Hollywood

Ryan Murphy seems to believe that Darren Criss is a talented actor or maybe he just has a soft spot for him. Personally I think he plays EVERY role the exact same way except for a few tweaks here and there.

I didn't think Jim Parsons had the chops to tackle a role like this but he was amazing as real life agent Henry Wilson. I absolutely love Henry Cavill and he will always be Superman (and Geralt) in my mind but I am a little curious to see what David Corenswet (Jack Costello) will do with the Superman role.

Everyone gave a great performance in Hollywood except for Laura Harriet who played Camille and Maude Apatow who played Henrietta. Maude is a nepo-baby so unfortunately I understand why she keeps getting roles but who is Laura related to ?? I haven't seen acting that bad since Selena Gomez in Only Murders in the Building.

This syrupy effort from Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan is, at best, pretty but hard to watch. I had to force myself through the first four episodes to get to a point where I cared enough to endure the bad writing and uneven direction and finish it. There's way too little plot, character development, or point to carry it. The cast did the best they could with some awful, preachy dialogue, overly sugary and convenient plot 'twists' and the shallowest characterisations.

The cast was a mixed bag of wonderful 'seniors', mid-ground familiar faces and inexperienced young over-actors.Patty Lupone, Holland Taylor and Joe Mantello shone in their roles and carried the show throughout. In the mid field, Queen Latifah, Dylan McDermott, Darren Criss and Jim Parsons did excellent work and obviously enjoyed their roles. Queen Latifah always has screen presence and as such, she was under-utilised. Dylan McDermott revelled in his silver fox rendition and Jim Parsons developed his character, as best as the script would allow, from vile to virtuous (too much so, but anyway). The young ones added the pretty and, possibly accidental, youthful naivete.

As to the point of the show, it was never clear what it was trying to do: just entertain? make a point about gays (as a gay person I am tired of the cliche way this is always depicted, find a new cause or at least a new angle) and coloureds? was it to show the 'true' Hollywood? (hardly). At times I wondered if it was trying to be a 1950's women's melodrama about the making of a 1950's melodrama, but that didn't really play out. The directing was extremely uneven. Though it was very heavily preachy (way too preachy) it didn't give any depth to the topic: it really only exploited the 'issues' to provide the little plot that there was. It even seemed to endorse the violence against the journalist/reporter that was going to expose something that was shown to be true.

It was mostly predictable, cliched and shallow and, therefore, very disappointing. It's a shame that all the effort put into recreating the era, ultimately amounted to very little: an opportunity missed (as others have said). Somewhat entertainingly disappointing: will just a little more, it could have been so much more.

The creators of a mini-series have made a significant effort to demonstrate that hardly any straight men existed in Hollywood during the 1940s. While this might be true, there is an ethical dilemma. Using rumors and facts to fill the script with events that happened and using the names of real people while mixing them with wishful fantasies and lies is a lame move. It destroys the tone of the series. For instance, showing Rock Hudson coming out as gay in public in 1946 with a black boyfriend or Ernest Borgnine presenting an Oscar to a non-existent movie with a non-existent cast is unrealistic. Moreover, the series contains extended love scenes that lack gusto, eroticism, or reason, making them redundant. Despite this, six out of seven episodes are watchable. However, the last episode is full of cheesiness and lacks surprise and intensity, making it forgettable.

Hollywood is another good Ryan Murphy show. It follows the lives of aspiring actors and filmmakers who will pretty much do anything to succeed in their dreams of making it big in Hollywood, it takes place in post-World War II Hollywood. I didn't really know what to expect from this but I gave it a chance because of all the good things I heard and I'm glad I did because it was a very well done series. It seems like anything Ryan Murphy does these days is a huge success! The stories are very diverse and interesting. Most of the bad reviews are because they say it isn't true...who cares? It's a tv show, not a documentary! It admits that it takes places in a revisionist Hollywood that is a pick me up series.

Full of colors, fun, diverse characters and drama, Hollywood is a mini series (I don't get the current possibility for season 2) worth a watch if you're into historical what-ifs, or you just want to watch a fun "period" drama that is not the real Golden Age Hollywood... So don't expect history lessons, and just enjoy 1940s through rose colored glasses. It would've been a better choice to go full-fiction with all fiction characters though, without terrible Rock Hudson portrayal for example. Or to go 100% factual (it's not that hard) and show how things really happened in Hollywood, with real struggles of aspiring writers, directors, actors, poor, non-white, different sexuality (for example, Rock Hudson's real closet case). As for the quality of the series in general, it started excellent and then just lost itself with unbelievable plot and characters acting forced, unnatural and silly. The cinematography is great. Drama is mostly interesting, something that's usual for Ryan Murphy (I love American Horror story and Scream queens, he should stick to horror comedy). All in all, I gave 7/10 for the first few episodes, cinematography, silly drama and feel-good mindless fun. It would have been much lower if I took it seriously... Or if I judge by last few episodes... Or if they decide to make season 2 (oh no)! P. S. The tune at the end of each episode is so annoying and repetitive!