Hollywoodland Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
720x376 | 1465.18 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x312 | 815.98 MiB | divx | |
|
320x168 | 293.92 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x168 | 318.89 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Living in Holly wood can make you famous. Dying in Hollywood can make you a legend.
Based on the true story of Hollywood's most notorious unsolved mystery
Everyone has secrets. Everyone has motives.
In a town full of fiction, everyone has a version of the truth.
An exploration of fame and identity, inspired by one of Hollywood's most infamous real-life mysteries. June 16, 1959. The glamour of Tinseltown permanently fades for actor George Reeves, the heroic Man of Steel on TV's Adventures of Superman, as the actor dies in his Hollywood Hills home. Felled by a single gunshot wound, Reeves leaves behind a fiancée - aspiring starlet Leonore Lemmon - and millions of fans who are shocked by his death. But it is his grieving mother, Helen Bessolo, who will not let the questionable circumstances surrounding his demise go unaddressed. Helen seeks justice, or at least answers. The Los Angeles Police Department closes the case, but Helen hires - for $50 a day - private detective Louis Simo. Simo soon ascertains that the torrid affair Reeves had with Toni Mannix, the wife of MGM studio executive Eddie Mannix, might hold the key to the truth. But truth and justice are not so easily found in Hollywood. Simo pursues dangerous and elusive leads in both high and low places and, in trying to turn up the heat, risks getting burned. The detective also uncovers unexpected connections to his own life as the case turns more personal and he learns more about Reeves himself. Behind the icon was a complex man who gave his life to Hollywood in more ways than one.
| Adrien Brody | Louis Simo |
| Diane Lane | Toni Mannix |
| Ben Affleck | George Reeves |
| Bob Hoskins | Eddie Mannix |
| Robin Tunney | Leonore Lemmon |
| Larry Cedar | Chester |
| Jeffrey DeMunn | Art Weissman |
| Brad William Henke | Russ Taylor |
| Dash Mihok | Sergeant Jack Paterson |
| Molly Parker | Laurie Simo |
| Caroline Dhavernas | Kit Holliday |
| Kathleen Robertson | Carol Van Ronkel |
| Joe Spano | Howard Strickling |
| Gareth Williams | Del |
| Zach Mills | Evan Simo |
| Allen Coulter |
6.60 out of 10 (6558 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Nice to see a real murder mystery brought to the big screen, and it leaves you to form your own theory as to what happened.
posted on 26 Aug 2009"Hollywoodland" is a well done film, that informs and educates the viewer in both entertaining and thoughtful ways. It takes you back to 1950's Los Angeles to show one of Hollywood's most talked about and famous cases of the unsolved homicide of actor George Reeves, who was the star of TV's "Adventures of Superman", but really Reeves wanted to be a big movie studio star. The acting is just fine with Ben Affleck as Reeves and a very sharp and witty performance from Adrien Brody as a down on his luck PI and also a mindful performance is given from very sexy Diane Lane as Reeves's lover. Starting out from the scene of the Reeves body discovery to the investigation, this film shows us more than a murder investigation. This movie shows very conflicted people not just Reeves, but it looks into the corruption of the L.A. police, and the wars of Hollywood studio heads in the 1950's. The way the film shows the different sides of characters, you wonder did the depression make Reeves commit suicide, or did his fiancée or a jealous studio person kill him, or maybe just a crime of passion from an enraged husband(Bob Hoskins) or maybe sexy trophy queen(Diane Lane) decided if I can't have him for good then no one can! This film shows it's take on what they think happened, but still it leaves the viewer open to think and want to investigate more. Good job by director Allen Coulter to make a film of a real-case and he directs it so well to make the viewers think sometimes you have to decide for yourself and then put closure to something the way you want it.
