BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Josephina Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Robert J. Maxwell I missed much of this so these observations have to be qualified.I'd avoided it for some years because I figured, well, another ill-conceived movie about a celebrity that nobody cares about anymore. Draw in the aging baby boomers who still remember George Reeves playing Superman on television, and the always gossip hungry who want the dish on what really happened -- surely not the suicide everyone said.It's better than that, by quite a bit.In fact, if you forget about George Reeves (Ben Affleck) and Superman and just substitute some improvised name, you can view it as a decent example of what's come to be called neo-noir. It's in color and the story reflect modern sensibilities -- Diane Lane, as one of Affleck's amours, uses a word rarely heard even in movies pustular with the F bomb -- but at bottom we have the intrepid but very human private investigator (Adrian Brody) trying to figure out what caused the death of George Reeves. Yes, everyone in Hollywood is convinced he killed himself, but how did the shell casing get UNDER the body? Just as important is the script's peek into the corrupt and materialistic culture of Hollywood. These Suits are really sinister, especially Bob Hoskins with those gravelly faux-New-York intonations. And you can't trust anybody, as Jack Nicholson found out in "Chinatown." Your own client, the victim's MOTHER, will sell you out for a statue in front of the Chinese Theater.Adrian Brody, as the PI, does an exceptional job. No one on the planet has features like his -- those slitted eyes, that monumental incandescent nose, that knowing smile. They beat hell out of him but he keeps on trucking.He gets competent support from the rest of the cast.Somebody ought to send a bouquet to whoever was in charge of period details, the clothing, the make up, the artifacts, the hair styles. It's at least as well done as it is in any other film set in the same period, the early fifties.The director is Allen Coulter and he's been meticulous in his staging. He even handles the extras adroitly, or rather the "atmosphere people," as they like to be called.Next time it's on television I expect to watch it in its entirety.

beauzee slightly overlong but compelling drama based upon a true story.the obvious "companion" would be Stone's JFK > about an earnest, honest public servant who "knows" the facts and has developed a very credible explanation of a murder..but who cannot get his explanation beyond a headline or two. powers that be will let the scenario ride..unless it gets...too "close".the story really is more about a private detective who gets obsessed with getting to the truth of the George reeves reported suicide. he goes full throttle at the case, leaving behind another client and his family.beautiful, tasteful period cinematography, meticulously detailed attire, vehicles, music of 1959.we get a real drama here plus a credible summation of an event which has pervaded our consciousness for decades.minor demerits for length of movie and for the character of the investigator's girlfriend. her acting is fine but the character seems placed in the storyline to lend sympathy to the victimized wife. as if to say, he's wildly "rogue"...ultimately irresponsible.see this movie!

romanorum1 Years ago the huge Hollywood sign used to read Hollywoodland; the name seems to connote an expose, the city's seamy underbelly. Whereas a film like "LA Confidential" focused on the police, this one centers on a Hollywood actor. George Reeves was a secondary performer whose big break was television's "Adventures of Superman" (1952-1958), a very popular series (filming actually began in 1951). Reeves may not have been happy with the starring role, but he did become famous. Not only did the kids watch the half-hour program that featured the mythical comic book super-hero, but also their parents tuned in. After the series run, in June 1959 the despondent 45 year-old actor was dead upstairs in his house with a bullet in his head, apparently a suicide. Three people, including the actor's fiancé, were downstairs at the time of death. Thousands of fans were shocked by the demise of "Superman," the Man of Steel.According to the film, the local police and studio moguls want the case closed as a suicide. But there are strange circumstances behind the situation, like the two bullet holes in the bedroom floor that the LAPD seemed to discount. And why did the folks on the first floor take 45 minutes to call the police? Now Reeves was known to have had a former affair with Toni Mannix, MGM studio executive Ed Mannix's wife. And did Reeves get along well with his girlfriend? So the screenplay brings up three possibilities of Reeves' demise: (1) a suicide, (2) an accidental killing while struggling with fiancé Leonore Lemmon (Robin Tunney), and (3) a contract hit by mogul Mannix (Bob Hoskins). To solve the case, (fictional) detective Louis Simo (Adrien Brody) is hired (by Reeves mother), mostly by luck through his previous employer, a detective agency. Simo is the one whose investigation opens up the window to Reeves' life. In fact, the movie delves into parallel stories between the lives of the two men. We see how the self-doubting actor got the role of "Superman," his affair with Toni Mannix (who helped his career and bought him a house), and his personal struggles to be recognized as a talent. Meanwhile Simo's life is in turmoil. He likes to drink and has been mostly unsuccessful in his working career. He has alienated his son, who has a stepfather. Like many children, the son, Evan (Zack Mills), idolized "Superman," and is crushed by the demise of Reeves. Will the jaunt become Simo's personal redemption to salvage a failed life?Ben Afleck does not really look like George Reeves, although he does well with the late actor's mannerisms and his charm. Some critics felt that since Ben Afleck played the role of a second rate actor, his performance was good enough. But Afleck fans will like anything he does. Brody handles his task OK, but he comes across as cocky and not especially likable. Do we really need to know about his domestic situation? There is a bit too much focus on the life of the fictional egotistical detective (and his uncooperative wife), and not enough on Reeves (although we do pick up much information). And when the movie ends, we ask, "Well, what did he really do?" In short, Simo's anxious life simply does not add to the story. Diane Lane was good as Reeves estranged lover; watch her reaction when Reeves dumps her. Bob Hoskins as Ed Mannix is quite chilling, Acting much like a mob boss, he has the look of a man whom no one had better cross. Also introduced is the despicable mother, Helen Bessolo (Lois Smith), who lied to her son George about his biological father and other aspects of his upbringing. This feature is an honest examination of the life and times of George Reeves (1940s-1950s). Production values are quite high, and the movie evokes the 1950-period quite well. How about those old-style large-finned cars? The reproductions of the old-time backstage creations are interesting, and it becomes obvious just how low budget the series really was. But as a murder-mystery the story is just OK, and its ending is certainly anti-climatic.

vincentlynch-moonoi 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.