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.

[–] hobokenart 10 years ago

What, no reply to the OP saying maybe he should just stick to Transformers because maybe there aren't enough explosions in this film? Is everyone OK?

Actually it's great to see an actual dialogue for a change, and although I'm enjoying this film (watching it now) the pace is a little slow. I really like the atmosphere and the story though so there's no issue with sleep. Of course it helps that it's Saturday morning and not midnight or something.

[–] hansenmv2002 10 years ago

I was intrigued by the premise --- looking forward to the other random 80% of this i missed. Yeah - might take years -- but im not in a hurry.

Bruce Campbell:[When asked what he would want with him if stuck on a deserted island] A continent.

[–] contact-258 9 years ago

An excellent movie. I usually fall asleep during movies - just ask my wife. But this one was gripping and I had no trouble getting through it (although at the very end I was getting tired - it had a strange ending and I will post on that next). This was done in Noir style and I love noir style, so it makes sense that I loved it.
Cheers!

[–] jrhpax 9 years ago

I didn't particularly like the movie the first time I saw it, but when I watched the "extras" on DVD, I realized that the movie had many great scenes and lines. So I watched it again and thoroughly enjoyed it. The storytelling was a bit elliptical, and I guess I didn't always understand what was happening the first time. It's also possible that I was tired the first time I watched it. Anyway, I think it's a good movie, and it has one of Ben Affleck's best performances.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sage2112 9 years ago

Maybe someday you people will grow up, and it won't take a jim abrams or micheal bay movie with lots of explosions to entertain you. Then again, maybe you won't - I don't care. Hollywoodland is a great film.

[–] ridge-m-1 8 years ago

Typical IMDb thread with the usual suspects whining. Too bad movie-viewers under 30 have a difficult time with a much better than average neo-noir picture. BTW, watching the film on Blu-ray should be mandatory before "critiquing".

[–] Suriname86 8 years ago

I watched it at home. I watched it over a 4 hour period; took a couple breaks and came back to watch. It's a good movie but it drags a bit and I didn't care for Brody. He was trying to do this Chinatown thing and it just didn't work for me. The supporting cast wasn't that strong either; except Hoskins, he was great.

Affleck was great too. He did a perfect job at portraying the charm, ambition and frailty of Reeves. I don't know why people think it was a substandard performance. The Reeves story was a lot more interesting to me actually. I think they should've cut Brody or gone with a different actor to make the secondary story more interesting. Joaquin would've been perfect; I dont' know why he didn't get the part.

[–] liketoknowwhy 8 years ago

This post is almost 10 years old and it still holds true.

I've been trying to watch this movie since it came out. Ten years later and after over 5 attempts, I finally gave up and went to wikipedia for the plot.