I suppose he could take the Matt Dillon slot this year, but the supporting actor field is beginning to fill. With Peter O'Toole fast emerging as a surefire winner in the best actor category, actors who could be slotted either as lead or supporting are scurrying for the the supporting category. Among them are Forest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland, Adam Beach in Flags of Our Fathers and Brad Pitt in Babel. Add Jack Nicholson in The Departed, Eddie Murphy in Dreamgirls, Toby Maguire in The Good German, Samuel Barnett in The History Boys and Pitt's Babel co-star, Gael Garcia Bernal and you have quite a crowded field that doesn't have room for a pretty boy actor few people take seriously playing a pretty boy actor even fewer take seriously.OscarGuy wrote:From what I've heard Affleck's gotten terrific reviews for his performance, so he's still a contender. And, so far the Supporting Actor field seems ill-represented so far this year.
Hollywoodland
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
-
Mike Kelly
- Temp
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 9:59 pm
- Location: Melbourne, FL, USA
I felt about the same. Hollywoodland was not a bad watch, but lets face it, George Reeves's story just isn't that interesting. I was a kid when The Adventures of Superman was on, and an avid watcher, but after the shock of his suicide, he soon faded from memory.
I do have a question. The film depicted the tale of the screening audience for From Here to Eternity breaking into titters and voicing various superman lines when Reeves was on screen. This allegedly led to most of his scenes being cut, and his dispondency with becoming typecast. IMDB reports this isn't the case and that Director Fred Zinneman has stated that every scene shot with George Reeves remains in the finished film. So, what's the story?
Ben Affleck did a nice job. While impressive, I just can't see a nomination coming.
Edited By Mike Kelly on 1157822496
I do have a question. The film depicted the tale of the screening audience for From Here to Eternity breaking into titters and voicing various superman lines when Reeves was on screen. This allegedly led to most of his scenes being cut, and his dispondency with becoming typecast. IMDB reports this isn't the case and that Director Fred Zinneman has stated that every scene shot with George Reeves remains in the finished film. So, what's the story?
Ben Affleck did a nice job. While impressive, I just can't see a nomination coming.
Edited By Mike Kelly on 1157822496
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
I thought Hollywoodland made for a very interesting filmgoing experience, and not because it's such a great film. Like Magilla, I love mysteries and I love films about Hollywood, so I thought this would be right up my alley. What amazed me about the film's two-pronged approach (the story of Reeves's rise to stardom and demise is intercut with the detective's investigation of Reeves's death) was how much more compelling the former section was in comparison to the latter.
I thought the story of George Reeves might have made an interesting film all by itself. Affleck is very well cast, although, I again agree with Magilla: the role lacks depth, and he's not award-worthy. Still, I found this section to be a moving portrait of a man cursed by his semi-stardom, an actor without much of a chance who sadly kept dreaming for more.
The detective story, though, is absolutely leaden. First off, I'm not sure why Brody's plot needed to be cluttered with so many subplots. The scenes with his family take up too much space and the relationship with his girl friday is underdeveloped. Why the film also gives him ANOTHER investigation alongside that of Reeves's death is baffling, an example of extraneous narrative clutter so obvious I can't believe it wasn't excised but for one reason . . . the Reeves investigation simply isn't compelling enough to sustain even half a movie. (Semi-spoiler alert) The film posits many scenarios for Reeves's death, but, without any conclusive answer to this unsolved mystery (if it is that), this section becomes a series of narrative dead ends that I found dramatically unsatisfying.
Brody commits himself well, but he doesn't have much to play. Diane Lane, an actress I normally like, seemed pretty stiff to me. The Tinseltown costumes are lovely. The score directly apes Chinatown's at more than one moment. And so, as I stated above, it's an interesting film for fans of mysteries and films about Hollywood (though my hopes are MUCH higher for The Black Dahlia), but it's really only a half-success in my book.