A Movie of Bits and Pieces
posted on 24 Aug 2009The death of Superman (George Reeves) was big news in the Midwest where I was living at the time. I was too old to be shocked by the Man of Steel's mortality, but was still startled that a successful TV star would resort to taking his own life. There were rumors of suspicious loose ends, likely fanned by expose mags such as Confidential, but the world moved quickly on.This is an intriguing movie, unfortunately too spread out and slow moving for its own good. Three parallel narratives are juggled at the same time, and though they are managed pretty well considering the complexity of the challenge, they fail to merge into a meaningful point at film's end. What we're left with is a no-punches-pulled look at Inside Hollywood and maybe a reformed Louis Simo (Adrien Brody) ready now to fix his broken marriage. But these two strands fail to come together in a significant way, while the third strand of the adulterous costume designer adds nothing except further complication. Thus, the movie breaks down into a series of occasionally outstanding parts instead of combining into a coherent whole. But then again, maybe the bits and pieces are enough. Then too, we can't be sure just how much of the portrayal of Reeves' life and death is factual and not "dramatic enhancement". No disclaimer nor explanatory note appears on screen as would be expected with material of this kind. Nonetheless, the screenplay uses the actual names of those involved, so I expect there's at least a legal basis for the essentials of the Reeves account.Where the movie succeeds in spades is in its unsparing look at how a premier studio like MGM wielded ruthless power behind the scenes in shaping a benign public image. Those familiar with union organizing in Hollywood of the 30's and 40's will recognize the strong- arm tactics (alluded to by Simo) that studios used to keep non-company unions at bay. Thus, it's no surprise that an unscrupulous hoodlum-type like Eddie Mannix could rise to an important executive position at the so-called Tiffany of studios. Nor is it surprising that a smooth-talking "fixer" like Howard Strickling (Joe Spano) would make sure the public heard only the most favorable version of Reeves' death regardless of the actual facts-- which, by the way, the screenplay leaves appropriately unresolved. What does surprise me-- if I caught them correctly-- are insinuations of studio skullduggery in the apparent suicides of Jean Harlow's husband Paul Bern and also of actress Carol Landis whose checker-skirted body flashes by quickly even as the innuendo remains. Perhaps the movie's most important result, tantalizing as it is, is to get viewers interested in the many books that delve more deeply into the reality behind the manufactured glitz and glamor of the motion picture industry. No one likes to see Superman puffing on a cigarette or mock- assaulting a surprised Lois Lane, but, as the movie shows, there's a reality behind the lights that is often all-too-human, agreeable or not.
I'm in the Picture Business
posted on 20 Aug 2009Greetings again from the darkness. It is very rare that a film looks and acts so important while really being nothing more than a hollow shell. One gets the impression that TV director Allen Coulter really thought he was making history here. Instead what we get is a great cast with great performances in nothing more than a made for TV Friday night movie.The basis of the film is the "investigation" by a private detective (Adrien Brody in one of his least annoying performances) into the death of "Adventures of Superman" star George Reeves (a surprisingly decent turn from Ben Affleck). Going on little more than motherly doubt, Brody's character just tosses out wild allegations and suppositions at the eager 1959 press. At the same time, we are force fed Brody's personal life screw-ups, which aren't the least bit interesting.The supporting cast is very good and is led by the always remarkable Diane Lane (Reeve's mistress and the wife of studio head Eddie Mannix played chillingly by Bob Hoskins). Also we get nice turns by Robin Tunney, Lois Smith, Joe Spano and Jeffrey DeMunn.The film might have had more to offer if there was any real mystery here. The problem is the only doubt comes from the normal doubts in a suicide. Loved ones don't want to believe it, yet there is no real evidence of foul play. If you are after an acting clinic and a glimpse at some cool late 50's automobiles, this is the movie for you. If you prefer at least some substance to your story line, you will be sadly disappointed. It is worth a chuckle to witness such self-importance on display from an inexperienced filmmaker.
Missing the mark
posted on 16 Aug 2009I am a child of television. I grew up with the "one eyed baby sitter" Superman was one of my all time favorite series growing up. I remember running home to watch it every Monday night at 7:30. George Reeves was one of my heroes. He still is SUPERMAN for me. No matter how many Superman movies come out, none will ever replace that wonderful 50's series. So it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to Hollywoodland, the story of the death of Superman George Reeves. First of all the sets, costumes, period were wonderfully re-created. Really took me back to the 50's. As to the story itself, what a disappointment. The previews made it look like a blockbuster film (But don't previews make EVERY film look like a monster hit)but the reality is this is one confusing, slow,convoluted mess. I mean at the end of this endless 2 hour movie, I wasn't sure who I was let alone did George Reeves commit suicide or was he done in by one or all of several suspects. The editing of this movie was atrocious, flipping back and forth between real time and past time. The pacing was soooo agonizingly slow, it seemed more like 6 hours than two hours. Is it me or does anyone else feel like todays movies seem to drag on and on? The other day I watched a "noir-ish" film from 1951 with Walter Pigeon titled "The Unknown Man". The suspense was relentless, the story went along at a break neck clip leaving you literally breathless at the end. Hollywoodland leaves you with a big yawn and scratching your head over what you've just seen. George Reeves deserves better than this. 3 out of 10 just for the period feel
a T.V. legends tragic death that made history
posted on 16 Aug 2009If you loved Superman Returns with Brandon Routh, then you'll love Hollywoodland with Ben Affleck as the doomed actor George Reeves, a man who wanted to be taking seriously as an actor, but when he got the part Superman, and ran six seasons, that wasn't going to happen, he got buried in the role and the costume, the story surrounds events around his shocking death, and it tries to answer did he kill himself or was he killed? That is what detective Louis Simo(Adrien Brody) intends to find out, as he tries explore his affair with Toni Mannix(Diane Lane), and getting close to people who knew him best, and shake the trees and see what falls out. A great detective movie mixing with a real life sad event. Ben Affleck and Adrien Brody give Oscar worthy performances. This movie really pins you to your seat, you'll be afraid to blink, cause you might miss something if you do.
