Hollywoodland

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.

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.

Just when I had given up on ever seeing a "Hollywood Star Filled" film along comes a masterful film about the not so famous star of the 1950's television phenomenon, "Superman". I saw the film this evening and Mr. Brody, the director, writer and Ms. Lane were all in attendance but that did not seem to matter much. The film is a real work of artistry. I cannot tell you what a delight is is to go see a film that I have heard nothing about and then sit in the theater totally and thoroughly engaged in a serious film that manages to convince the audience that the art of film making is alive and well. If I had known that Ben Affleck was in the film I would have passed. Its a good thing I did not. He and Diane Lane re-introduce the idea of stardom to film making. They were fantastic. The script was fantastic, the period accuracy enthralling and the long forgotten story riveting. Hollywoodland should prove to be the next "Capote". Congratulations! A 21st Century Noir treat.

I recently was lucky enough to get to go to a screening of this film followed by a Q&A with director Allen Coulter, stars Diane Lane and Adrien Brody; each one of which did a fantastic job in their most recent performances. Coulter's first foray into film is a very successful one. His abilities with the camera from his experience like The Sopranos is clear throughout and is very strong from the opening shot of LA as it swoops into the house as police enter the crime scene that is George Reeves home. The cinematography by Jonathan Freeman ("Rescue Me", "Taken") is very strong with a great contrast in shadows and a subtle yet noticeable difference between the two times shown in the film. Coulter also uses music and sound differences to establish the Louis Simo (Adrien Brody) and George Reeves (Ben Affleck) time lines as separated. The acting is all around amazing, Affleck and Brody take their characters and live them, both amazing. Affleck has a few moments where the Reeves voice seems to lapse slightly but it's nearly unnoticeable. Both near perfect performances and as for the rest of the cast, there is not a poor performance to be found in this film. Expect a SAG ensemble nomination here. The overall style of the film is very interesting. Coulter describes the film as a "film noir in the daytime" and a "film about a modern man." The story is beautifully told with a nicely flowing back and forth between George Reeves life up until his death and 'independent investigator' Simo's search for the truth about that fateful night. Overall the film gets a 9/10 from me because it was simply nearly flawless, I left the theater very happy for having seen it because I'm willing to predict that this film will get some mentions come award time.

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.