The Coen Brothers are heroes of mine. They travel from universe to universe remaining true to themselves. Hail, Caesar should have been , I thought, a familiar universe for them but they seem lost. A journey without a clear destination. There are, of course, a few pleasures along the road. The scene between Alden Ehrenreich and Ralph Finnes is a gem. Alden Ehrenreich is a breath of fresh air with vintage breezes that are exciting, compelling and totally disarming. The tap dance routine with Channing Tatum is also a lot of fun even if I can't quite get Channing Tatum. Great body and he can dance but he seems to be somewhere else. Impossible to connect on the screen with him. I hear he gets millions of dollars per movie so maybe it's just me. The opposite of George Clooney who launches himself body and soul to every moment he has on the screen. I will shut up now and wait for the next Coen Brothers movie.
380 Reviews
Not a film for the average viewer.
planktonrules6 August 2016
I was very surprised how quickly "Hail, Caesar" was in and out of the theaters...but now after seeing the film, I can completely understand why. It was as if the Coen Brothers simply said "let's do a film for ourselves...who cares whether or not the public enjoys it or not!". I appreciated it myself...but I am also not the average film-goer. As for the average viewer, the film makes allusions to many events in the history of Hollywood...but if you aren't aware of these events or rumors, you'll not understand or appreciate much of the film.
The story is based SLIGHT on the life of Eddie Mannix--a motion picture exec who was known as a 'fixer'--a guy who knew how to make bad problems do away...and with the bad behavior of many of the stars, this was an exhausting job. The story seems to be just a slice out of Eddie's life--possibly not the worst time as a fixer but a busy one. Through the course of the film, several problems arise--such as a pregnant single starlet and an actor of dabbles in communism. In each case, Mannix has to get to work to be sure the public never knows...and you see how exhausting this job is.
If you are looking for big laughs, you won't see them. There are a few small ones...just a few. Instead, it's more like a time machine trip to the early 1950s and you are that fly on the wall watching these Hollywood types as they go about their lives and doing stupid things. I do NOT strongly recommend the film but only mildly...and only if you are a real fan of the films of yesteryear AND are aware of the misbehaviors of some of our stars...or alleged misbehaviors.
The story is based SLIGHT on the life of Eddie Mannix--a motion picture exec who was known as a 'fixer'--a guy who knew how to make bad problems do away...and with the bad behavior of many of the stars, this was an exhausting job. The story seems to be just a slice out of Eddie's life--possibly not the worst time as a fixer but a busy one. Through the course of the film, several problems arise--such as a pregnant single starlet and an actor of dabbles in communism. In each case, Mannix has to get to work to be sure the public never knows...and you see how exhausting this job is.
If you are looking for big laughs, you won't see them. There are a few small ones...just a few. Instead, it's more like a time machine trip to the early 1950s and you are that fly on the wall watching these Hollywood types as they go about their lives and doing stupid things. I do NOT strongly recommend the film but only mildly...and only if you are a real fan of the films of yesteryear AND are aware of the misbehaviors of some of our stars...or alleged misbehaviors.
Would that it were so simple
bob-the-movie-man7 March 2016
In the Coen Brothers latest "Hail Caesar" we have exactly the same Hollywood-based mix of communist writers and Hedda Hopper-style gossip columnists as recently seem in "Trumbo": but the films could hardly be more different.
"Hail Caesar" is the film within the film: the latest Victor Mature style 'God and Sandals' epic for Capitol Pictures, starring the megastar Baird Whitlock (George Clooney). Trying to keep this movie on track - together with all the other movies being concurrently filmed - is tough no-nonsense fixer Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin). These other movies include an Esther William's style water ballet starring gal-in-trouble DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson); an Anchor's Aweigh-style musical starring Burt Gurney (Channing Tatum); and a pot-boiling drama featuring non- acting singing-cowboy Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich).
To add to Mannix's tension, Whitlock is drugged and kidnapped before the final climactic Crucifixion scene can be filmed. Who's behind the plot and why, and can Mannix restore order while keeping the story out of the eye of voracious journalist twins Thora and Thessaly Thacker (both Tilda Swinton)?
The film plays out as a series of loosely connected vignettes, some much more successful than others. Johansson's water ballet, and indeed her entire sub-plot, is all rather dull and irrelevant and in my opinion could happily have been ditched.
Channing Tatum however is a revelation as a song and dance man in a Gene Kelly tribute. His song and dance number was for me the best part of the film and I could watch this stuff all day: I would personally LOVE IT if someone would make a complete retro-feature film in this ilk. Watch out too for Christopher Lambert ("Highlander") as his almost incomprehensible Swiss director.
Capturing the most attention though is young Ehrenreich as the upcoming star without a clue. Many of his scenes, especially those with classical director Laurence Laurentz (a brilliant Ralph Fiennes) are hilarious.
Popping up in cameos are Jonah Hill (as the fixer's well paid 'man to take the rap'); Frances McDormand ("Fargo") as a dottie film editor who really shouldn't wear scarves; and Robert Picardo ("Star Trek Voyager") as the Jewish representative in a contentious meeting of religious representatives discussing Christ's portrayal in the film ("So, a priest, a Protestant, a Greek Orthodox and a Jew walked into a studio...").
Having last year enormously enjoyed the studio tour at Warner Brother's studios in LA (HIGHLY recommended if you can book ahead for when you are in town) it was great to see the studios making an actual film there again (as opposed to TV). Cinematographer Roger Deakin has great fun suffusing the studio and everything else with a 50's glow, an effect extending to the old 4:3 screen format (which I can see generating some "my DVD is defective" returns in a few months!)
Is it any good? I think it's fair to say that this is a 'Marmite' movie (which if you are non-British is a way of saying that the film will massively divide opinion). I've not seen as many people walk out of a film at the cinema in recent years.
