This evening, I went to see the movie Hollywoodland, the story of the death of Superman actor George Reeves: suicide, or murder?If you decide to go see this (which, as you'll see, I don't recommend), it's important you get your expectations in order. The movie trailer makes this look like a suspense thriller, or a hard-boiled crime story. It's neither. It's an essentially an art house docudrama with an unusually high-profile cast, and a lot more emphasis on the "docu" than the "drama." In short, this movie is ploddingly slow-paced.
I went with three friends, and we all talked about what we'd seen over dinner afterward, and it seemed as though we each had different (and I think, all completely viable) feelings about what was wrong with the movie.
One line of thought was that the film suffered from an inability to have an "ending." It's based on a true story, and ambiguities remain as to the nature of George Reeves' death. Other movies based on true events deal with unknowns by forging ahead and taken a single, concrete stand on what they're going to show as "the truth." This movie plays the options, and so to some comes off as a bit aimless.
My line of thought was that the alternate death theories were actually the most interesting thing about the movie. Spread throughout the film as they are, they were actual the "tent poles" of the piece that rekindled my interest. Unfortunately, between them are 30-45 minute chunks of material that puts the viewer to sleep.
As to which of that material was the boring stuff, it depends on who you ask. Some in my group thought there was too much biographical scene-setting in the backstory of George Reeves, introducing more characters than needed to tell the tale. Others of us thought the interlaced story of the private investigator played by Adrien Brody was the mismatched element, dragging focus away from the more compelling flashbacks.
In the end, there were only about two things we could agree on. One, more of the film is boring than not (we're just not in agreement on which were the boring parts). Two, Ben Affleck actually gives a very good performance -- some would say his first in a long, long while. But that performance alone is not enough to recommend seeing the film in theaters, and it would be a quite iffy proposition for later viewing on DVD. If you have a comfortable couch, I'd defy you to stay awake all the way to the end.
This is a D+ movie.
2 comments:
I must say that I enjoyed this movie. I'll agree with those in the camp that the lack of resolution to George Reeves story hurt it and that there was too much focus on his background. While it didn't thrill, it held my interest throughout and the real theme of parallels of two men who failed to be what they wanted in life connected to me. I thought it was a solid, if not exciting movie. I guess I'd give it a B- on your scale.
The Onion A/V Club said this film seemed like a made-for-HBO feature that was bumped up to the movie houses. Having seen a few of those, I know what my expectations are -- good acting, okay script, half-ass execution. It's amazing how biopics made for the big screen just seem so many times better written and executed than biopics for television -- network or cable.
And it's not lost on anyone that Affleck is essentially playing himself.
Post a Comment