This is based upon a true event. George Reeves (Affleck) gets the part of Superman on television, but wants to be recognized for more than that. Reeves' mother doesn't believe the suicide version of her son and hires private eye Louis Simo (Brody) and he tries to unravel the mystery in 1959 that we still have today: Suicide or Murder?
Reeves' story line runs in flashbacks as his life's story runs counter to Simo's investigation and back again and so forth. When we follow private eye Simo, we discover there are some gaping holes in the official version of how Reeves died. What we do know is that he was shot with one bullet to the head and we are shown three plausible scenarios as to how it all happened. Which one? Which one? Oh, the questions.
Now, if Ben Affleck wanted to portray George Reeves properly he should have done more to make this character his. I felt he played it tentative. We saw bits and pieces of Affleck's Reeves and are not sure this was the real George Reeves. I remember the Superman TV shows with George Reeves and looking back I find Reeves a better actor than Affleck. Okay, Affleck's Reeves didn't like playing the part and this movie showed this a little too much. But, in looking back to the Superman TV shows, in my mind's eye, I didn't get the impression George Reeves didn't like playing the part. He may have had his reservations, but they didn't come thru on the TV screen. It did here with Affleck.
But, you know something? When the real George Reeves smiled, there was a genuine happiness in that smile and as a kid watching the Superman TV show, I saw a happy smile. I didn't find that in Affleck when he smiled while in the Superman or Clark Kent character. To me he displayed a painful smile. Did the director have anything to do with that? Oh, the questions.
Did anyone recognize Diane Lane? I confess I didn't know who she was. Throw a wig on someone and I see a different person. She was Tony Mannix, wife of Edgar Mannix (head of MGM) played by Bob Hoskins, and they and all the cast performed extremely well.
I found the production a bit on the slow side and the only thing that might have excited it would have been some good one-liners, but I found none worth mentioning. The thing that keeps nagging at me is this: the scenes with Affleck in them were too short. In other words, here he is, there he goes. No time to really see George Reeves. Again, I see the director's hand in all this. No question here.
Another mystery is why was this movie made? There is no conclusive outcome regarding suicide or murder of George Reeves. Will this movie instigate another investigation into the matter? Probably not. Did we see the real George Reeves? Was this movie entertaining? It would have been, for me, if this was wholly a fictionalized story, but it is based upon a real event with nothing definitive to show for it.
Violence Yes Sex Yes Nudity Partial Language Yes
Reeves' story line runs in flashbacks as his life's story runs counter to Simo's investigation and back again and so forth. When we follow private eye Simo, we discover there are some gaping holes in the official version of how Reeves died. What we do know is that he was shot with one bullet to the head and we are shown three plausible scenarios as to how it all happened. Which one? Which one? Oh, the questions.
Now, if Ben Affleck wanted to portray George Reeves properly he should have done more to make this character his. I felt he played it tentative. We saw bits and pieces of Affleck's Reeves and are not sure this was the real George Reeves. I remember the Superman TV shows with George Reeves and looking back I find Reeves a better actor than Affleck. Okay, Affleck's Reeves didn't like playing the part and this movie showed this a little too much. But, in looking back to the Superman TV shows, in my mind's eye, I didn't get the impression George Reeves didn't like playing the part. He may have had his reservations, but they didn't come thru on the TV screen. It did here with Affleck.
But, you know something? When the real George Reeves smiled, there was a genuine happiness in that smile and as a kid watching the Superman TV show, I saw a happy smile. I didn't find that in Affleck when he smiled while in the Superman or Clark Kent character. To me he displayed a painful smile. Did the director have anything to do with that? Oh, the questions.
Did anyone recognize Diane Lane? I confess I didn't know who she was. Throw a wig on someone and I see a different person. She was Tony Mannix, wife of Edgar Mannix (head of MGM) played by Bob Hoskins, and they and all the cast performed extremely well.
I found the production a bit on the slow side and the only thing that might have excited it would have been some good one-liners, but I found none worth mentioning. The thing that keeps nagging at me is this: the scenes with Affleck in them were too short. In other words, here he is, there he goes. No time to really see George Reeves. Again, I see the director's hand in all this. No question here.
Another mystery is why was this movie made? There is no conclusive outcome regarding suicide or murder of George Reeves. Will this movie instigate another investigation into the matter? Probably not. Did we see the real George Reeves? Was this movie entertaining? It would have been, for me, if this was wholly a fictionalized story, but it is based upon a real event with nothing definitive to show for it.
Violence Yes Sex Yes Nudity Partial Language Yes