I personally found it a light-hearted and nostalgic trip into a golden age of studio-management, show-casing again the comic gurning talents of Clooney (particularly prevalent in the scene where he gets slapped around a bit and which demonstrates his range - as if we needed reminding after "The Descendants"). Brolin is great as the straight-guy Mannix and most of the rest of the cast add value, though Johansson seems Ill at ease with her role. I'm also afraid 2 x Swinton is not equal to 1 x Mirren in "Trumbo". But it is Alden Ehrenreich that is the real acting find of the film - a breakout role for him after more minor roles in films like "Stoker" and "Blue Jasmine".
This is not the best Coen brothers film, being patchy and spasmodic and, in places, rather too clever for its own good. I got the same feeling watching bits of this (for example, the writer's meeting scene) as I do in many Woody Allen films: that I am not politically / philosophically intelligent enough to understand the niceties of the script (and I'm considered quite bright!). This can be a bit alienating for an audience.
If I think back to all its numerous sub-parts it was often in 4-Fad+ territory.... but overall it's lack of cohesive story arc brings the overall confection down a notch or two.
(Please visit bob-the-movie-man.com for the graphical version of this review. Thanks).
"Hail Caesar" is the film within the film: the latest Victor Mature style 'God and Sandals' epic for Capitol Pictures, starring the megastar Baird Whitlock (George Clooney). Trying to keep this movie on track - together with all the other movies being concurrently filmed - is tough no-nonsense fixer Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin). These other movies include an Esther William's style water ballet starring gal-in-trouble DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson); an Anchor's Aweigh-style musical starring Burt Gurney (Channing Tatum); and a pot-boiling drama featuring non- acting singing-cowboy Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich).
To add to Mannix's tension, Whitlock is drugged and kidnapped before the final climactic Crucifixion scene can be filmed. Who's behind the plot and why, and can Mannix restore order while keeping the story out of the eye of voracious journalist twins Thora and Thessaly Thacker (both Tilda Swinton)?
The film plays out as a series of loosely connected vignettes, some much more successful than others. Johansson's water ballet, and indeed her entire sub-plot, is all rather dull and irrelevant and in my opinion could happily have been ditched.
Channing Tatum however is a revelation as a song and dance man in a Gene Kelly tribute. His song and dance number was for me the best part of the film and I could watch this stuff all day: I would personally LOVE IT if someone would make a complete retro-feature film in this ilk. Watch out too for Christopher Lambert ("Highlander") as his almost incomprehensible Swiss director.
Capturing the most attention though is young Ehrenreich as the upcoming star without a clue. Many of his scenes, especially those with classical director Laurence Laurentz (a brilliant Ralph Fiennes) are hilarious.
Popping up in cameos are Jonah Hill (as the fixer's well paid 'man to take the rap'); Frances McDormand ("Fargo") as a dottie film editor who really shouldn't wear scarves; and Robert Picardo ("Star Trek Voyager") as the Jewish representative in a contentious meeting of religious representatives discussing Christ's portrayal in the film ("So, a priest, a Protestant, a Greek Orthodox and a Jew walked into a studio...").
Having last year enormously enjoyed the studio tour at Warner Brother's studios in LA (HIGHLY recommended if you can book ahead for when you are in town) it was great to see the studios making an actual film there again (as opposed to TV). Cinematographer Roger Deakin has great fun suffusing the studio and everything else with a 50's glow, an effect extending to the old 4:3 screen format (which I can see generating some "my DVD is defective" returns in a few months!)
Is it any good? I think it's fair to say that this is a 'Marmite' movie (which if you are non-British is a way of saying that the film will massively divide opinion). I've not seen as many people walk out of a film at the cinema in recent years.
I personally found it a light-hearted and nostalgic trip into a golden age of studio-management, show-casing again the comic gurning talents of Clooney (particularly prevalent in the scene where he gets slapped around a bit and which demonstrates his range - as if we needed reminding after "The Descendants"). Brolin is great as the straight-guy Mannix and most of the rest of the cast add value, though Johansson seems Ill at ease with her role. I'm also afraid 2 x Swinton is not equal to 1 x Mirren in "Trumbo". But it is Alden Ehrenreich that is the real acting find of the film - a breakout role for him after more minor roles in films like "Stoker" and "Blue Jasmine".
This is not the best Coen brothers film, being patchy and spasmodic and, in places, rather too clever for its own good. I got the same feeling watching bits of this (for example, the writer's meeting scene) as I do in many Woody Allen films: that I am not politically / philosophically intelligent enough to understand the niceties of the script (and I'm considered quite bright!). This can be a bit alienating for an audience.
If I think back to all its numerous sub-parts it was often in 4-Fad+ territory.... but overall it's lack of cohesive story arc brings the overall confection down a notch or two.
(Please visit bob-the-movie-man.com for the graphical version of this review. Thanks).
Worth a Shot for Cohen Brothers Fans
svorva19 February 2016
My cohort fell asleep during Hail, Caesar!. Sure, it was a late showing, but I am sure in theaters around the country people are nodding off or walking out of this one. Let them. Caesar! barely has a discernible plot, profound themes, or even a convenient ah-ha moment. But we should be used to this by now, this is typical Cohen brothers' affair. Caesar! is a waltz with insanity, sacrificing many crutches that helps audiences engage. This film will not garner popular approval, but it is still an accomplishment.
