The violent death of a famous actor prompts an opportunistic private investigator to kick up a media storm with allegations of murder, but what trouble awaits him when vicious thugs from the movie industry are drawn into the frame?Elaborate noir with a down on his luck outsider, a femme fatale, feckless dames, and a twisty plot that spins a web of confusion without tearing apart. It's a fictionalised bio of the famous actor, which exaggerates quite a bit to increase the sense of tragedy and generate mystery. The atmosphere of '50s Hollywood is well done, and we're presented with a cycle of broken lives all trying desperately to feed off each other. The one inch of solid ground is provided by the actor's agent, who concludes with a non-committal act. So it's nihilistic, but there's plenty of passion and emotion - especially the sadness of loss.The performances are good, although I find it hard to accept the lead actor as a tough guy. As Marlowe would say: "no iron in his bones". The climax is good, but didn't pack a full punch for me - I think maybe the b&w footage of the wrestling audition didn't give the intended insight.The music is good, plenty of sorrowful brass. Highlight of the photography is flame-lighting of faces from dozens of cigarette scenes.Overall: Well paced genre piece that ends up solid rather than awe-inspiring.

To me, this movie is among the best movies of the past decade. I absolutely love historical American biopic film noir set in the 1950's, especially set in Tinsel town. And this is the best film I've seen in that genre. Also, as a kid I was absolutely nuts about the original TV series "Adventures of Superman" starring George Reeves. Once, when we lived in Houston, Texas, my parents were expecting company, and my mother was busy vacuuming the living room when the Superman show came on. I came running in from outside right on schedule, grabbed a cookie, turned on the TV, turned up the volume, and began to watch as I always religiously did. As my mother passed in front of the TV vacuuming, she switched off the TV and told me to go back outside and play because she had to clean up for the guests. Well, I'll be brief and simply say that I went into full-blown convulsions, complete with screaming, falling to the floor, kicking, and choking on my cookie. My mother was dumbfounded by my reaction; she stood motionless staring at me with the vacuum whirring in her hand. She had never seen me act like that before, or since. She realized that I was neurotically serious about this TV show, and so she immediately turned it back on. I instantly recovered and continued watching like a hypnotized zombie, and she returned to her vacuuming. If you knew my mom you'd know how rare this was because she almost never reversed a parental command to her kids, nor did she flinch from spanking us if we were overly stubborn. Getting back to this film, Ben Affleck was brilliant in his portrayal of George Reeves. His was the most difficult role because the public knows Reeves. Affleck's mannerisms, body movements, facial expressions, and dialog were perfect Reeves to the tee, even though his voice is a bit different. That kind of research and acting ability separates the pros from the rookies. Affleck is a consummate professional, a great actor. Adrien Brody, also a consummate professional, and one of my favorites, was absolutely superb in the role of detective Louis Simo. I don't think anyone could have given a better performance as a young 1950's real-life LA private eye, complete with reality life problems. Brody made this picture a success as the driving force at the helm; he was thoroughly enjoyable to watch. Diane Lane was also great as Toni Mannix. I consider the casting for this film a work of genius, because Robin Tunney, Jeff DeMunn, Bob Hoskins, Neil Crone, Caroline Dhavernas, and Joe Spano all gave superb performances, as did all the actors in this film. But I think the real heroes of this great film are director Allen Coulter, producer Glenn Williamson, writers Howard Korder and Paul Bernbaum, and the production professionals. Pre-production research and accuracy are extremely important in a biopic film. This film's story and character accuracy, cinematography, depiction of 1950's Los Angeles, background music, artistry, sound and film editing, are absolutely amazing work by some of the greatest film talents of our time. I particularly liked the film's beautiful story art and human reflection on Reeve's life and personal tragedies, and Simo's deepening personal emotions as he investigates Reeve's death, finding some parallels between Reeve's life and his own. This movie is among my most important art possessions. I first saw it in a theater when it was released in 2006. I was divorced at the time, and I went alone to a crowded city theater. I quietly slipped into the dark theater with my popcorn and soda, because I really wanted to see this film. Somehow I knew I'd love it, and I did. This film does not disappoint. When the DVD came out I immediately purchased one. Whether I'm facing a life tragedy, or I'm depressed, had a bad day, or simply want to enjoy a beautiful movie, I can slip a DVD like this into the player and be transferred to another place and time, entertained, and cured of my burdens all at once. I can't begin to express my appreciation for the people who come together and create great works like this movie, nor can I express my awe in their amazing talents. Biopic films like this are grossly under-appreciated by the public. These movies don't rake in the vast numbers of 12 to 18 year-olds who make up the large demographic of movie goers, thus don't rake in huge box office revenues like the dumb action-hero, sci-fi CGI, and horror thrillers do. I guess most people would also be bored reading Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, preferring a Hobbit fantasy novel instead. They'd toss Einstein's book aside, never appreciating the great accomplishment in human intellect that they just trashed. This is why I so appreciate the people who produce these movies. They give the world the fruits of their amazing talents, with little monetary reward. They leave us great works of art and history for posterity. Thankfully, Hollywoodland eventually did make a small profit after DVD rentals and sales, which restores some of my confidence in the American public.

I usually don't review a film after 100 other IMDb'ers already have, but this time I'm going to make an exception. I've got an ax to grind.I am totally opposed to the kind of film that denigrates real people with a lack of real evidence to back up the denigration, and their inability to stand up for themselves. And in this film, it's rampant. If most of these people were still alive, the producers of this film would have faced at least half-a-dozen lawsuits for defamation of character. And, IMHO, rightfully so. I have no idea whether George Reeves was a wonderful saint or a terrible sinner, but I would like to see the evidence for most of the things that Reeves supposedly did in this film. I would like to know how they know what kind of sex he had with which people, for example. Toni and Eddie Mannix -- studio executive and wife; my impression from the little that I have read is that Mannix was no saint, but again, for all the things that he and his wife supposedly did according to this film, I'd like to see the evidence. Same for Howard Strickling. And George Reeves' mother. In fact, was there a single "good" person portrayed in this film. Most of the characters in this film were real people, and unless they have point-by-point evidence to back up each and every charge, this is disgraceful. So I tell you what I hope for -- that all the people directly involved in the telling unsupportable truths suffer being dragged through the same kind of mud someday; true or not true. That will be karma.That aside, there are some good things about this film, even though it is overly long and relies too much on flashbacks. To a large extent, the acting is quite good. Diane Lane always seems to turn in wonderful performances...and does here. Ben Affleck, here as George Reeves, is not one of my personal favorites, but every once in a while he impresses me...and he does here. Adrien Brody. Hmmm. Sorry, I've never seen the attraction, and still don't. He's not bad; he is acceptable as the detective and focus of the story (one of the few fictional major characters in the film). Production values are quite good and realistic for the time.What should have been done was to make this a fictional story that people might wonder -- is this about George Reeves? Then no one could complain about slander. Instead, people walk away from this film convinced this IS the TRUTH.

George Reeves (no relation to Christopher) was the first actor to play superman on television: his suicide was a mystery and many have speculated that he was actually murdered. This story is investigated in Alan Coulter's low-key thriller 'Hollywoodland', which combines scenes from Reeves' life with the story of a not-particularly likable private detective investigating the case. The result is a tale of superficial glamour, suburban reality, limited opportunities and complicated private lives; in fact, it's really such an everyday story (in spite of the fame of its protagonist) that it struggles to bear its noir-ish pretensions ("I'm just trying to turn a buck here" and so on). Whatever killed him, Reeves wanted to be an actor but was ultimately just a celebrity: famous for his role, but not for his talent. And that seems to be the most pertinent message from this film for our times.