Invictus" earned itself 2 Oscar noms for two performances that weren't especially engaging. Based on that alone, Leo is a lock for a nom. Don't count it out yet.