If there is a plot in Hail! Caesar, Eddie Mannix is certainly at its center. This Catholic studio head must right the ship or face catastrophe. The film is a 48 hour window of insight into a Hollywood studio, the setting for Mannix's everyday mad life. What he experiences is basically a relentless barrage of vignettes and personalities. There is a western, musicals, a costume drama, and of course the historical epic itself. Each has its style, director, crew, and most importantly its stars. The sheer density of material is somewhat overwhelming. All display are equally elaborate, including the cast, which is recognizable down to the bit parts. This is one of the best ensemble performances in recent memory. Tatum and McDormand are my personal favorite parts, but all are enjoyable. Additionally, I would bet this is the first Oscar candidate for cinematography. What will disappoint some audiences is the lack of follow up or exploration. Ideas and themes are introduced and later simply hinted at. Premium cameos are often utilized just once, lucky characters thrice at best. Some may think parody requires more extensive analysis. However, Hail! Caesar is ripe with commentary, it just never stops to take a breath. The humor is not rooted in scrutiny, rather in the absurdism and frantic pace. This style does not even prevent momentary poignancy. Hail! Caesar's climax is a parody of sappy overwrought moments of clarity, but there is a sense of a genuine moral, a true stance on faith, movies, and reality. I will certainly rewatch this film again. Remember, The Big Lebowski was not a hit on arrival. I fear comparing the two, but I feel both were smarter, more extensive, and subtly funny in ways not obviously apparent. I might just be trying too hard to hawk this movie in order to convince myself, but I sincerely think it is worth a viewing for those who have previously appreciated the Cohen Brothers body of works.
If there is a plot in Hail! Caesar, Eddie Mannix is certainly at its center. This Catholic studio head must right the ship or face catastrophe. The film is a 48 hour window of insight into a Hollywood studio, the setting for Mannix's everyday mad life. What he experiences is basically a relentless barrage of vignettes and personalities. There is a western, musicals, a costume drama, and of course the historical epic itself. Each has its style, director, crew, and most importantly its stars. The sheer density of material is somewhat overwhelming. All display are equally elaborate, including the cast, which is recognizable down to the bit parts. This is one of the best ensemble performances in recent memory. Tatum and McDormand are my personal favorite parts, but all are enjoyable. Additionally, I would bet this is the first Oscar candidate for cinematography. What will disappoint some audiences is the lack of follow up or exploration. Ideas and themes are introduced and later simply hinted at. Premium cameos are often utilized just once, lucky characters thrice at best. Some may think parody requires more extensive analysis. However, Hail! Caesar is ripe with commentary, it just never stops to take a breath. The humor is not rooted in scrutiny, rather in the absurdism and frantic pace. This style does not even prevent momentary poignancy. Hail! Caesar's climax is a parody of sappy overwrought moments of clarity, but there is a sense of a genuine moral, a true stance on faith, movies, and reality. I will certainly rewatch this film again. Remember, The Big Lebowski was not a hit on arrival. I fear comparing the two, but I feel both were smarter, more extensive, and subtly funny in ways not obviously apparent. I might just be trying too hard to hawk this movie in order to convince myself, but I sincerely think it is worth a viewing for those who have previously appreciated the Cohen Brothers body of works.
Wanted to Like It So Much More
EntropyFashion6 February 2016
I am a huge Coen Brothers Fan. Many of their films are hard core 10's in my ratings and I had an uneasy feeling going into this one. The trailer made me think of Intolerable Cruelty more than O Brother Where Art Thou or many of their other films.
It felt like a strung together series of little set pieces that didn't hang together as a whole. I won't mention the plot since there was virtually none and what there was was fairly flat and unimportant.
Normally the Brothers can overcome a weak plot (although strong plot-lines have driven several of their movies) with strong quirky performances and memorable cinematography.
Sadly, the dialog lacked snap, the film didn't pop off the screen looks wise, given that it's a period piece, and with such a strong cast, everyone looked tired - almost as if they had come in to film their parts after getting off their day jobs and they were just doing a favor to the Coen's.
Overall I've seen much worse but when you go to a Coen Brothers film, you just expect much more.
It felt like a strung together series of little set pieces that didn't hang together as a whole. I won't mention the plot since there was virtually none and what there was was fairly flat and unimportant.
Normally the Brothers can overcome a weak plot (although strong plot-lines have driven several of their movies) with strong quirky performances and memorable cinematography.
Sadly, the dialog lacked snap, the film didn't pop off the screen looks wise, given that it's a period piece, and with such a strong cast, everyone looked tired - almost as if they had come in to film their parts after getting off their day jobs and they were just doing a favor to the Coen's.
Overall I've seen much worse but when you go to a Coen Brothers film, you just expect much more.
In many ways should have been stronger, but is still good fun if you like the Coens' work
bob the moo18 September 2016
This film seemed to get quite a mixed response when it came out, and watching for myself I can understand why. On one hand it is a light bit of fun, which is professionally delivered in all aspects; however at the same time it always feels like it could easily have been more than this – and maybe could have delivered more along the lines of other Coen brother films. How strongly you feel about this will depend on the individual; for me I fell between the two stools.
As a comedy I enjoyed it. It had smart dialogue and characters, all with plenty of color and atmosphere. At the same time the film looked great from the cinematography through to the cast involved. This did work against it for me too then; mainly because it seemed to always harken back to other films such as Barton Fink, and other better films. This feeling is confirmed because Hail Caesar! is at its best in the moment, but doesn't really build or develop into something more satisfying. It is still funny, very well delivered, and enjoyable as part of the familiar Coen world, but they have done better, and it is hard not to think that while watching this.
As a comedy I enjoyed it. It had smart dialogue and characters, all with plenty of color and atmosphere. At the same time the film looked great from the cinematography through to the cast involved. This did work against it for me too then; mainly because it seemed to always harken back to other films such as Barton Fink, and other better films. This feeling is confirmed because Hail Caesar! is at its best in the moment, but doesn't really build or develop into something more satisfying. It is still funny, very well delivered, and enjoyable as part of the familiar Coen world, but they have done better, and it is hard not to think that while watching this.
Not one of the Coens' better films
blanketman774 February 2016
Caught this at a screening the other night, and wasn't very impressed. The laughs are infrequent, and it's downright boring in stretches. It does have its moments, though: My favorite was Brolin trying to get reassurance from an array of religious leaders that his new biblical epic won't offend anyone. And Ehrenreich, who I'd never heard of, was great as the clueless but sincere rodeo expert who has somehow fallen into serious act-ting... much to Ralph Fiennes' chagrin. Who knew a line like "if only it were so simple?" could generate such hilarity? Such moments are few and far between, though.
