MovieChat Forums > Hollywoodland (2006) Discussion > Who got through it in one sitting?

Who got through it in one sitting?

posted 17 years ago by writetoAnne-2
45 replies | jump to latest

It took me 4 sitting to get through this film, and I am not an easily bored person. In fact, I like a lot of movies that people with ADD will claim as boring. But god...I couldn't get through it.

Part of it had to due with the fact that Adrien Brody is completely unconvincing in this film. Ben Affleck was mediocre in his portrayal. I think he focused to much on trying to "sound" like George rather than becoming him.

Diane Lane and Bob Hoskins were the only two true actors in the film.

I expected the story to be told better than it was. I mean, this film was by far better than "The Black Dahlia" but still not enjoyable.

[–] rhorrorp54 17 years ago

I sat through it when I saw it in theaters and when I bought it on DVD, I actually sat through twice in a row. You might be surprised to learn that many people didn't get throught all at once but if that's how people watch movies, who am I to judge. As for Affleck, well at least he tried and at least we didn't get Jackman to play George. I love Hugh and all but he wouldn't have worked out.

If you can dance you can start a revolution.

[–] bron-tay 17 years ago

I couldn't make it in one sitting. By the time Simo watched the wrestling video, I'd had enough and I kept yelling at my DVD player for the movie to end. I didn't care about Simo's personal epiphanies any more.

[–] Trinian89 17 years ago

3!!
I Fell a sleep!
I maneged to finish at 3, thank goodness....

Bron-tay.. you did a good job... I fell asleep somewhere when simo goes to the crime scene with the mother.
and the second time it was actually when simo is talking from behind a door in the hotel.

I can't remember half the names in this movie, and I uselly never neither forget caracters in 4 days or fall a sleep during a movie..
forget falling a sleep 2 D@MN timess..

Uwe Boll... I just want to share something with you: *pisst*...you suck!

[–] moviegeek12003 17 years ago

I did. *raises hand*

Way better than "Black Dahlia."

Everyone did great in their roles but I find it very distrubing that Ben eerily resembles the actual George Reeves, even in the Kent costume.

[–] heyteegs 17 years ago

This is my fourth night watching this moive and I am just now yawning as the credits roll. I agree with everything writetoAnne-2 wrote:

1 - Brody was totally unconvincing.
2 - Affleck tried but couldn't cut the mustard.
3 - Lane, Hoskins and Robin Tunney were all good.

This genre is my favorite type of thriller but immediately it felt like a Chinatown rip-off. Come the ending, though, I wondered if it really didn't rip off Run Lola Run.

[–] alkamal_r 17 years ago

Hmm, well I watched it in one sitting (apart from a few breaks to get some snacks), and got quite engrossed into it. Still remember the names, read up about George Reeves, etc.

Anyway I guess I can see why some people couldnt see it one sitting. It did kinda drag on near the end, but I happened to be interested in the story. I think 2 hours was just about right for this type of movie though.

Ironically, this isn't even ironic at all.

[–] Hoiles23 17 years ago

I got through in in one. I actually quite enjoyed it. I thought the cast was uniformly excellent and I liked the style that was employed to tell the story. Though I've heard a lot of complaints that it never really tries to answer any questions, I actually like that about it. Nobody knows exactly what happened so I was perfectly fine with that.

[–] Conversed 17 years ago

i've watched bout 40 mins of it last night and I came here to find out if the rest is gonna be as awfully boring as the first 40 mins. hm... i see opinions are split bout that, but i'm still gonna watch it, i always finish my movies...

[–] kinchradio 17 years ago

I watch it all the way through, and thought it was a great movie, but I am old enough to be an original Superman fan from the 50's.

[–] Vash_ebas 17 years ago

I fell asleep about half way through. Had to rewind some portions, then fell asleep again till the end credits rolled, so I had to rewind again and watch. I still don't think I got the whole movie. I may have to watch it again because there was so much in it that i did not understand.

[–] bver88 17 years ago

I did. but then I am a child of the 50's... never had a tv though, so didn't catch 'george' the 1st time round....echos of LA Confidential and Chinatown, which IMHO are better films than this...but I did enjoy the film...captured the genre and times well enough for me....wonderful ensemble cast..no complaints there....writing kept my attention too....and hey....126 minutes??? not too much for me, but A D D wasn't even invented yet in the 50's... and as I said ...that was my time...spent 4 plus hours every Saturday afternoon at the cinema..never suffered from ennui back then...and thought Hollywoodland was worth my time NOW...see it for yourself...my rating was 8 (eight) stars.

[–] s7r4nger-1 17 years ago

Usually I watch films in one sitting. This one took me 3!!!!
Never thought so many people would have the same reaction to this film.
I like it. The performances are good... but it's just a "little" boring.

[–] salmo365 17 years ago

So far i'm 23 minutes into the movie and i've already paused it and come on here to see if its worth watching the rest.

This thread just jumped out at me.

Its not a bad film, I like the mood, i think the actors are doing well, its just so damn slow and i'm failing to associate with any of the characters.

[–] Conversed 17 years ago

i now finished it, and actually i think it was pretty good, at least the second half of the movie when they are actually investigating the case... well it's worth a watch after all...

[–] sdsungod 17 years ago

Quite the opposite. I usually start a movie at 11:00 pm, turn them off halfway through at midnight, and then watch the rest the following night. But I watched all of Hollywoodland in one sitting, from 11:00 pm to 1:00 am, and didn't even get tired or bored. Maybe that is because I really like mysteries.

Sorry you didn't have the attention span to sit through a movie that you didn't like. If you hated it so much, why did you go back and watch the rest of it, not once, but four times? Why not just not watch it, if it was so bad?

"Enough of that technical talk, Foo!"