Hollywoodland-Tinsel Town Shows Itself ***
posted on 14 Aug 2009Interesting film dealing with the death of George Reeve, who played Superman on television. A wonderful role model for children, he was idolized until his untimely death. The movie questions whether his passing was by suicide, or was it murder?Adrien Brody is in fine form as the detective probing the case. In the old days, Dick Powell or Dana Andrews who have had this part. Brody is nonetheless convincing of a detective who really delves into this mystery and in the process nearly gets his head handed to him. As a result of the beating he sustains, he temporarily comes down as a person.Bob Hoskins and Diane Lane are terrific in supporting roles as a husband and his wife caught up in this mess.In addition, Ben Affleck is in fine form as Mr. ReeveThe flashback technique is used well here to show Reeve's life.His mother is an interesting character. Why did she change her attitude so suddenly? That's another story in itself.The black and white background sets the mood for this film.
Loved it, But one thing....
posted on 10 Aug 2009I LOVED this movie. George reeves has always been a personal hero of mine and I could not wait for it's release. Affleck captured the walk, talk, charm, and big heart of the Greatest Superman of all time. My only gripe with the film was that it portrayed Reeves as a "old tiger with no fangs" who was too broken down to do a wrestling tour towards the end of his career, when actually he and "Judo" Jean LaBelle (George's Trainer & "Nemisis" Mr.Kryptonite)wrestled at state fairs from 1957 right up until the time of Reeves death in 1959.But this is a small flaw in a otherwise Technically incredible film. I could't believe that they showed the legendary time that a little boy pulled his father's police pistol and tried to shoot "Superman" at a appearance so he could watch the bullets bounce off, Affleck nails this scene! Best film I've seen in a LONG time.
GodAwful!
posted on 10 Aug 2009True to their TV backgrounds, Coulter & Bernbaum, just don't know what to do with what should have been a tight 90 minute LA Noir (sub genre: Showbiz Eats People)Story. Rambling, indecisive and about as loose as Reeves' original tights, it leaves you where you begin. Totally should have cut Brody character's failed marriage subplot. But hey, these guys probably think they've got another 6 episodes to do! Acting superb all around, as usual. There seems to be more talent in front of the camera than behind it these days... By the way, it's pretty obnoxious the way industry insider wannabes write gushing "It's a Masterpiece!" reviews right away here on IMDb. Y'know, just because you sat within 10 yards of Ben Affleck at a restaurant doesn't mean the lousy film he's in is any good. Drop the personal agenda and judge the film with some objective standards. If this film is above a 5 by next week, I'm outa here!
Hollywoodland knocks competition out of the water.
posted on 04 Aug 2009Every once in a while Hollywood decides to release two pictures with t almost the same premise and have them go at each other at the box office. In this case it was two films both about "the greatest unsolved murder mystery of the 1950's" in Hollywood. Surprisingly enough they are both about separate murders. After watching Brian De Palma's Black Dahlia first, I felt like was just going to watch the remake, only to find that I was surprisingly mistaken. Hollywoodland is not only superior in its story, but in almost every other way as well. The film chronicles the investigation that followed the unsolved "suicide" or homicide of George Reeves. Ben Affleck stars as George Reeves, the actor who played Superman in the 1950's television series. Alongside Affleck star Adrien Brody and Diane Lane. Although Afflecks performance has been praised repeatedly in the press, so much so that it earned him a best actor award at the Venice Film FEstival this year, the real salute should be given to Brody. Playing a washed up ex-LAPD detective turned private-eye, Brody encapsulates the perfect lonely, agitated and yet placid analyst. His performance brings to mind the Humphrey Bogart that captivated the 1940's audiences in The Maltese Falcon. Seamless editing between Brody's investigative snooping, and the life of George Reeves before his death, lends to the perfection and realization of the film. THe production value, including costume design, automobiles and set design is in a league of its own even surpassing its competition in many ways, The Black Dahlia. Hollywoodland will definitely get a serious of Oscar nods, and hopefully will be seen as a separate film, and not just "that film that looked like Dahlia."