Overall, this is a C+ flick - I think it's getting over-rated by critics just cuz of the Coens' name. It's one of their weaker efforts.
Overall, this is a C+ flick - I think it's getting over-rated by critics just cuz of the Coens' name. It's one of their weaker efforts.
Glorious Mess of a Movie
reisen557 February 2016
It looks so good. Really, the feel of 1950s Hollywood has never been better, the photography is first rate with a stellar cast directed by the popular and very much held in esteem COEN BROTHERS. Trailer made it look like an fun Frank Capra kind of film. And when we walked out of it, given all the above, we missed something. A movie. There is none here. It is a great job made by talented people aplenty. It wants to be that fun film but never finds the movie. A few jokes. Not enough. Quirky fun characters, but not weird enough. Sublots aplenty, but they never run together and never are resolved. Good acting that goes nowhere. This fine film is just a bunch of dead end streets that are way too short with really interesting stuff on the side of the road but no intersection.
Neil Simon was given script advice once that all the characters have to meet in the play AT LEAST ONCE. Here, none meet at all. They have the subplot and that is it. Ending was weak too. Meh.
Neil Simon was given script advice once that all the characters have to meet in the play AT LEAST ONCE. Here, none meet at all. They have the subplot and that is it. Ending was weak too. Meh.
Not for everyone, and maybe that's a good thing...
info-123886 February 2016
HAIL CAESAR! ("A Story of the Christ", as we are told in the title card) is one of those offbeat gems that I have no doubt grows in affection with repeated viewings. Folks here complain that it's not a laugh-a-minute farce, that it's not this, that it's not that...
Here's what it *is*: the film version of RADIO DAYS.
Just like Allen made a loving pastiche of radio at its height in the 1940s, so have the Coens done for film at the tail end of its Silver Screen era, when studios manipulated its contract players and worked the media to prevent the "unfortunate" aspects from being revealed to an audience that just wanted escapism fantasy. Josh Brolin is the tightly-wound studio "head of physical production", an enforcer who's being seduced by a potential job with Lockheed to oversee work on the atom bomb. Before he can come to a decision about whether or not take it, he has to deal with the sudden disappearance of the slightly disconnected-from-reality George Clooney (who looks like he's having a blast in this, especially in the final scene of his big budget sword-and-sandel Jesus epic). Along the way, we see the Coens' take on Esther Williams, Carmen Miranda, Gene Kelly, and a host of other stars from the era...
... and this is what makes the film so damn much fun. It's not about the story, it's about how the Coens are celebrating the films we have perhaps idealized a bit too much: Esther Williams' underwater ballets and Gene Kelly in NYC for 24 hours and Gary Cooper trying to play it in a toney, high-class period drama. There are so many references to the great films of the day that if you blink, you'll miss a few — they follow fast and furious and sometimes with little more than a sly wink. If you are an old time movie buff, you will love this film to tiny little bits. If not... well, you probably wont enjoy it all that much.
But then the Coens probably didn't make it for you, did they...
Here's what it *is*: the film version of RADIO DAYS.
Just like Allen made a loving pastiche of radio at its height in the 1940s, so have the Coens done for film at the tail end of its Silver Screen era, when studios manipulated its contract players and worked the media to prevent the "unfortunate" aspects from being revealed to an audience that just wanted escapism fantasy. Josh Brolin is the tightly-wound studio "head of physical production", an enforcer who's being seduced by a potential job with Lockheed to oversee work on the atom bomb. Before he can come to a decision about whether or not take it, he has to deal with the sudden disappearance of the slightly disconnected-from-reality George Clooney (who looks like he's having a blast in this, especially in the final scene of his big budget sword-and-sandel Jesus epic). Along the way, we see the Coens' take on Esther Williams, Carmen Miranda, Gene Kelly, and a host of other stars from the era...
... and this is what makes the film so damn much fun. It's not about the story, it's about how the Coens are celebrating the films we have perhaps idealized a bit too much: Esther Williams' underwater ballets and Gene Kelly in NYC for 24 hours and Gary Cooper trying to play it in a toney, high-class period drama. There are so many references to the great films of the day that if you blink, you'll miss a few — they follow fast and furious and sometimes with little more than a sly wink. If you are an old time movie buff, you will love this film to tiny little bits. If not... well, you probably wont enjoy it all that much.
But then the Coens probably didn't make it for you, did they...
Nice try
mls418231 March 2023
This just doesn't gel. It is too disjointed, too compartmentized. It does have some funny moments but stumbles instead of flows.
I can't fault the cast, other than George Clooney and Tilda Swenson. Anyone could have done those parts.
For the most part this film offers cynicism towards the past but absolutely zero revelations.
The sets, costumes and heavy use of CGI are well done. There are some great dance numbers as well.
Alden Ehrenreich is the real standout of this film. He obviously took the part seriously and researched, practiced and worked hard.
Move over George Clooney and I mean yesterday.
I can't fault the cast, other than George Clooney and Tilda Swenson. Anyone could have done those parts.
For the most part this film offers cynicism towards the past but absolutely zero revelations.
The sets, costumes and heavy use of CGI are well done. There are some great dance numbers as well.
Alden Ehrenreich is the real standout of this film. He obviously took the part seriously and researched, practiced and worked hard.
Move over George Clooney and I mean yesterday.
Disappointing
richard-17876 February 2016
This movie got an A rating in the Cleveland Plain Dealer from a film reviewer I have long respected, so I took advantage of a free late afternoon to go see it on the day it opened.
It's a shame the review was so positive, because it made my disappointment that much greater.
There is very little in this movie that is funny. (The audience I saw it with almost never laughed.) Most of the parodies are simplistic and flat and don't say anything clever about the subjects they are lampooning.
Take the extended water ballet sequence that is meant as a send-up of Esther Williams movies. The sequence itself looks like a poor man's version of one of the numbers in *Jupiter's Daughter*. Scarlett Johannson looks frightened all the while she's up in the air in that little basket, but not frightened enough to be funny. And then? Nothing. The number ends as it would in an Esther Williams movie, and there is unfunny dialogue with the swimming character concerning her pregnancy.
