*** Spoiler alert ***
Ultimately the movie focuses on a shyster lawyer with situational ethics, that finds his way amid chasing through the ashes of the end of George Reeves.
*** End Spoiler Alert ***
Affleck looks almost as bad here as in Jersey Girl -- overacting, smarmy, you name it. In one or two places, uncomfortably out of character. Most of the picture he does OK, and does a fair representation of the guy some of us remember from when the Superman show was on. A good character actor, I am not sold Ben Affleck has what it takes for leading roles. I didn't think he sustained the effort here.
Diane Lane is gorgeous, warm, and charming. But she didn't really sell me when Mrs. Mannix turns possessive. Whether the director had the wrong slant, or whatever, that part of the action detracted a lot from believability -- I started watching the acting instead of the picture. But that may partially also go back to Affleck's weak spots.
George Reeves was troubled in his career. Only a single brief mention of George's generosity to struggling actor friends -- many walk-on bit parts were created to help actors, rather than to suit the script. Much of this outreach was glossed over.
I know that the point of the movie was to unravel the death of Reeves. So mostly stuff that didn't pertain to the death and potential motivations leading to the death should have been left out, or glossed over. With that in mind, I still feel the portrait of George Reeves was skewed solely to fuel unlikely death scenarios.
The IMDb page calls out an anachronism -- the LED elevator panel. I contend that for a picture shot in pseudo-era style, way too much sex was depicted, rather than implied. And the graphic scenes didn't contribute anything to the story being told. The departure from the genre 'discrete' approach was jarring and felt rude to me. In the 1950's and 1960's no movie would have been that graphic.
I went to the movie to learn more about George Reeves. With all the names in the film, surely this must have been a labor of love to a fallen comrade. Nope. Movies are about making money. As Reeves is told by his manager 'Sometimes Actors act, other times you gotta work. Take the paycheck.', or something like that. I think probably what we see of George 'Superman' Reeves in this movie is true, mostly, but there was more to him according to other things I have read.
Not a bad film, but a bit disappointing.
Ultimately the movie focuses on a shyster lawyer with situational ethics, that finds his way amid chasing through the ashes of the end of George Reeves.
*** End Spoiler Alert ***
Affleck looks almost as bad here as in Jersey Girl -- overacting, smarmy, you name it. In one or two places, uncomfortably out of character. Most of the picture he does OK, and does a fair representation of the guy some of us remember from when the Superman show was on. A good character actor, I am not sold Ben Affleck has what it takes for leading roles. I didn't think he sustained the effort here.
Diane Lane is gorgeous, warm, and charming. But she didn't really sell me when Mrs. Mannix turns possessive. Whether the director had the wrong slant, or whatever, that part of the action detracted a lot from believability -- I started watching the acting instead of the picture. But that may partially also go back to Affleck's weak spots.
George Reeves was troubled in his career. Only a single brief mention of George's generosity to struggling actor friends -- many walk-on bit parts were created to help actors, rather than to suit the script. Much of this outreach was glossed over.
I know that the point of the movie was to unravel the death of Reeves. So mostly stuff that didn't pertain to the death and potential motivations leading to the death should have been left out, or glossed over. With that in mind, I still feel the portrait of George Reeves was skewed solely to fuel unlikely death scenarios.
The IMDb page calls out an anachronism -- the LED elevator panel. I contend that for a picture shot in pseudo-era style, way too much sex was depicted, rather than implied. And the graphic scenes didn't contribute anything to the story being told. The departure from the genre 'discrete' approach was jarring and felt rude to me. In the 1950's and 1960's no movie would have been that graphic.
I went to the movie to learn more about George Reeves. With all the names in the film, surely this must have been a labor of love to a fallen comrade. Nope. Movies are about making money. As Reeves is told by his manager 'Sometimes Actors act, other times you gotta work. Take the paycheck.', or something like that. I think probably what we see of George 'Superman' Reeves in this movie is true, mostly, but there was more to him according to other things I have read.
Not a bad film, but a bit disappointing.