A-

The pacing could be cleaned up a bit, but the acting's fantastic. Ben Affleck up for an Oscar? You bet.

I saw Hollywoodland at the 1:00 showing today. It's a different theater than I usually go to, so the more than expected audience doesn't mean anything.

The film is a good looking picture. The sets evoked memories of yesteryear, with no detail being too small. The score also evoked memories of classic movies. As far as the film goes, it was pretty engrossing from start to finish, with only a few minor lulls during scenes with Adrien Brody, who gives a fine performance as the gumshoe who starts sticking his formidable nose into the mystery of actor George Reeve's death. It was ruled a suicide, but Brody soon starts piecing together clues that open up other possibilities. These possibilities are only left as such, and I have seen criticisms from some, which truely speaks to a lack of intelligence.

THE REASON THERE ARE NO ANSWERS AT THE END IS BECAUSE IT'S A MYSTERY! GET IT?

Did these people want an invented scenerio so they could bitch about that?

Another puzzling complaint I've read, is about the performance of Ben Affleck. Now, this has just been a few, and it's obvious that they don't have the ability to be objective, because Affleck was absolutely perfect as George Reeves. Same mannerisms, same speech patterns, similar voice, body language, etc... His best work to date as an actor.

The standout performance goes to Diane Lane, who certainly is a scene stealer, and hearing her cuss, especially the words she uses, really is an attention getter. She goes from a beautiful and confident older woman to a scorned and aging older women struggling with her own vanity, and the performance should net her an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress.

Affleck would be very deserving, too, as he really does a sensational job, and the score, cinematography, and art direction deserve some props, as well.

This was bordering on an A-, but whenever that happens, I usually drop it later to the next lowest when the freshness and novelty wear off, so I'll save myself some time. It gets a very strong:

B+

An invented scenerio would lead to an easy lawsuit i'd say.

I enjoyed the film, well-acted who done it piece, the problem is we end up with still asking who done it? But that was gonna be the problem with the film before they even came up with a script, they might've been able to been a bit more creative in the process though. Im guessing the end is suppose to show you that there really is no mystery to it, what happened in that room is what was on the headline of the papers " Superman Offs Himself "

Still, the movie lived on it's great performances from the leads, they were gonna make or break the film and they all did a solid job. Brody as a gumshoe detective kinda worked, but his best scenes involved ones where he was not trying to be this type of tough guy attitude and more when it seemed as though all the bricks were stacked on top of him and he broke down. Affleck pretty much nailed the role i'd say, it seemed as though he had all the touches of Reeves. Yes, the standout is Diane Lane and she should be close to a lock for a nomination, her performance was almost pitch perfect.

Another thing that stood out for me was the look of the film, we went from this dry faded out color from Louis Simo's story to a vibrant glamourish picture with Reeves story, the death of Hollywood.

Grade - B/B+

If you would have told me a week ago that this film was gonna be so mediocre, i would have shot you through the temple in my imagination.
But, unfortunately, you would have been right.
It does a pretty good job capturing the period and setting a fairly competent mood for the type of film, and the acting is fantastic all around.
But wtf, how did they manage to take what should have been an enthralling, or at the least, attention-holding story and make it so incredibly long and drawn out and, well, frankly - boring. There's just nothing of enough substance or interest to make me care. probably something to do with the seventeen thousand little offshoots of borinity, and the back and forth between present and past.

oh well, bring on the prestige. or whatever's next.

We saw Hollywoodland yesterday afternoon before my Rascal Flatts concert. Heh. Anyway.

It was a bit too slow, but the acting was wonderful. Adrien Brody is solid as a private investigator with a newly-formed conscience, Bob Hoskins is underused but effective as Eddie Mannix, and Robin Tunney brings uninhibited sass to George Reeves' fiancee Leonore Lemmon. Acting standouts, as expected, are Ben Affleck and Diane Lane. Affleck is believable and really does make you wonder about the outcome of Reeves' death. Lane is terrific, beginning the picture as a sexually confident woman and ending it as an aging, spurned center of meekness. Anyway, the film is not one of the best of the year, but it is well-made, shot, and acted. B

Meh.