And so it goes throughout the movie. Things happen, but there is no followup. There are parodies of different types of movies popular in the 1940s and 50s, but the parodies aren't clever or insightful. George Clooney's character gets kidnapped by left-wing script writers, but those scenes don't tell us anything about the black-listed screenwriters of the era.
Etc.
Some of the reviews on here say the movie is terrible, some think this movie is the best thing since sliced cheese. It's neither extreme. It's just a largely flat comedy, with too few laughs.
It's a shame the review was so positive, because it made my disappointment that much greater.
There is very little in this movie that is funny. (The audience I saw it with almost never laughed.) Most of the parodies are simplistic and flat and don't say anything clever about the subjects they are lampooning.
Take the extended water ballet sequence that is meant as a send-up of Esther Williams movies. The sequence itself looks like a poor man's version of one of the numbers in *Jupiter's Daughter*. Scarlett Johannson looks frightened all the while she's up in the air in that little basket, but not frightened enough to be funny. And then? Nothing. The number ends as it would in an Esther Williams movie, and there is unfunny dialogue with the swimming character concerning her pregnancy.
And so it goes throughout the movie. Things happen, but there is no followup. There are parodies of different types of movies popular in the 1940s and 50s, but the parodies aren't clever or insightful. George Clooney's character gets kidnapped by left-wing script writers, but those scenes don't tell us anything about the black-listed screenwriters of the era.
Etc.
Some of the reviews on here say the movie is terrible, some think this movie is the best thing since sliced cheese. It's neither extreme. It's just a largely flat comedy, with too few laughs.
1950s Time Machine
1930s_Time_Machine29 March 2024
Forget planning that touristy Hollywood studio tour - watch this instead. This gives you a real immersive experience - you're there in the fifties, you're not just in Hollywood, you're there making movies!
The plot itself is a bit thin and the humour isn't as strong as you might expect but that's not too important. What Mr and Mr Cohen give you is an insight into the dream fact filled with wonderfully eccentric but utterly believable and likeable characters. Characters you want to get to know and indeed that's exactly what you get. It's a warm and very satisfying way to spend a couple of hours.
Fortunately the Eddie Mannix in this picture is not really based on the real-life Eddie Mannix. If he were, this would not be a fun film because in real life, he was a nasty piece of work. MGM's real fixer began his career by beating up his girlfriend, gorgeous silent movie star Mary Nolan so much so her permanently disfigured which ended her acting career and ultimately her life. He ended his career by being involved with the murder of the 1950s Superman. No, fortunately this is a nice Eddie.
One down side of this is that after watching it you'll never be able to watch any of those awful cheesy 1950 'epics' (usually with Victor Mature) like THE ROBE and take them seriously - no great loss.
The plot itself is a bit thin and the humour isn't as strong as you might expect but that's not too important. What Mr and Mr Cohen give you is an insight into the dream fact filled with wonderfully eccentric but utterly believable and likeable characters. Characters you want to get to know and indeed that's exactly what you get. It's a warm and very satisfying way to spend a couple of hours.
Fortunately the Eddie Mannix in this picture is not really based on the real-life Eddie Mannix. If he were, this would not be a fun film because in real life, he was a nasty piece of work. MGM's real fixer began his career by beating up his girlfriend, gorgeous silent movie star Mary Nolan so much so her permanently disfigured which ended her acting career and ultimately her life. He ended his career by being involved with the murder of the 1950s Superman. No, fortunately this is a nice Eddie.
One down side of this is that after watching it you'll never be able to watch any of those awful cheesy 1950 'epics' (usually with Victor Mature) like THE ROBE and take them seriously - no great loss.
I'd honestly give a 6.5. But, whatever.
chaitusp11 March 2023
Coen Brothers sprinkle stars like herbs on an Italian dish. And ofcourse, Josh Brolin is the meat of the film. He does shine in his role. He's a great antagonist as Eddie Mannix. George Clooney does his part well, but I only wished his role had more spice to it. Hobie is a delight and a charm as he's meant to be. There are characteristic Coen Brothers' twists, but they don't hit that well compared to their other films. Also, the undercurrent themes are muddled with too much from World war to Communism and executives running studios. It stands a tad tall about just another vintage Hollywood movie, but doesn't stand very much apart either.
Funny pastiche of bygone Hollywood
simon_ecc26 April 2020
One scene in particular (saiors in a bar) is brilliant and recreates the atmosphere of old Hollywood musicals to much better effect than the over-hyped LaLa Land. Shows you can't rely on ratings and that there's a lot of follow the herd mentality.
Lots of the script is really beautifully balanced. Also Ralph Fiennes is fantastic.
The storyline is not particularly strong, but I don't think this matters. Really it;s a sort of loosely connected set of vignettes, lots of which are really well crafted and funny.
Lots of the script is really beautifully balanced. Also Ralph Fiennes is fantastic.
The storyline is not particularly strong, but I don't think this matters. Really it;s a sort of loosely connected set of vignettes, lots of which are really well crafted and funny.
Satire that lacks energy, conviction, characters, character development, a focus, and nearly everything that makes good satire
StevePulaski5 February 2016
After the phenomenal and emotional roller-coaster of "Inside Llewyn Davis," a film that still hasn't found the audience it so desperately deserves, Joel and Ethan Coen followup arguably their best film with one that might be their most forgettable. "Hail, Caesar!" is a disappointment of epic proportions; an empty, unfocused satire on Hollywood business that has too many characters fighting for too little screen time, almost no energy despite attempting to work with a high-stakes plot, no strong character relationships despite the fact that everyone is trying to get a word in at all times during the course of the film, and finally, no central conflict that results in the characters ostensibly mustering up any kind of energy. If the characters themselves barely care about the situations they're in, why should we, the audience, who is now out of the high cost of a movie ticket?