"Chinatown" wannabe?
posted on 31 Jul 2009My only criticism of this movie is that I feel it lays on the "film noir" style a little too thick. I think it's trying too hard to be like "Chinatown." The thing I DO like about "Hollywoodland", however, is that it doesn't feel like it had to solve the mystery, or even take sides on a particular theory. Some may criticize it for that very reason, complaining that they "coped out." I believe that we should accept that there are some things we will never know for sure. We have to learn to separate the things we know as fact from what we want to believe.Style and philosophy aside, I was completely satisfied with the portrayal of George Reeves, both in script and casting. By all accounts he was a friendly, charming, likable, and sincere person. He was also, by most accounts, not the best judge of what was good for him. He was a bit of a party animal, and a bit of a hero (the well-documented incident of the little boy with the real gun). He was a real human being, and Ben Affleck captured him magnificently.While flawed, it is pretty much the movie I had hoped to see.
As flat as a piece of paper
posted on 31 Jul 2009This is not a good film! Flat script, poor directing which yielded very poor and overwrought performances from the actors (except Ben Affleck) and amateurish production design. The lighting was off, with the exterior LA sequences being blown out with too much light. Costumes were over the top with an abundance of brightly colored period prints, etc. At the end of the day, you can't shoot a film about period Hollywood in Toronto!!!!! If you are looking for another LA Confidential, this is not it, you might as well just watch that film over again.A story that could have been super interesting and intriguing ends up boring and full of holes!
Interesting movie For An Older Crowd!!!!
posted on 25 Jul 2009For those who are familiar with the 1950's, they will find this film ably directed by Alan Coulter , refreshing , interesting, but not totally emotionally or intellectually satisfying. George Reeves, an aspiring actor, who was breaking into Hollywood, slowly and painfully , fails to get major starring roles, even though he is blessed with handsome looks, and enough talent to get him started on his acting career.Along the way he meets , his future lover and benefactor, Toni Mannix, a beautiful married woman, whose husband is a powerful executive for a major movie company. This is just the beginning of his descent in the Hollywood morality cesspool.Louis Simo(Adrian Brody) is the private detective, hired by Reeves' mother, Mrs. Beselo. She is looking for answers, as is the audience, that are never fully fleshed out, which is a major disappointment .The subplot, is that Simo , a downtrodden detective, who is an outcast among peers, struggles with his family life, divorce, and his son who is having problems dealing with Superman's death !Using the alleged suicide to promote his fading career, his stirring the controversy pot, raises the ire of the film industry, and the LAPD, whom considers the case closed, so much for public servants !!! This case can still be solved but , Who Cares ?Concurrently, Simo has another case, where a nutty husband, is convinced his wife is unfaithful, and pays Simo handsomely , to uncover her infidelity, which only leads the detective to question his motives for pursuing the Reeves' case .All in all, an interesting film, with outstanding performances by Adrian Brody, Diane Lane, and Bob Hoskins. Ben Affleck gets an Honorable mention, but his Boston accent leaks into the framework a little to often.Trivia, Diane Lane, Lane is the last name of Superman's comic girl friend , Lois Lane. In real life, Leonore Lemon, the girl with the double LL's, mimics the comic book coincidences such as Lana Lang, or Lois Lane, and a host of others !!!If you are a baby boomer, and are familiar with the impact George Reeves had in the 1950's , this film will have a greater impact, than, others who did not. He was well thought of !!! His loss WAS and is significant !!!Coulter should have made more of an effort , to get more satisfying answers, instead of more questions.If you enjoy real life mysteries, then you will enjoy a look into " Hollywood Land " , the people are more dimensional, than the paper the contracts are signed on.
