Rating:  -
Was it murder or suicide? The death of George Reeves, television's original "Superman", has fascinated the public since 1959. HOLLYWOODLAND attempts to solve this riddle, and delivers a riveting film experience that will be relished by fans of classic movies.
George Reeves (played brilliantly by Ben Affleck) is a small-time Hollywood actor, bumming around various nightspots when he attracts the attention of Toni (Diane Lane), the wife of M-G-M studio executive Eddie E.J. Mannix (Bob Hoskins). Pretty soon, with the help of Toni's money, George has a comfortable house in Brentwood and a very healthy allowance. Despite not wanting to do TV, he lands the role of "Superman" and unwittingly becomes a hero for children all around the world; film success with a supporting role in "From Here to Eternity" still eludes him. Toni, an older woman, is outraged when George decides to marry Leonore Lemmon (Robin Tunney) a sexy young starlet. The stage is set for the fateful night in 1959 when George Reeves was discovered dead from gunshot wounds in his Los Angeles bedroom.
HOLLYWOODLAND is a brilliant piece of Neo Noir filmmaking, complete with a struggling, small-time private investigator (played by Adrien Brody) trying to make sense of the crime. The story of the investigator--Louis Simo--and the actions of Reeves are beautifully-intercut. As we flip between the past and the present, we slowly learn more about Reeves and his life; but we also learn much more about Louis Simo, his family's breakup and his unhappy young son who is very much traumatised (as were thousands of children) over the death of "Superman".
HOLLYWOODLAND should be a must-see movie for fans of classic cinema; it features top performances all around (particularly Ben Affleck and Diane Lane), plus an evocative period design. A real winner.
Rating:  -
For me, the movie "Hollywoodland" is an attempt to sell the story of a very good actor, George Reeves, through the performance of a fairly average actor, Ben Affleck. I know, many have praised Ben for his deeply sensitive performance as the distraught George Reeves, and to an extent I sing similar praise. "Hollywoodland," without question, is a very good film. The set design, costumes, period flavor, and script are above average.
I shall add that the performances of Adrien Brody, Diane Lane and Bob Hoskins are outstanding. These actors bring these characters to life as if they were figures looking back at us from the pages of Los Angeles history. They carry the story along superbly.
Then there is Ben Affleck. So much of "Hollywoodland" depends on an expert performance given by an actor playing the highly charismatic George Reeves. One must understand that there would not even be a movie about George Reeves if Reeves had simply been an ordinary personality. He was more than that. As a child growing up in the 1950s it was clear to me and virtually everyone else I knew that George Reeves was a bigger than life TV star who was so good in the role of Superman/Clark Kent, that it was inconceivable that anyone else could possibly fill his shoes in that role. It took until 1978 for that to happen when Christopher Reeve played the hero from Krypton in that great Superman movie.
I mention all this about Reeves because I do not think that Affleck was able to communicate the charisma of George Reeves. Yes, he probably did an above average job in communicating the man's disappointment, frustration, and ambition, but that was not sufficient. There should have been more on the screen to communicate WHY WE SHOULD CARE. For example, what about the charity work Reeves did for children? How about his good natured personality, and fun-loving side that had been frequently reported by his co-stars, and Hollywood friends? Very little evidence of his "brighter side" was presented. One must understand that everyone was deeply shocked by his sudden death. His death at the time was more than one of those, "Well, there goes another screwed up actor."
The concept of "Why We Should Care" harkens back to all great tragedies--and I think the writers and director of Hollywoodland were trying to show Reeves' death as a modern tragedy within an interesting cloud of mystery. The concept of tragedy primarily shows us someone who was great, or potentially great, who has unfortunately died abruptly and unable to fulfill promise and success. I think George Reeves qualified as a tragic figure, but Ben Affleck did not communicate such loss. The loss he communicated was something akin to the pathos. The movie exhibits a lot of "gee,what a shame," and very little, "No! This loss is terrible!!!"
I might be measurably unfair to Affleck. Perhaps the director did not work with Ben Affleck adequately to illicit a better performance conveying the positive side of Reeves as well as the sad dimension. Ben is not bad in the film, I just don't think he's great. In fact, his acting seems inferior to that of the character he is playing, George Reeves. This is hugely problematic.
In conclusion, I should note that in spite of my criticism, "Hollywoodland" is definitely a film worth seeing. It is a good dramatic story, albeit somewhat unsatisfying. I think the choice of another actor in the role of George Reeves would have been a better idea. Someone like Hugh Jackman, or a complete unknown,perhaps. Anyway, see the film, but keep in mind that George Reeves had a lot more charisma than Mr. Affleck should ever hope to possess.
Rating: -
But I do find it ironic that a movie about a guy that was a very good actor who hardly ever got any work was played by a guy that is not a very good actor who gets too much work. Maybe that's the hidden meaning of this movie.
Rating:  -
I think this film is fantastic. I love the slow pacing, the dialogue and especially the acting. I think Adrian Brody is just fantastic. I also loved him in "Summer of Sam". I never thought I would like any film Ben Affleck was in, but he proved himself to me in this film!!! I'm actually not surprised the masses did not like this film. The masses would rather see Ben Affleck in a spider-man costume. (get it?, I'm sorry it takes a brain to fully understand that comment). There are no action figures and happy meal boxes to save a regurgitated movie like all of the super hero movies made in recent times. That's why I don't follow the herd to multiplexes...MOOOOOOOOOO............ sorry I don't feed from a troft.
Rating: -
Questions for the Ages:
How did the universe begin?
Why did the dinosaurs become extinct?
Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone or with accomplices?
Did "Superman" actor George Reeves commit suicide or was he murdered?
This last weighty question is tackled by "Hollywood land." No doubt you have tossed and turned at night, pondering this last question. (Who cares? Some may wonder...)
Diane Lane does a decent job as an aging temptress. Bob Hoskins too as a movie studio mogul. Ben Affleck does a creditable job.
Adrian Brody as a tough guy private-eye, however, is hard to believe. The guy is an ectomorphic bean pole who, at the beach, would likely have sand kicked in his face. Expecting viewers to believe that he is some kind of tough guy muscling other cops and private eyes is a hoot. (Unless, perhaps, he impales them on his ginormous hook nose, which according to scientists must comprise approximately 65% of his body weight.)
I have seen worse movies but the pacing is slow and afterwards you may scratch your head and kick yourself for wasting two hours of your life watching "Hollywood land."
|