The film revolves around a Hollywood mogul Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin), who is hired to help fix the troubled production of a Hollywood epic known as "Hail, Caesar!." The film stars the famous Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), who winds up being drugged on-set and kidnapped by a radical group of communists that call themselves "The Future." Mannix is tasked with giving the group $100,000 in exchange for his star actor.
The Coen brothers spend much of the film hopscotching from different characters and different sets in what feels like a setup for a mini-series rather than a one-hundred minute film. Such characters are Laurence Laurentz (Ralph Fiennes), a very meticulous director, Thora and Thessaly Tacker (both played by Tilda Swinton), rival, twin-sister gossip columnists, Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich), a low-rent Western actor-turned-movie-star, who is one of Mannix's closest clients, DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson), an actress who becomes pregnant out of wedlock in the middle of her film, and Burt Gurney (Channing Tatum), a Gene Kelly-type actor, also working under the order of Mannix, who winds up at the center of the film's outstanding dance sequence between a group of Coast Guard members about to embark on a nautical mission that will prevent them from seeing a dame for months.
"Hail, Caesar!" is a film of moments, meaning that, once the film is over, you'll remember certain scenes you enjoyed, certain actors' cameos (which most of the aforementioned are) you appreciated, and if you're lucky, lines you can quote verbatim. At the end of the day, the sporadic humor that those little moments provide is not enough to recommend a film. The Coen brothers don't seem to know what direction they want to take this film, and with such a concise runtime, they have no time to make good use of the actors they probably paid quite a bit to show up on set for one day. This gives the film the look and feel that most of these A-list stars are simply fighting over screen time, and that isn't funny, especially when you have true talent being only momentarily showcased so the film can dart off to the next decorated setpiece.
Then there's the issue of the film just not having much life to it outside of immaculate costume design and some strong cinematography (done by Roger Deakins, one of Hollywood's most masterful cinematographers working today). Because the actors aren't given characters to work with, no real energy or interest builds for them, and neither do character relationships. What we were supposed to gain from the scene involving Jonah Hill (who is on-screen for maybe a minute and a half) and Scarlet Johansson where Johansson's DeAnna asks Hill's Joseph if pressing down on the machine that stamps the papers hurts his forearm? Was this sort of flirtation so necessary that it needed to be included, or were the Coen's too busy giggling under their breath to notice?
"Hail, Caesar!" is overpopulated with scenes that don't work to further what little plot is here, and with such a high-stakes story about a lead actor being kidnapped by a band of communists, Clooney's Braid Whitlock doesn't seem too phased, Brolin's Mannix, who has never been a particularly strong actor to show real emotion or gusto in his personals, doesn't seem too concerned, so what is there left for us to care about?
Some comparison has been made between both "Hail, Caesar!" and Wes Anderson's "The Grand Budapest Hotel," and while the two have a similar approach to dry wit and deadpan humor, as well as similar actors like Fiennes and Swinton, Anderson's picture was a perfect example of copious energy and exhilarating, rapid-fire comic exchanges. "Hail, Caesar!" is the exact opposite; a frequently dull and almost entirely uninteresting film, predicated upon the strength of a few great scenes and some decent, albeit far, far too short, performances in a thoroughly muddled picture.
The film revolves around a Hollywood mogul Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin), who is hired to help fix the troubled production of a Hollywood epic known as "Hail, Caesar!." The film stars the famous Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), who winds up being drugged on-set and kidnapped by a radical group of communists that call themselves "The Future." Mannix is tasked with giving the group $100,000 in exchange for his star actor.
The Coen brothers spend much of the film hopscotching from different characters and different sets in what feels like a setup for a mini-series rather than a one-hundred minute film. Such characters are Laurence Laurentz (Ralph Fiennes), a very meticulous director, Thora and Thessaly Tacker (both played by Tilda Swinton), rival, twin-sister gossip columnists, Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich), a low-rent Western actor-turned-movie-star, who is one of Mannix's closest clients, DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson), an actress who becomes pregnant out of wedlock in the middle of her film, and Burt Gurney (Channing Tatum), a Gene Kelly-type actor, also working under the order of Mannix, who winds up at the center of the film's outstanding dance sequence between a group of Coast Guard members about to embark on a nautical mission that will prevent them from seeing a dame for months.
"Hail, Caesar!" is a film of moments, meaning that, once the film is over, you'll remember certain scenes you enjoyed, certain actors' cameos (which most of the aforementioned are) you appreciated, and if you're lucky, lines you can quote verbatim. At the end of the day, the sporadic humor that those little moments provide is not enough to recommend a film. The Coen brothers don't seem to know what direction they want to take this film, and with such a concise runtime, they have no time to make good use of the actors they probably paid quite a bit to show up on set for one day. This gives the film the look and feel that most of these A-list stars are simply fighting over screen time, and that isn't funny, especially when you have true talent being only momentarily showcased so the film can dart off to the next decorated setpiece.
Then there's the issue of the film just not having much life to it outside of immaculate costume design and some strong cinematography (done by Roger Deakins, one of Hollywood's most masterful cinematographers working today). Because the actors aren't given characters to work with, no real energy or interest builds for them, and neither do character relationships. What we were supposed to gain from the scene involving Jonah Hill (who is on-screen for maybe a minute and a half) and Scarlet Johansson where Johansson's DeAnna asks Hill's Joseph if pressing down on the machine that stamps the papers hurts his forearm? Was this sort of flirtation so necessary that it needed to be included, or were the Coen's too busy giggling under their breath to notice?
"Hail, Caesar!" is overpopulated with scenes that don't work to further what little plot is here, and with such a high-stakes story about a lead actor being kidnapped by a band of communists, Clooney's Braid Whitlock doesn't seem too phased, Brolin's Mannix, who has never been a particularly strong actor to show real emotion or gusto in his personals, doesn't seem too concerned, so what is there left for us to care about?
