When a Las Vegas performer-turned-snitch named Buddy Israel decides to turn state's evidence and testify against the mob, it seems that a whole lot of people would like to make sure he's no longer breathing.
Struggling private investigator Louis Simo treats his work more as a means to make a living than a want to do right by what few clients he has. Through connections with the investigation firm for which he used to work, Simo is hired by Helen Bessolo to investigate the death of her son, actor George Reeves. Reeves was best known for his title role in Adventures of Superman (1952), a role which he always despised, in part since it typecast him as a "cartoon", despite it bringing him a certain fame. His June 16, 1959 death by a single gunshot wound while in his bedroom in his Los Angeles home was ruled a suicide by the police, the death which occurred when the house was filled with people. Reeves' story is told in part in flashback as Simo, who is trying to make a name for himself with this case, talks to or tries to talk to some of the players involved, most specifically the wife of MGM General Manager E.J. Mannix, Toni Mannix, with who Reeves was having a relatively open and ... Written by
The Los Angeles police cars seen at the beginning of the movie
outside George Reeves' house are from the time period, however the red rotating warning light on the roof is inconsistent with LAPD use at the time. The LAPD cars had the two barrel lights with a siren mounted in between them on the roof. This type of warning system was used until at least the late 1970s early 1980s. See more »
Sad day, huh, boys? Tell you what's even sadder: calling it suicide when it's really murder. Why would the cops do that?
Funeral Reporter #1:
Sing us a new song, Simo.
What, you don't love me anymore? Two months ago, somebody drained all the fluid out of George Reeves's break lines. Almost bought it right then. Coincidence, right? I mean, LAPD don't make mistakes. Huh, Paterson? What's the truth? Huh, boys? Who wanted him dead? You guys might be lazy, but nobody said you're dumb.
Funeral Reporter #2:
I need some names.
What, you want ...
[...] See more »
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.
39 of 69 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?