A little shallow, but Affleck is shockingly good
posted on 23 Jul 2009Hollywoodland is one of those neonoir thrillers that hearkens back to the poor gumshoes, crooked cops, dark alleys, and sharp angles of 1940s and 1950s Hollywood. It's the story of George Reeves (Ben Affleck), who played Superman back in the day. Some time after his TV show was cancelled, Reeves was found dead of a supposedly self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. History and the LAPD would have us believe it was a suicide, but in this movie there are some doubters, like George's mom (Lois Smith).On the case is down-on-his-luck investigator Louis Simo (Adrien Brody), who sniffs out the case when LAPD closes the book on it. He convinces Reeves' mom to let him look into it. You half expect the terminally unshaven Simo to chug a bottle of rotgut and pass out in a gutter (he comes close), all the while puffing on a butt he found in the street.The movie switches from Simo's investigation in the present (the movie's present, not ours) to George Reeves' life and loves in the past. Reeves, it seems, was not particularly proud of being the Man of Steel, even though it brought joy to many children. Like many actors, he wanted to be more. He wanted big roles, he wanted to direct - George Reeves was, essentially, a discontented dreamer. Reeves' relationship with his wealthy benefactor, Toni Mannix (Diane Lane), is also examined at length. Reeves was a struggling actor who couldn't land a job when he was noticed/picked up by the older Mrs. Mannix in a posh Hollywood restaurant. Even though he's a little out of her league, George falls for Toni. And yes, I said Mrs. Mannix. Toni is married to the head of MGM, Eddie Mannix (Bob Hoskins), who knows full well about Toni and George, because he has his own mistress.Director Allan Coulter effectively juxtaposes Reeves' career tribulations with Simo's sleuthing, such as it is. What made George Reeves tick? Was he despondent at all in his last days, or did he have much to live for? Did he have enemies? And why, above all, did his career stagnate? One possible answer to this last question could be found at the screening of From Here to Eternity, for which Reeves scored a bit part - his first "serious" work after playing Superman. Everyone in the theater is enthralled by the movie... until Reeves shows up. "That's Superman!" one whispers. "Where's his cape?" snickers another. Reeves is humiliated.Brody is earnest as Simo, but he sometimes seems to be reading off cue cards, showing little passion or energy in the role. I've liked him in other things, like The Jacket and even King Kong, but he just seemed to be going through the motions at times here. Conversely, Affleck was surprisingly solid as the debonair hunky-hunk Reeves, both cocksure and self-conscious, willing to be led by a moneyed older woman but also to take risks to be his own man. If anything, a role like 1950s Superman is right up Affleck's metaphorical alley - a pretty boy whose visage seems to evoke truth, justice, and the American way. You know, pompadoured Hollywoodism. Affleck does well with the acting part, too, and he has genuine chemistry with Lane - not to mention Robin Tunney, who plays Reeves' love interest as well.Another slight debit is a running secondary plot involving Simo's young son and how he deals with the death of his TV idol (i.e., he acts out). This could have been an interesting sidebar, but the whole thread is treated rather superficially. I mean, I get it - Simo is a lousy dad and husband and doesn't get the significance of the kid's hero killing himself. (Although it should be noted that there's a memorable, unsettling scene in which a kid approaches Reeves after a live Superman show - with a real gun! That scene is very well written and acted. Shame the rest of the theme wasn't.) The movie was "inspired" by the real-life circumstances surrounding Reeves' death, so probably many liberties were taken. Reeves' death was ruled a suicide, and it's unclear that anyone's seriously entertained the notion that he was bumped off. But beyond that, the ending itself is unsatisfying - knowing that it wasn't necessarily being told as it really happened, I was hoping there would be some kind of closure, a denouement that points to a particular killer. But it's left pretty open ended - the killer could have been anyone, or George. Nothing's really resolved, which makes one think that the previous 90 minutes or so were rather pointless.
