Hollywoodland

I'm a boomer so I was pretty young when the actor who played Superman died. Like the kid in the movie I too was disappointed tha Superman could be killed. I don't think I went half nut job like the kid did, but I was angry. After all I really believed wearing the obit and you'd have all his powers.

On one hand this is filled with really great acting. So well crafted that it was a joy to watch. N the other hand it was frustrating by the end. I fear if I say more I'd spoil the show. It's a real roller coaster of a show.

Its not impossible to be a clever writer of films today. But it is hard if you want to play with the noir genre. I've seen two recently that know what they are doing: "Brick" and "Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang." The notion of noir is so well developed now, it is hard to play with. There's a parallel in Jazz, I think, the other uniquely American invention in popular art. It seems innovation has stopped in Jazz — some say it is impossible — and matters of style now rule, together with degrees of deviation from the form.

This tries something different and fails tremendously. I would appreciate it if what they attempted were bold and engaging. But it isn't and the most I can say is that it is an uninteresting failure.

What's attempted here is a sort of layered noir. In genuine noir, you have two worlds, the world of the hapless folk we see and the world of fate that jerks them around. The viewers are assumed into that second world.

In this project, the two worlds are both put on screen. One world is the world of chumps, occupied by Reeve, and our mannered noir detective. He's strictly noir, with the required boozing, womanizing, injury-attracting, money chasing qualities.

The other world is the world of movies, their producers and watchers together. Its a vast conspiracy, protected by the police (and all of the government, presumably).

This isn't the same as Billy Wilder's "Sunset Blvd" which puts the world of movies in that first world, subject to the same capricious twists as the aging actress and her new monkey-boy.

No, this is different, but it isn't well worked out. Halfway through we realize that we should have "gotten it" by now, or at least been given a thread to follow to later loose. Instead, there isn't anything developed. Yes, we see a man get sad. Yes, we see a mystery, played Rashomon-like with multiple truths. Yess we see loyalties formed and broken, and a bunch of other narrative fragments thrown in.

But we get nothing we can follow. There are four or five ways to give us an unfollowable narrative that we can follow. Not here. This movie committed suicide before it came to us.

The only nice things I can say are that Diane Lane does her character well, but then she really does worry about looking pretty in Hollywoodland. And there is a nice visual touch in the Sacred Heart cards, that in real life were placed by Ms Mannix after the death.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

It's 1959 and George Reeves (Ben Affleck) best known as TV Superman is found shot dead in a house full of people. The police rules it a suicide. Questionable private investigator Louis Simo (Adrien Brody) is hired by Helen Bessolo to investigate the death of her son Reeves. As he digs into the case, the show flashes back to Reeves' time in Hollywood starting as a nobody trying to get his foot in the door. He has an affair with Toni Mannix (Diane Lane) who he doesn't know at first that she is actually the wife of a MGM studio head Eddie Mannix (Bob Hoskins).

The movie is a little slow and a little long relishing in the noirish hard-boiled style. Allen Coulter is a TV director and that may be why the movie moves more slowly. It doesn't quite have the urgency. Adrien Brody's slow brooding mannerisms only accentuate the pacing. I like the era and the style. I could do with a quicker pace. Ben Affleck fits this character better than his other nice guy roles. He's a little dark and a little complicated. It signals a change in Affleck's career path for the better. The style is there but the pacing is lacking.

First things first, Ben Affleck is not only amazing as George Reeves but he's by far the best part of "Hollywoodland." Oozing a dark charisma as the doomed TV actor, Affleck creates a surprisingly compelling character. He even makes a convincing Superman, ironic given his casting as Batman in the DCEU.

But despite Affleck's stand-out performance the overall film is dragged down by otherwise shallow characters and a weak, unengaging story. The film tells the tale of a private detective (Adrien Brody) as he investigates the mysterious death of "Superman" star George Reeves. The film starts out strong with a promising premise, and by far the most interesting element of the plot involves the flashbacks to Reeves' rise as a TV star and his ultimate death by gunshot. But the majority of the plot, which focuses not on Reeves but on Brody's private detective, is too slow and lacks dramatic tension. Many if not most scenes involve overly long, bland conversations that don't do enough to further the plot. Reeves aside, the main characters are largely undeveloped and not interesting.

"Hollywoodland" could've been great had the producers decided to do one of two things: A) Cut out the investigation storyline set in the present day and focus the movie almost entirely on Reeves, or B) Make the movie a thriller like "Rashomon" or "JFK" that told alternative versions of Reeves' life and death from different points of view. But as is, in spite of Affleck's performance and a handful of good scenes "Hollywoodland" just doesn't work. 6/10.

When I first began hearing about this movie, the premise, as I understood it, was that George Reeves'apparent suicide was in fact a murder, heading into the movie with that in mind, I was a little surprised, although not terribly disappointed to find that this movie is less about a murder mystery and more about man trying to find his path to stardom. What makes this movie ultimately so frustrating is that it wastes time and energy trying to give you a parallel storyline with Adrien Brody, as the self-important amoral private eye, who is trying to fix his life, this was an unnecessary and at times tedious plot line and as good as Brody is the better storyline and performance belong to Affleck. With some better editing and a more focused view of what this story should be this would have been an outstanding movie. Ultimately it seems that rather than take a chance on the performances generating buzz, the producers decided to sell a mystery that never fully materialized, as opposed to a layered and interesting character piece about a man not many people knew about.