Hollywoodland

Hollywoodland-720P

Hollywoodland-360P

Hollywoodland-480P

Wednesday August 9, 7:00pm Pacific Place Cinemas "An actor can't always act. Sometimes he has to earn a living." What really happened to actor George Reeves has been the source of myth and speculation since 1959 when his death was ruled a suicide. Allen Coulter's directorial debut Hollywoodland, explores a mystery that began with the bullet TV's Superman couldn't stop. Meticulous recreations of the television show and the boozy, schmoozy Hollywood nightclub life of the fifties are highlights in this carefully stylized, neo-noir, "inspired by a true story", nonsense. The disintegrating career of Reeves (Ben Affleck) is shown in flashback, while the post-mortem investigation by detective Louis Simo (Adrien Brody), hired by Reeves mother, seeks to uncover the truth. The two stories converge in what ultimately becomes the unsatisfying and still unresolved conclusion. Affleck, playing the washed-up, over-the-hill actor, does have one fantastic scene when Reeves is confronted with frightening reality at an otherwise tedious public appearance, but the picture belongs to Brody's ragged, dissolute, on the edge gumshoe.

This movie falls apart on several fronts. Number one. It poses the question of "How did George Reeves get those bruises?" Good enough question, I suppose, and the movie makes a point of asking it more than once. Problem is, that when the film ends, no one has bothered to explain the bruises! Why do filmmakers insist on making points about things they're unwilling to explain? Because they have no respect for the audience, that's why. Number two. It insists on telling us two stories; the quest for answers about the death of George Reeves along with the relationship of Adrien Brody's character with his son. Now that wouldn't be too bad except that the movie is two hours long and this father/son thing just goes on and on and on. Yeah, the papers say Superman shot himself. Yeah, he's no longer with us. Yeah, life is tough sometimes. Make the point and go on; don't keep dragging it out. By the way, I am 56 and watched Superman religiously as a child. Yes, I was shocked when the news came out, but I sure didn't go into a deep depression. And I didn't know anyone who did. Back in those days, kids didn't have only one adult hero to look up to, they had a plethora of them. There were Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, The Lone Ranger, The Cisco Kid, Wild Bill Hickock, Flash Gordon, Robin Hood, Hopalong Cassidy, Sky King, Sgt. Preston of the Yukon, Annie Oakley, Jungle Jim, Ramar of the Jungle and many others. So losing a hero was bad, but not so devastating that a person could barely continue to function. Not to say that couldn't happen. I suppose it could, but I never heard of or saw it. The second problem with this movie is that it lacks action. You know, in most good film noirs, the hero gets beaten up at least once. The hero in this movie gets whooped, too, but you have to wait over an hour before anything happens. The movie is just repetitions of "flashbacks on George Reeves," "dealing with my son," "flashbacks," "dealing," etc., etc., etc. The third problem is that Ben Afflack does not play Superman very well. Now, I will admit that he does a good acting job as George Reeves--he actually seems to be playing someone other than himself. But as Clark Kent or Superman his performance is lacking. In fact, he looks to me to be too self-conscious that he is wearing the Superman costume. He looks as though he's thinking, "What in the world am I doing dressed up like this?" Also, I don't know who dressed him as Clark Kent, but they did a horrific job. The suit looks too big, the hat looks too big, and that makes him look physically small. And, then, when he is doing his running leap as Superman his facial features are those of grimacing pain. Why didn't someone have Mr. Affleck study how Mr. Reeves performed that stunt and then try to duplicate it? Who knows. Anyway, did you know that Superman was the first TV showed filmed in color? The producers had the foresight to predict that color TV would one day be the viewing standard and so thought and acted ahead of the crowd. Your better bet: Superman DVD Sets Volume one and two.

In the 1950s, we boomer boys were mesmerized by the televised adventures of Superman. No matter how cheesy those shows look by today's standards, we had no trouble believing that George Reeves' suit, fedora and horn-rimmed specs kept all of Metropolis from realizing he was both Clark Kent and the Man of Steel. When Reeves killed himself after the series ended, it didn't seem possible. This film builds a fictionalized noirish detective story around some of the facts and personalities (roman a clef, to lit. majors). They spent wisely the visuals, with terrific period sets, wardrobe, cars, etc., but should have diverted more of their resources to the storytelling. This imbalance led to a generally underwhelming mystery that crawls to a flat finish. Compared to a couple of similar tales set in Tinseltown's earlier days, it's far short of L.A. Confidential, but still ahead of last year's dreadful pairing of Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, Ask the Dust. Adrien Brody's turn as the archetypal down-and-out private eye is just shy of adequate. Ben Affleck's Reeves is almost entertaining, though he occasionally lapses into accents from nowhere. Despite some moments of humor (one highlight being some clowning on the set when the TV series began), Reeves' life is presented as a quick rush from wannabe to reluctant icon, to type-cast has-been, giving us little reason to care whether he offed himself, as the cops conclude, or whodunit, if he actually was whacked (or perhaps, in the parlance of the time, "rubbed out"). There's not much reason to root for Brody's P.I., or anyone else, either. The most talented performers in the cast - Diane Lane and Bob Hoskins - are reduced to cardboard cutouts of what their characters might have been. When the TV show aired, it did the best it could with the technology and budgets of the era. Not so with this presentation.