I thought the story of George Reeves might have made an interesting film all by itself. Affleck is very well cast, although, I again agree with Magilla: the role lacks depth, and he's not award-worthy. Still, I found this section to be a moving portrait of a man cursed by his semi-stardom, an actor without much of a chance who sadly kept dreaming for more.
The detective story, though, is absolutely leaden. First off, I'm not sure why Brody's plot needed to be cluttered with so many subplots. The scenes with his family take up too much space and the relationship with his girl friday is underdeveloped. Why the film also gives him ANOTHER investigation alongside that of Reeves's death is baffling, an example of extraneous narrative clutter so obvious I can't believe it wasn't excised but for one reason . . . the Reeves investigation simply isn't compelling enough to sustain even half a movie. (Semi-spoiler alert) The film posits many scenarios for Reeves's death, but, without any conclusive answer to this unsolved mystery (if it is that), this section becomes a series of narrative dead ends that I found dramatically unsatisfying.
Brody commits himself well, but he doesn't have much to play. Diane Lane, an actress I normally like, seemed pretty stiff to me. The Tinseltown costumes are lovely. The score directly apes Chinatown's at more than one moment. And so, as I stated above, it's an interesting film for fans of mysteries and films about Hollywood (though my hopes are MUCH higher for The Black Dahlia), but it's really only a half-success in my book.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
From what I've heard Affleck's gotten terrific reviews for his performance, so he's still a contender. And, so far the Supporting Actor field seems ill-represented so far this year.
I'll give my opinion after I see Hollywoodland if it's something Oscar voters would like.
I'll give my opinion after I see Hollywoodland if it's something Oscar voters would like.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
VanHelsing
- Assistant
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:24 am
- Contact:
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
I purposely stayed away from reviews of this film, not wanting to know any of the film's "secrets" prior to seeing it. Fully expecting to see the season's (perhaps the year's) first big Oscar contender, I was sorely disappointed.
If I had to pick a favorite film genre, I would say it was mystery and suspense films including film noir, so I expected this film to be right my alley as did a lot of other first day film-goers, most of whom were equally disappointed.
The film plays like an episode of TV's Cold Case, but without the wrap-up. Lots of scenarios are put forth but (SPOLIER) the ending suggests that George Reeves really did commit suicide after all. All that build-up comes to naught.
The screenplay meanders from the 1959 present to the past and back again. The principal roles are well acted, but the characters lack depth, including Ben Affleck's Reeves, who is portrayed as a kept man and a wimp. Diane Lane as his sugar mama and Lois Smith as his actual mama both do well enough with what they are given and Adrien Brody is decent enough in the role of the conflicted p.i., but the bit parts are not very well cast. The actress playing Phyllis Coates/Lois Lane is so dreadful she makes Reeves/Affleck look like Clark Gable. The actress playing Rita Hayworth looks nothing like her, which is why other characters have to keep saying "that's Rita Hayworth".
Not a bad film, but hardly Oscar worthy.
If I had to pick a favorite film genre, I would say it was mystery and suspense films including film noir, so I expected this film to be right my alley as did a lot of other first day film-goers, most of whom were equally disappointed.
The film plays like an episode of TV's Cold Case, but without the wrap-up. Lots of scenarios are put forth but (SPOLIER) the ending suggests that George Reeves really did commit suicide after all. All that build-up comes to naught.
The screenplay meanders from the 1959 present to the past and back again. The principal roles are well acted, but the characters lack depth, including Ben Affleck's Reeves, who is portrayed as a kept man and a wimp. Diane Lane as his sugar mama and Lois Smith as his actual mama both do well enough with what they are given and Adrien Brody is decent enough in the role of the conflicted p.i., but the bit parts are not very well cast. The actress playing Phyllis Coates/Lois Lane is so dreadful she makes Reeves/Affleck look like Clark Gable. The actress playing Rita Hayworth looks nothing like her, which is why other characters have to keep saying "that's Rita Hayworth".
Not a bad film, but hardly Oscar worthy.