Hollywoodland (B or 3/4 stars)
1959: America's beloved television star, George Reeves (Ben Affleck), the man who plays 'Superman', has committed suicide. Private Investigator, Louis Simo (Adrien Brody) is drawn to the case & wants to prove to his ex-peers, Reeve's mother, and the frenzied media ... that this is a case of murder, not suicide. Simo delves deep & learns of a heavy affair btwn. Reeves & Toni Mannix (Diane Lane). She happens to be the wife of MGM mogul, Eddie Mannix (Bob Hoskins). They, along with Reeve's fiancee, Leonore (Robin Tunney), may have had a hand in the fatal gunshot to Reeve's head. Whether they drove him to kill himself, or they actually killed him is the big question. 'Hollywoodland', a biodrama directed by newcomer Allen Coulter, is more stylish of a film than it is plot driven.
The police would want to hide a story like this. But Simo is out to prove himself as a distinguished P.I., & also mend some bridges that he burned with his ex-wife & young son. There are 2 storylines going on here. One is the obvious life & career of Georger Reeves as he begins his undercooked career in Hollywood. The other side parallels this by having Louis Simo investigate Reeve's death. However, very little of Reeve's life is displayed on screen, & even less of the investigation is touched upon. All the while, Allen Coulter (director) is trying to tie in the underlying theme that Hollywood is corrupt and can alter the lives of those pursuing their dreams. But the 'Hollywood is corrupt' angle isn't quite made important enough. Not much about this movie's plot is made important enough.
The movie's failure, of sorts, is not letting us in to more of Reeve's story, and/or not letting us know more about the case to make us care. MGM mogul, Eddie Mannix is loathsome. He 'may' have had something to do with ruining many lives. Hollywood's 'big wigs' can be corrupt. Hollywood is corrupt now, and it was equally corrupt back then; I get it. So then why provide us with this story, the death of George Reeves, which is so inconclusive? Why provide meaningless exposition to a story that we can't really relate to? If we don't know what 'really' happened ... the potential for suicide and/or murder should be interesting.
Ben Affleck is very impressive here. And it is another parallel that he (an actor struggling to find his way back in the Hollywood limelight) is playing an actor who was similarly troubled. Adrien Brody is solid as Simo. He's one of those current actors whom you can't take your eyes off of; wondering what's bubbling beneath. And Diane Lane is excellent as Toni Mannix. She takes Reeve's on as her lover & confidante, yet never does anything to progress his career (even with Reeve's potential window to success being her husband). 'Hollywoodland' is moody, and has a great sense of authenticity to the nuances of the 1950s era. Everyone is dressed to the Hilt, smoking their heads off, drinking their heads off, & speaking in that elite Hollywood manner. A subtle, droning musical score reverberates throughout the film's 126 minute length. The production is meticulous & well-executed.
But 1 hour in, I figured that not much more was going to happen. We're shown the various ways in which Reeve's 'could' have died. But there's no strong evidence for any one of them. With little to work with, how much more could Simo possibly find out? This case is 47 years old, & Reeve's story is a poor example to use to bring home the 'Hollywood is corrupt' feel. I've been given no answers, & wasn't given enough incentive to care about his death enough; sad to say. The surface of this story isn't scratched much. This movie has a lot of strengths, and I liked it ... but its weaknesses knock it down to a B/3 stars out of 4 rating, for me.
The police would want to hide a story like this. But Simo is out to prove himself as a distinguished P.I., & also mend some bridges that he burned with his ex-wife & young son. There are 2 storylines going on here. One is the obvious life & career of Georger Reeves as he begins his undercooked career in Hollywood. The other side parallels this by having Louis Simo investigate Reeve's death. However, very little of Reeve's life is displayed on screen, & even less of the investigation is touched upon. All the while, Allen Coulter (director) is trying to tie in the underlying theme that Hollywood is corrupt and can alter the lives of those pursuing their dreams. But the 'Hollywood is corrupt' angle isn't quite made important enough. Not much about this movie's plot is made important enough.
The movie's failure, of sorts, is not letting us in to more of Reeve's story, and/or not letting us know more about the case to make us care. MGM mogul, Eddie Mannix is loathsome. He 'may' have had something to do with ruining many lives. Hollywood's 'big wigs' can be corrupt. Hollywood is corrupt now, and it was equally corrupt back then; I get it. So then why provide us with this story, the death of George Reeves, which is so inconclusive? Why provide meaningless exposition to a story that we can't really relate to? If we don't know what 'really' happened ... the potential for suicide and/or murder should be interesting.
Ben Affleck is very impressive here. And it is another parallel that he (an actor struggling to find his way back in the Hollywood limelight) is playing an actor who was similarly troubled. Adrien Brody is solid as Simo. He's one of those current actors whom you can't take your eyes off of; wondering what's bubbling beneath. And Diane Lane is excellent as Toni Mannix. She takes Reeve's on as her lover & confidante, yet never does anything to progress his career (even with Reeve's potential window to success being her husband). 'Hollywoodland' is moody, and has a great sense of authenticity to the nuances of the 1950s era. Everyone is dressed to the Hilt, smoking their heads off, drinking their heads off, & speaking in that elite Hollywood manner. A subtle, droning musical score reverberates throughout the film's 126 minute length. The production is meticulous & well-executed.
But 1 hour in, I figured that not much more was going to happen. We're shown the various ways in which Reeve's 'could' have died. But there's no strong evidence for any one of them. With little to work with, how much more could Simo possibly find out? This case is 47 years old, & Reeve's story is a poor example to use to bring home the 'Hollywood is corrupt' feel. I've been given no answers, & wasn't given enough incentive to care about his death enough; sad to say. The surface of this story isn't scratched much. This movie has a lot of strengths, and I liked it ... but its weaknesses knock it down to a B/3 stars out of 4 rating, for me.