Its the late seventies and my single Mom is working harder and smarter than anyone should be to keep her four kids feed and safe... One of the few things to teach her young son about being a man was unfortunately for the time was television. Though the role models did not look like me their souls, integrity and honor all made sense to an abandoned son who's father left. From Robert Young's compassionate Doctor Marcus Welby, to William Shatner's dynamic courageous Captain Kirk, Dick Van Dyke's suave humorious Rob Petrie and the hard logically dogged arguments of Raymond Burr's Perry Mason. These men, their images, and as well as many others served as the surrogate father and wise-men of a wayward boy. Yet none was ever so important as one of the first; George Reeves as Superman, constantly rerunning during my youth setting the stage for who I am now; just as sure as my reality back then. Reeves portrayal was human dynamic and powerful Clark wasn't a klutz or a nerd just a regular joe schmoo you just liked. His Superman was larger than life and wasn't afraid to have an opinion or have a bit of emotion eek through from anger to pensiveness to sheer humor to me he seemed so real and I wanted to be like him.

Truth, Justice and the American way... at the time it really meant something to me and in my heart it always will. George as Superman was a hero; acted as compass of honor and justice; it was a long time till I realized what reality was and the true nature of justice. Hollywoodland as a movie was a bit of reality- and as they say where I come from... a might more reality than I bargained for.

Hollywoodland was a well crafted movie and did some solid deconstructive storytelling seamlessly bouncing from past to the fictionalized time after Reeves death to set a compelling stage for a story. Hollywoodland was well casted and the acting was stoic almost seeming effortless for all the actors. But where the movie fails is that it never draws any conclusion or has an opinion on what happened that night. Which begs the question why make the movie at all.

Was Reeves killed by his fiancee, Leonore Lemmon? Amazing portrayed by Robin Tunney; I hated her so much as the girlfriend until I remembered where I saw her before; she was the chick from the Craft and then I was awed at how much her acting talent had grown. Was he killed by the jilted lover's Toni Mannix husband? Toni was played superbly by Diane Lane who wrought a very interesting character, complex and whole, as her powerful husband, studio mogul Eddie Mannix, acted menacingly by Bob Hoskins. Or was Reeves, just a man falling too deep into his own pain that he just couldn't face it any more a life of dead dreams, wilted aspirations? You never know nor are you given enough information to form your own opinion by the way this movie is depicted. Again why make this movie at all if you don't have an opinion; its seems to me nothing but an expensive news-clipping with no real insight into the people involved. That desire for insight is what drew me to this movie in the first place... (much in the same way i am looking forward to the Black Dahlia movie)... why was my hero gone?

Continued skilled casting Ben Affleck was excellent at capturing Reeves charm and sense of humor and timing. Ultimately the hopelessness of an aging actor who was typecast out of his dream. I was disappointed when the story didn't stay with Affleck's Reeves and showed more of how Reeves was dealing with typecasting, desires, his dreams and what people around of him view of him, framing his life so that we know who we are watching. Instead of opting for the grafted on composite detective story that killed valuable story/ character exploration time.

Adrien Brody's, Louis Simo was sympathetic and scummy at the same time but ultimately it was a wasted character. The story should have viewed Reeves life through the detective whom should have been our unbiased narrator but too much of Simo's tale took center stage and for what reason? This is not "the detective that investigate the George Reeves death story"; its "the death of George Reeves story". So when so much time is spent down wrong roads you get a sense of waste and a longing facts that are never answered let alone displayed. Movie time is so precious that I wondered why they wasted so much with useless scenes like:

• Simo's shady past with a bunch of ex studio detectives to which he used to be one of. Or his schilling for the news to make himself more famous.
• Simo's unexplained struggle with a smoking habit. A smoking habit that is never mentioned but the gum chewing is prominent in a few scenes. Then he stops and finds a old hidden cigarette which starts him smoking again. Too turn around and later quit again at the end of the film all never ever addressed by any of the characters Simo included. Why?
• Simo's son struggle with the death of his hero Superman something I too know, was resolved off camera instantly. Hell the kid almost burns the house down for gods sake and we never see him work through the pain of the loss. Why?
• Simo's motivation guilt was grafted on; as was the affair with his aid who was dismissed just as thing were getting dangerous, but the situation wasn't played up for the gallant aspects behind the implied breakup.

Hollywoodland was long, not in the sense of its running time; but in the sense that you waited for a pay off one which never comes. Leaving one with a sense of intensity never really changed. Hollywoodland was a study of very sad people leading unresolved lives. At the end of the movie I left feeling like I watched my hero die again and was set a drift on the sea of reality. Rob Petrie was an alcoholic, Kirk was a sexist, Perry lead a secret repressed life and Superman, my hero, killed himself... its a sad time when your heroes meet reality and justice is just another shade of misunderstanding.

For me Hollywoodland and the dreary Superman Returns, with Superman's bastard son and desire for a married woman, both set a stage for a darker sadder man of steel, who gives into flaws that we all struggle with and used to hope our fictional heroes would avoid, thus teaching us how. (Since when are flaws virtues in heroes, hell they have a new series called Dexter coming out where a serial killer, kills serial killers and he's a good guy... I digress.) Where was the light of the man, the dynamism of the character, the heroic lives that inspired me and millions of others to try and lead a heroic life. In a grasp to be edgier these movies kill what makes these characters so inspirational... and reinforce the weakness in all of us locking up the only heroic way out behind a door of cynicism and callousness. I left Hollywoodland and Superman Returns both defeated and mournfully long the Superman of yesteryear when he was about Truth, Justice and when it was seemingly more innocent the American way.

For me George Reeves deserved better than this.

Thanks for the read I am going to sleep now but incase you want some more here is a link to more facts vs the fiction of the movie. Not sure how long this link will be hot so check it out while you can. Peace TDO

Nice review
I, too, wish they had stuck with the George Reeves story. I'm generally hearing mixed reviews about the movie in general. Maybe when it comes out on cable I'll check it out.

Dude!!!!!!
just a few words... your right!!!! i really like the entire thing, the opening was great... the body whit out saying.... love your writing and why?? the movie industry just don't get it. It's about the story and please give me your point, say yes or no.... but don't be so gray about it, let us know if is "black or white" in your film.

Hey Rene glad you like the review sorry I didn't see your comment sooner I would have review a few more movies since then. Heck I will give a quick one lol. The Last Mimsy is basically hippies writting a scifi kids story and not having any kids to reference. Its all theory and no f'ing fun its a pass. Peace TDO