Some comparison has been made between both "Hail, Caesar!" and Wes Anderson's "The Grand Budapest Hotel," and while the two have a similar approach to dry wit and deadpan humor, as well as similar actors like Fiennes and Swinton, Anderson's picture was a perfect example of copious energy and exhilarating, rapid-fire comic exchanges. "Hail, Caesar!" is the exact opposite; a frequently dull and almost entirely uninteresting film, predicated upon the strength of a few great scenes and some decent, albeit far, far too short, performances in a thoroughly muddled picture.
A Day in the Life
Mister8tch6 February 2016
Lots of disappointing comments about how this movie does not live up to the Coen Brothers "standard" (I guess that means laugh-out-loud), is full of stars who get fleeting screen time, has no plot to speak of, no great villain or other dramatic concoction to keep up glued to our seats, etc., etc.
What it is is a funny "day in the life" story of the guy (Eddie Mannix--superbly played by Josh Brolin) who has to keep some kind of lid on the craziness that is the studio system of the late 40's/early 50's. Looked at from that character perspective, this is an examination of one man's struggle not only with the insanity of his star stable (Clooney/Johansson/Ehrenreich), but with the question the movie actually revolves around--will Eddie decide to stay, or will he go to Lockheed, who have offered him a job that will make him more money and get him home on time for dinner. The confessional scenes that bookend this movie allow us a fuller glimpse into why Eddie does what he does.
Brolin allows us to feel the conflict Eddie is experiencing, amidst the ever rising chaos around him (from a kidnapping, to a possible paternity suit, to having a cowboy actor take over the part in a drawing room comedy), to discover he actually likes what he does, and actually finds a sense of personal worth in handling the ever-escalating mess that is constantly pressing on him from all sides.
Brolin's performance is so tight, so controlled and so real, that he is able to carry that storyline with great vigor and compassion. The rest of the lunacy, from the underwater Ester Williams scenes, to the Gene Kelly dance spoof, to the cowboy (Ehrenreich absolutely adorable and on point) and Carmen Miranda get together, simply provides the backdrop. You don't need to know any of the Hollywood history to appreciate this film, other than to know that a good portion of movies, at that time, were not pot-boiling epics, or racy, foul-mouthed satires, but rather quiet movies about individual struggle. Brolin keeps that focus throughout this film, making the ending, just like the movies of the past, a very happy one.
A very pleasant, clever, and funny effort from the Brothers. Yes, a send-off, Valentine, if you will. I can see where people who have enshrined Lebowski as the litmus test for all Coen comedy movies moving forward would be disappointed. Fact is, the Brothers can play more than one note.
What it is is a funny "day in the life" story of the guy (Eddie Mannix--superbly played by Josh Brolin) who has to keep some kind of lid on the craziness that is the studio system of the late 40's/early 50's. Looked at from that character perspective, this is an examination of one man's struggle not only with the insanity of his star stable (Clooney/Johansson/Ehrenreich), but with the question the movie actually revolves around--will Eddie decide to stay, or will he go to Lockheed, who have offered him a job that will make him more money and get him home on time for dinner. The confessional scenes that bookend this movie allow us a fuller glimpse into why Eddie does what he does.
Brolin allows us to feel the conflict Eddie is experiencing, amidst the ever rising chaos around him (from a kidnapping, to a possible paternity suit, to having a cowboy actor take over the part in a drawing room comedy), to discover he actually likes what he does, and actually finds a sense of personal worth in handling the ever-escalating mess that is constantly pressing on him from all sides.
Brolin's performance is so tight, so controlled and so real, that he is able to carry that storyline with great vigor and compassion. The rest of the lunacy, from the underwater Ester Williams scenes, to the Gene Kelly dance spoof, to the cowboy (Ehrenreich absolutely adorable and on point) and Carmen Miranda get together, simply provides the backdrop. You don't need to know any of the Hollywood history to appreciate this film, other than to know that a good portion of movies, at that time, were not pot-boiling epics, or racy, foul-mouthed satires, but rather quiet movies about individual struggle. Brolin keeps that focus throughout this film, making the ending, just like the movies of the past, a very happy one.
A very pleasant, clever, and funny effort from the Brothers. Yes, a send-off, Valentine, if you will. I can see where people who have enshrined Lebowski as the litmus test for all Coen comedy movies moving forward would be disappointed. Fact is, the Brothers can play more than one note.
Hail, Caesar-It has its moments but it could have been much better than it is
ls-7342025 February 2018
Hail, Caesar tells the story of a Hollywood fixer who solves every problem related to the production of movies in a studio.
Hail Caesar is an obvious love letter to the big old Hollywood movies, from a technical standpoint the movie is great, the production design on the interior of the movie sets is very detailed and elegant with vivid colors as well as the costumes, the 1950´s aesthetic is very well created too. The cast is great except for some actors who didn´t have many screen time and only made a cameo, and there´s also great scenes here, the Alden Ehrenreich scene were he can not say the line, the Scarlett Johansson and Channing Tatum dance sequences are just an example.However the script its a mess, it falls five different storylines without focusing exactly in one, the editing could also been improved, some scenes felt like they were cut out and just put there, and by the end end of the movie some characters didn´t have a conclusion and the ones who did felt rushed.
Hail Caesar does have its moments but not enough of them, and the script doesn´t really help.
6.7/10
6.7/10
All Style and No Substance
pegasus38 February 2016
From the previews of this film, I had a high level of anticipation for the Coen Brothers' latest venture, expecting it to be an hilarious and satiric romp through the halls of 50's Hollywood. The Coens are excellent technicians so the riffs on MGM, 50's Hollywood Stars, and the general machinations of the studio system were very well done. But I'm afraid the film's achievements were pretty much relegated to this dimension and overall the film remained in the category which I term "All Style and No Substance," clever but ultimately delivering a thin story. Along the way there are some wonderful bits, especially Channing Tatum singing and tap dancing in a suggestively gay sailor dance routine, Tilda Swinton playing twin columnists, Alden Ehrenreich doing some hilarious cowboy stunts on a horse and with a lasso, and Ralph Fiennes directing in a sort of prissy manner. However, none of the plot lines ever yielded anything substantive. I found it difficult to figure out just what the Coen Brothers were attempting with this film.
