Review of Hollywoodland (2006) by Eddie K — 21 Apr 2011

Before there was Zach Snyder and Christopher Nolan, before there was Brandon Routh, a show on the CW called 'Smallville,' or even Christopher Reeve, there was George Reeves: the original Superman.

Hop in Doc Brown's Delorean with me and lets take a trip back to the 1950's. Times were 'swell,' T.V. was all the rage (people talking in a box? Madness I tell you.) A relatively unknown actor best known for having a brief cameo in the greatest movie ever, Gone With the Wind, had landed the lead role on a relatively crappy show. His outfit was embarrassingly terrible, the script was laughable and production was a down right joke. The series had no chance. But by some miracle Kellogg's picked it up, putting it on T.V. and created a monster success, specifically among kids. George Reeves became a superstar but couldn't climb from the shadow of his character (much like the all the main characters not named Courtney Cox or Jennifer Aniston on 'Friends' or everyone on 'Senfield.').

He was killed in 1959 after 104 episodes and six seasons as Superman. His death has never been solved.

Hollywoodland is a complex noire film that delves into the motivations of the rich and famous, exactly the sort of people that we, as Average Joes, couldn't care less about, much less empathize with. The film does ride a slippery slope when it comes to material: so many different subplots and character desires that it takes more of a refined thought process to understand what exactly is going on. That being said, the main story is not exactly that hard to follow: Reeves is dead and Louis Simo (Adrien Brody), a private detective more driven by collecting money than actually finding information, takes the case and alters his life. Since there is no affirmative answer on what exactly happened to Reeves, three main theories exist: accidental murder, ordered murder or suicide. The film follows Simo as he uncovers more and more information about the death, at some point believing each possible theory as an explanation but never finding the definitive truth.

The Truth. It's the one motive that exists in all noire films. Simo stops at nothing, and in many ways works outside the law, to find it. However, this film suffers as a result of his quest. He can't find the truth because it is not there, so the ending really lacks closure. Can we believe that a man who stops at nothing to find the truth would leave this thing unsolved? No. But that's the way it had to be, and it weakens the story.

What brings the film up a level, from 'alright,' to 'pretty damn good' is the lead acting. Adrien Brody is the lead, and his character arc is fantastic. Through his self-centered way of working he comes to see just what he did to mess up his whole life. His son, the one thing that he should care most about in the world, doesn't really matter to him at first. But he figures it out and tries to make amends. Diane Lane is also featured heavily in this film playing Toni Mannix, wife of Eddie Mannix- VP of MGM studios at the time. Her tragic love for Reeves and subsequent depression after he leaves her have the audience believing that her husband would order Reeves death, just to make her happy. My most surprising performance goes to Ben Affleck. This was in 2006, not 2010 (now that his career as righted itself) his career was in shambles. Much like Reeves he was known for being in terrible films, much like Reeves his physical condition was starting to crumble and exactly like Reeves a crazy ex-girlfriend wanted him dead (ok so that's not true...) the reason Ben Affleck is so good in his role is simple, he is playing himself.

Because the plot is tangled in webs of subplot, the story is not always easy to follow (or at times interesting to follow). But most loose nots are tied by the end and for an unsolved murder mystery this is about as good as one could ask for. Though this could have been done in the classic "whodunit" style, Hollywoodland benefits from originality and surprisingly detailed characters that give the audience the answer to the oft asked, "why?" The positives greatly outweigh the negatives in this film and although it may drag in places the film is drawn together to a thinly satisfying conclusion. But again, even with the ending not answering our lingering question of "whodunit?" it offers us with the truth. And that is what we were looking for anyway.

Hollywoodland is a film that dives head-first into conspiracy and the lack of cleanliness of the system, hoping to uncover bits of truth. At times the script can be messy, unsure of which plot line we are following. However, overall the film stands out among it's peers for its tight direction, underrated acting and its lasting impact. And the truth is, this is a dam good movie.