When Dreams Die
posted on 19 Jul 2009This movie is part mystery and part documentary, and something of a movie within a movie. Adrien Brody plays a fictional private investigator looking into the death of real-life actor George Reeves. Reeves, according to the official police account, committed suicide on June 16, 1959. There was some conjecture both then and now that it wasn't suicide but murder, and the exploration of these alternate theories is the dramatic hook that lures us into the sordid and sad life of George Reeves, he of faster-than-a-speeding-bullet-fame.With one exception, I did not care about the detective story. I only went to the movie because I had assurances from others that had seen it that it did not sensationalize or trivialize the account of Reeves' death, meaning "it did not go all National Enquirer on us." That exception centers on the son of the investigator, who learns of the death of Reeves, and becomes terribly sad without understanding why. There were a lot of kids like that, that sad day in June 1959. I know because I was one of them, and I discovered after seeing this movie that I'm still working through my feelings over the death of this man. It wasn't for Reeves that we cried; we didn't know the man. So, what was it then? This is a question I wish the movie had explored at more length.As the movie went on, we see more and more into the life of the actor behind the hero, and it's not a very pretty sight. Reeves' aspirations as an actor ("I'd settle for the career of Clark Gable," he says) and his failure to realize those dreams were what drove him to suicide.Toward the end of the picture, his agent asks rhetorically, "The place where he ended up, was it so bad?" And, this - not the murder investigation - is the lynchpin on which this picture hangs, and gives it its pathos. The great failure and the great tragedy of his life is that George Reeves failed to appreciate what he had. In that regard, he was very much different from Clayton Moore, whose acting career followed a similar track. Moore loved playing the Lone Ranger, embraced being typecast (enough to make dozens, maybe hundreds of appearances in character). Reeves came to hate Superman, burns his costume when he learns the show is canceled, becomes despondent over being typecast which halts his acting career, and is dead at 45 by his own hand.The little boy almost half a century ago was resentful over the intrusion of a painful and ugly reality into his idealized fantasy world. The middle aged man who watched this movie left the theater sad over one man's failure to deal with a pivotal moment in his life, the moment when dreams die.
In this pseudo film noir, a third rate detective investigates the death of Superman star George Reeves. The film ponders whether his death was suicide or murder.
posted on 13 Jul 2009Although the film was well acted, I never really found it quite satisfying. Incredibly too long by at least a half hour, the film would have benefited by being more about George Reeves and less about Adrian Brody's character. Ben Affleck probably gives the performance of his career, but that really isn't saying too much. Diane Lane, as always, creates a character you can really understand, but at the same time, not really like. Bob Hoskins is an excellent actor. This is not his best work, but certainly should not be an embarrassment to him.I do not think this film will be listed among the five best picture nominees of 2006. I could see it getting several nominations. Art Direction, Costumes, Cinematography but not for acting, screenplay or director.All in all I would give it a strong "6." It is too long and a little slow at times. The actors give strong performances but some scenes are stretched out too long.
Well-acted Mediocrity
posted on 13 Jul 2009I saw Hollywoodland at an advance screening last night and I must say it's a little weak in the plot department and stretches a minor story into a two-hour film by adding lots of slow filler material. However, the performances by the actors made it a worthwhile experience. Diane Lane in particular is completely convincing as the wealthy older woman who tries to buy her protégée's affections. She eerily channels both Jane Wyman and Gloria Swanson's Norma Desmond alternately without taking her character too far over the top. Adrian Brody is perfect as the struggling third-rate detective, and even Mr. Affleck creates an affable character based on the real Mr. Reeves.I guess my major complaint about the film is that there just isn't much to tell about the mystery surrounding the suicide of George Reeves. I kept waiting for juicy new information to come to light, yet no juice is ever squeezed out. Someone seems to be ransacking "Hollywood Babylon" for film ideas instead of coming up with original stories. Not a very promising trend. Furthermore, the title doesn't fit this film at all. It takes place in the mid and late 1950s, yet the Hollywoodland sign had dropped the "land" portion in 1949, and from then on it simply read Hollywood. "Hollywoodland" would be the perfect title for a picture about Peg Entwhistle, but has little relevance to the death of George Reeves. If this True Old Hollywood Stories trend continues, I'm sure a movie about Peg can't be very far away.