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.

You would wonder why a movie looking at the 1959 suicide (or possible murder) of a moderately well known actor would take over two hours running time to tell the story. It's because the movie is really two stories run side by side. There are flashback sequences of George Reeves (Ben Affleck) in the last few years of his life, inter cut with scenes of a private eye trying to uncover facts about the actor's death. The story line about the sleazy detective (Adrien Brody) with some hot shot self important attitude adds nothing, and just bogs down the pacing of the film. In truth, he's nothing but a two-bit nobody that sticks big wads of gum in his ugly mouth, and tries to accuse and exploit everybody in sight, even the mother of George Reeves, who hired him in the first place. As if that isn't enough, you're subjected to the long-since overused cliché of a divorced dad's problems with his ex and son. Nobody cares. I kept hoping somebody would beat the daylights out of this idiot, and reduce his ego a few hundred notches. These scenes rarely address or reveal anything about the mystery. Apparently, this whole scenario illustrates a parallel between this character and Reeves himself, but so what? On the other hand, the Reeves biography is well executed. The latter-day version of film noor is utilized: deep brownish/orange hues employed to indicate period and mood, rather than the original black-and-white technique. It works, although the retro classic B&W would probably have been better for a murder mystery like this. Affleck rises from the ashes of Gigli and Pearl Harbor (and other duds) to give a great performance. Any fan of the original Superman TV series would immediately see he did his homework in researching Reeves. Subtleties such as the sly grin, and the speed of his speech matched the real Reeves well. When he had the Clark Kent glasses on, especially, the effect was almost eerie. Diane Lane is spectacular with her aging starlet style character. Other actors in the cast shine, as well. Superior acting, an intriguing famous mystery, retro film noor styling, these were great and should have been enough. The excess baggage detective scenes detract from the movie, but it's still good enough to watch. It might be better to wait for the DVD release--you could fast forward though all the superfluous scenes.

1959. Los Angeles. Someone's just blown their brains out with a Luger. Or have they? Shady detective gets onto it. The guy was Superman. Or rather, he was George Reeves, who played Superman. Played here by Ben Affleck. Movie studios are at a crossroads in history. First up, Ben Affleck is good. For someone who maybe wants to get out of comedy (as Reeves wanted to get out of playing the TV Superman), this is a shot for him to be taken seriously. He's surrounded by first rate performances from the likes of Diane Lane, superb as the older-woman seductress. Bob Hoskins, as the studio boss, has a gravitas and conviction that frees him from the more flippant or lowlife characters he has played. Then there's Adrien Brody as a sleazy detective turned honest guy. It's difficult to see how this picture could go wrong. But it does. With beautiful 50s sets it took me a long time to decide why they somehow failed to convince. There is none of the mysteriousness of L.A. Confidential or the similarly themed Black Dahlia. Hollywoodland has neither a classic noir nor a detective genre feel. The camera-work and editing has a modern, snappy feel to it that is out of synch with the subject matter. It's not clear who is at the centre of the story - are we to focus on Brody or get seriously into the Reeves character? The film interleaves Reeves' life with the detective's investigation and, although there is a common thread between the two men, it is not strong enough to make up for a lack of dramatic tension. Then there's the title: it suggests something far too grand for a microcosm about one actor. Although there are a few broadsides against a corrupt Hollywood system, they lack subtlety and are themes that have been covered more fully many times over. Diane Lane is mesmerising, first as a gorgeous vamp and then as the frustrated older woman. The recreation of scenes from the first (very low budget) Superman shoots are fascinating and if there had been more of them it might have been a way to flesh out Reeves' character. There is too much emphasis on who is sleeping with who they shouldn't. If the resolution was going to be based on this fine, but it seems the wrong formula for this film. With the exception of Lane, what character development there is comes too late and with insufficient force to justify two hours of meandering. Hollywoodland wants to take on some big ideas, but brilliant acting is let down by weak direction and execution. At the end of two hours, we are still left asking what was the point. It made me want to put my iPod on and just listen to a fifties crooner such as Julie London - and pretend I was watching something constructed by someone who knew what they were doing.

Let it be known that my rather stingy rating for this film does not stem from any dislike of film noir or neo-noir. But this weak entry in the genre underscores the point that "Chinatown" has a lot to answer for. For every on the spot classic like "LA Confidential" there are a number of turkeys like this that try to match it for quality and interest. There is no doubt that they have the look right. They have the costumes right and the cars right and the background music right. What the film lacks in any sort of momentum and any sort of sympathy for the characters or what happens to them. In short, after a promising first twenty minutes we are left to wallow in a stagnant uninteresting tale that begs the question of why such a footnote in history deserved such a grand treatment. The problem might rest with the casting Adrian Brody. He seems to young to play a convincing private eye. The scene where he has been beaten (allusions to Marlowe's "black hole opening up, and he dove right in")and lies wounded talking to his operative on the floor is downright embarrassing. Many will claim that it is his discovering (Like Jules Amthor's view of Marlowe "You are a dirty little man in a dirty little business")that he is really worthless and vile is the point. We should look on in awe that he recognizes this view of himself as some big development. It is not. It is certainly not worth nearly two hours of your time, despite the lush trappings.