What a clunky mess of a movie this turned out to be. The main failing is a foolishly overly ambitious screenplay that attempts to juxtapose the detective's life upon that of his quarry. Good God -- by the three-quarter mark, the whole endeavor just about eats itself...

To make matters worse - they went and hired one of Hollywood's worst actors (No, not Ben Affleck - he's way under-rated and freakishly dissed these days) -- no, I'm referring to Adrian Brody. Is any actor more over-rated than this guy? Holy cow - he's mugging up and down for the camera like nobody's business! He's only been in one good movie (The Jacket).

Yup... a cool true story gets the botch job from some TV hack director called Allen Coulter and some TV hack screenwriter called Paul Bernbaum. Woo-hoo! What a wonderful world.

2 out of 5.

It was really long.

Good performances, but the story is dramatically, structurally and thematically screwy. Not very good. In trying to be about everything, the movie winds up being about nothing. There was nothing cinematic about the movie; it felt, at all times, like a high-end HBO movie.

And this thing had more endings than Return of the King and still couldn't stumble upon a half-decent one.

Come on, Fall! The Illusionist, Hollywoodland, The Black Dahlia....wake up! What the fuck are these things?

C+

It was okay. The story was interesting I guess, but the whole thing seemed a bit aimless and mixed up, it didn't know where it wanted to push it's story, it felt like it could never make the mystery of the death enthralling. I was more interested in Simo's and George's personal lives, to be honest, the case just didn't work. The whole thing is a bit slow, and like I said, mixed up, I didn't think the layout and structure alternating the two stories worked too well. They shouldn't have switched so rapidly, I think it would've worked better if it went more of a Godfather Part II route, where it's 30-40 minutes one story and then 30-40 minutes the other, not alternating every 5 or 10.

Acting was uniformely good, but do I think Lane and Affleck deserve Oscar nominations? No, not really, to be honest. I've always liked Ben a lot, but he still seemed to be a bit wooden here. He was a lot better in Chasing Amy, IMO.

Anyways, a disappointment.

I really enjoyed it. Looked great, solid acting, and I'm a sucker for sex scenes and swearing in the 1950's.

A

hated this movie. to slow

Pointless. C

One of last year's best movies. Haunting, poignant drama. Ben Affleck was robbed of an Oscar nomination. In fact, he should've won. A.

Exceptionally well-acted and haunting mystery that drags on for far too long and never really takes off. It's got some great visual moments that hark back to classic film noir scenes, and it's very well-directed, but the pacing is way too slow and the film seems like it will never end. The switching back and forth between stories works surprisingly well, but the end is rather anti-climatic. The performances are all-around great, but it's Adrien Brody and Ben Affleck that steal the show. Affleck actually made me believe that he's George Reeves, not Ben Affleck. Diane Lane is solid but underused, and Bob Hoskins is totally wasted in his 3 or 4 scenes. All in all, an interesting story that never really leads to anything.

It's an ambitious movie, in that it tries to be a great one but largely fails. The slow pace, flawed screenplay and uninspiring direction turn it into an uninvolving, boring mess which doesn't seem to know where it's going. I would only recommend this one for its great acting. Adrien Brody is as always solid, yet the material he is given to work with is inadequate. On the other hand, Ben Affleck and Diane Lane have more meaty roles to work with and are both excellent. Diane Lane, in my opinion, would have been nominated for an Oscar and would stand a good chance to win were it not for the fact that the movie flopped. Anyway, I'll give it a C. Quite unfortunate.

Pretty good acting, but pretty bland too. It's like "ok, here is the story; oh, and it ended, hmm, ok, so?" Comparing to the very more engaging Zodiac, the weakness is pretty obvious. B-.

It had its moments, but overall it didn't hold steady throughout as much as I would have liked. It looked great and the acting was great as well, Affleck and Lane especially. It lacked something important, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Still though, it's not like it was a terrible movie. I'm not sorry I watched it by any means and it was enjoyable.

B-