boring
posted on 13 Jul 2009OH What a disappointment this film is.George Reeves was not known for his acting ability, neither is the actor Ben Affleck who portrays Reeves.Basically the film is more about the events of his (Reeves) mysterious death ; supposedly suicide or was it murder,.That is one of the problems we do not know, & frankly I did not give a damn. Adrien Brody is miscast as a private eye investigator. Bob Hoskings & Diane Lane are the MGM executive & wife Eddie & Lani Mannix).Lani & George were Lovers.The movie was badly directed by Allen Coulter & poorly edited. There are many technical errors as well.Rating ** (out of 4) 58 points (out of 100) IMDb 5 (out of 10)
Mixing Fiction Into NonFiction
posted on 01 Jul 2009Slow and plodding, this film explores the relevant back-story of actor George Reeves (Ben Affleck), before he presumably committed suicide in 1959. The story is factual, but it is analyzed from the POV of a fictional private detective named Louis Simo (Adrien Brody), who comes to believe Reeves was murdered.There are two big problems with this film. First, Adrien Brody is not an actor whom I find enjoyable to watch on screen. There's just something about his performance here that I find grating, and therefore distracting. His Simo character is a cocky, two-bit chump who is not sympathetic. I don't know why the writers thought viewers would be interested in him.Second, the script's plot structure is horrible. I don't mind an occasional cut between the parallel plot lines of Simo and Reeves. But in "Hollywoodland", the plot shifts back and forth between the two men, over and over. Just as you're getting into the Reeves narrative, the plot jumps back to Simo and his petty clients and annoying family, plot elements I found totally not interesting. It's as if the writers couldn't quite decide what story they wanted to tell, so they alternate between Simo and Reeves, then rationalize this by saying the film is less a story about Reeves than a study of old Hollywood. But this directorial gambit conveys the impression, however falsely, that there just wasn't that much material on Reeves.Apart from these two issues, "Hollywoodland" has wonderfully authentic period piece costumes, production design, and music. Acting is competent. Ben Affleck, Diane Lane, and Bob Hoskins give fine performances.The film's color cinematography has a dark, slightly noir look and feel in the Reeves narrative. In the Simo story, visuals seem lighter, more garish and metallic. But the overall tone of the film is sad and somber."Hollywoodland" would have been much better if the script had not included the fictional Simo character. It's George Reeves, his private life and his public persona as Superman, that I am interested in. That said, for its nostalgic production values and fine acting, the film is worth watching once.
Ben Affleck is in the role of his life.
posted on 21 Jun 2009I found this movie to be very good. Adrian Brody turned a fine performance in this movie and I have always loved his work, especially in such film as Summer of Sam and Oxyogen. In this he plays a detective out to solve the George Reeves death mystery and yet finds himself in the process. Now on the other hand we have Ben Affleck in this. In my opinion he has never done anything of particular merit until this film came out. Sure the Kevin Smith films are good but it is not really because of him, as he is mostly a joke in those films after Chasing Amy. I will admit that his Amy role was his best until Hollywoodland, but in Mallrats the Smith movie before Amy he is a hindrance of epic proportions. He's just a hunk of person who can't act in that film. In other duds like Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, and Daredevil he is just a popcorn guy who is just their to service the story. But in Hollywoodland he becomes something I never thought he could, he becomes an actor. Yes in this he made me feel sorry for a man who had to give up his dream of serious acting to play a children's show character, although I feel that in real life Reeves should have just accepted the fact that he had made it even if it did appeal to only lower cultured people at the time. I feel his turn as Supeerman was better than anything Tom Welling or the lame Brandon Routh did with the roles. They are just eye candy for today's female crowd and can't really act. Reeves however was almost the best Superman and is only surpassed Christopher Reeves and his great turn in the films. I think Affleck does a great job showing this mans downfall and depression that he went into. Yeah for Affleck. Now one problem I did have with the film was that it plays like two films. This would be fine if they intertwined, but really they don't. They should have had Adrian Brody meet Ben Affleck's character somewhere like at a show or something, It would have been plausible as Reeve's did many public appearances as the character of Superman and the film shows this. But as the movie is they really have no interaction and it seem kind of forced. In all this is a good movie and should be watched, especially for Affleck's fine turn and seeing him grow.
A real "movie" movie, for a change
posted on 28 Aug 2009Just came from a screening of this film thanks to the Palm Springs International Film Society, and it was nearly perfect...like films used to be before pop culture took over. Adrien Brody was his best since "The Pianist", and Ben Affleck was his best since...well, his best, period. Diane Lane disappeared into her role and Bob Hoskins was his usual, brilliant self. The supporting cast of Molly Parker, Joe Spano and Robin Tunney were (no pun intended) "picture perfect". The parallel stories of Brody's private investigator and George Reeves before, during and after "Superman", and the mystery of whether Reeves was a suicide or a homicide (and, if the latter, who done it?) were wonderfully brought to life. This film made me want to know more,and raised the question: just where do they find all those primo 50's and 60's vintage cars? Go see this one, and take a friend...you'll be the recommendation hero.