I guess I would count as a 2nd Generation ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN fan. I wasn't born when the series aired, but I was one of those kids who nonetheless grew up watching it faithfully in reruns on local Boston TV. And, I still find the opening theme and credit sequence to be amongst the best the industry has put out. Of course, there were always those "older kids" who had to go and try to spoil things by repeating the urban legend that George Reeves had killed himself trying to fly and falling out a window. But, I still remained a big fan. The 1978 version re-invigorated that spirit (I don't find many, if any, who have the same awe for SUPERMAN RETURNS. People like it, they don't seem to LOVE it).
Despite the wretched title, I looked forward to HOLLYWOODLAND. It is certainly curious that they used a fictionalized private eye to tell the tale of George Reeves. It takes a while to realize that the focus is more on Adrien Brody's PI, Simo, than on Reeves. Indeed, Affleck is 3rd billed behind Brody and Diane Lane. Brody is fine, but you keep wanting the film to get back to Reeves - who cares if a PI is having marital problems when TV's Man of Steel is dead (and SOMEONE'S responsible!)?
The acting is terrific, especially Diane Lane -- who also gets points for doing the very un-Hollywoodland thing of letting her true age show (compare to Sharon Stone's reptilian post-surgery look). Brody is fine and Affleck is getting the reviews of his career, even if, in the end, it's more a supporting role. The much praised look of the film is well detailed for a mid-budget item (especially for those who don't actually live in L.A. who won't mind the mostly Canadian locations - autumn foliage in L.A.?!).
In the end, the "mystery" is never solved. In addition, with such a split in the focus of the film between the PI and Reeves, you never get inside of the characters enough to draw your own conclusions. The ending drags on a good 15 minutes too long, and it's disappointing that it focuses on the PI and not on Reeves. A curious choice indeed. Entertaining, but not all too engrossing.
Despite the wretched title, I looked forward to HOLLYWOODLAND. It is certainly curious that they used a fictionalized private eye to tell the tale of George Reeves. It takes a while to realize that the focus is more on Adrien Brody's PI, Simo, than on Reeves. Indeed, Affleck is 3rd billed behind Brody and Diane Lane. Brody is fine, but you keep wanting the film to get back to Reeves - who cares if a PI is having marital problems when TV's Man of Steel is dead (and SOMEONE'S responsible!)?
The acting is terrific, especially Diane Lane -- who also gets points for doing the very un-Hollywoodland thing of letting her true age show (compare to Sharon Stone's reptilian post-surgery look). Brody is fine and Affleck is getting the reviews of his career, even if, in the end, it's more a supporting role. The much praised look of the film is well detailed for a mid-budget item (especially for those who don't actually live in L.A. who won't mind the mostly Canadian locations - autumn foliage in L.A.?!).
In the end, the "mystery" is never solved. In addition, with such a split in the focus of the film between the PI and Reeves, you never get inside of the characters enough to draw your own conclusions. The ending drags on a good 15 minutes too long, and it's disappointing that it focuses on the PI and not on Reeves. A curious choice indeed. Entertaining, but not all too engrossing.