Very Entertaining and Enjoyable
framptonhollis21 February 2016
Sure, a lot of people hate this movie, and I get it, it isn't for everyone. Your enjoyment of the film solely depends on your sense of humor, expectations, and background knowledge of Hollywood films of this era.
I had read into this film a bit before I saw it, and therefore my expectations were pretty much surpassed. I already knew that there wasn't going to be much plot and that a lot of the big name actors and actresses in the film were in it very little. But, no matter how negative some of the criticism I heard, I still eagerly wanted to see it. And I did see it, and I loved it!
One of the main reasons why I enjoyed it so much was because of my previous information of classic filmmaking. I knew plenty about classic epic, musical, and western cinema, and there's plenty of nods to various filmmaking techniques of that era that I noticed. A lot of this film kind of feels like it was made back in the 50s, so I have to give credit to the Coen brothers for that.
My biggest complaint was how little screen time various actors got. Many of the people who were top billed are barely in the film at all. I mean, Jonah Hill is literally on the POSTER and yet he was in the film for hardly even a minute! Couldn't his part have been a bit longer? Or maybe he simply shouldn't have been on the movie's poster! Other actors/actresses were in it disappointingly little to, such as Scarlett Johansson, Ralph Fiennes, Channing Tatum, etc. However short their appearances may be, all of the performances are extraordinarily well done, which is why I wanted to see more of these actors in the first place!
Other flaws I found were rather minor. Certain gags went on a little too long, although pretty much all of the gags worked very well for a remainder of their existence. There also isn't much of a plot for a lot of the film. While there is SOMETHING resembling a plot, there was very little of it. Of course, normally in a film (unless it is experimental or a documentary), I like a bit of plot and conflict, and in "Hail, Caesar!" there wasn't as much of it as the trailer may want you to believe. But, the film didn't really need much of a plot to keep me hooked and entertained.
There certainly were more positives than negatives from my point of view. When a gag in the film worked, it worked extremely well. And the entire film is shot beautifully as well!
There's plenty of entertainment value to be had. There's a bit of comedy, mystery, music, and even some elements of drama. I enjoyed "Hail, Caesar!" quite a bit, and look forward to seeing it once again in the near future! While there are a few problems, all the positives make up for them really well! This is a great satire that I'd recommend to people who really appreciate older films, have a somewhat dark sense of humor, and don't mind a film with very little plot
I had read into this film a bit before I saw it, and therefore my expectations were pretty much surpassed. I already knew that there wasn't going to be much plot and that a lot of the big name actors and actresses in the film were in it very little. But, no matter how negative some of the criticism I heard, I still eagerly wanted to see it. And I did see it, and I loved it!
One of the main reasons why I enjoyed it so much was because of my previous information of classic filmmaking. I knew plenty about classic epic, musical, and western cinema, and there's plenty of nods to various filmmaking techniques of that era that I noticed. A lot of this film kind of feels like it was made back in the 50s, so I have to give credit to the Coen brothers for that.
My biggest complaint was how little screen time various actors got. Many of the people who were top billed are barely in the film at all. I mean, Jonah Hill is literally on the POSTER and yet he was in the film for hardly even a minute! Couldn't his part have been a bit longer? Or maybe he simply shouldn't have been on the movie's poster! Other actors/actresses were in it disappointingly little to, such as Scarlett Johansson, Ralph Fiennes, Channing Tatum, etc. However short their appearances may be, all of the performances are extraordinarily well done, which is why I wanted to see more of these actors in the first place!
Other flaws I found were rather minor. Certain gags went on a little too long, although pretty much all of the gags worked very well for a remainder of their existence. There also isn't much of a plot for a lot of the film. While there is SOMETHING resembling a plot, there was very little of it. Of course, normally in a film (unless it is experimental or a documentary), I like a bit of plot and conflict, and in "Hail, Caesar!" there wasn't as much of it as the trailer may want you to believe. But, the film didn't really need much of a plot to keep me hooked and entertained.
There certainly were more positives than negatives from my point of view. When a gag in the film worked, it worked extremely well. And the entire film is shot beautifully as well!
There's plenty of entertainment value to be had. There's a bit of comedy, mystery, music, and even some elements of drama. I enjoyed "Hail, Caesar!" quite a bit, and look forward to seeing it once again in the near future! While there are a few problems, all the positives make up for them really well! This is a great satire that I'd recommend to people who really appreciate older films, have a somewhat dark sense of humor, and don't mind a film with very little plot
Worth watching?
duoseraphim-598-53262119 May 2017
This is my first review here, and I hope to do more. I have noticed a niche that can use more contributions, namely, reviews written by people who love movies, but who are not trying to prove how terribly clever and smart they are. Many years ago one of the major movie critics wrote for a metropolitan newspaper, and he had a funny list of categories for movies, the best one being 'worth watching if you're home sick.' His reviews helped me think about why some deeply flawed movies are worth watching, while some highly praised films are simply, for most of us, pretentious junk. 'Hail, Caesar!' is one of the former. First and foremost, any movie that makes you laugh, laugh a lot, is certainly worth your time. The main criticism I have is that it doesn't hang together well. The skits are related, but there is not enough of a strong narrative thread here to pull you through to the end, to give you that sense of 'wow' that a really good movie gives you. The casting is intriguing, with flashes of brilliance. George Clooney is a smart choice; he gave me much to think about regarding the interaction of skill and charisma in a performance. I was also wondering how Josh Brolin made his character likable. And Scarlett Johansson's first appearance is very amusing, as well as one of the movie's many reminders of the sharp contrast between movie fantasies, and the quotidian of our lives that drives us to seek out that very fantasy.
So, to steal from the above-mentioned reviewer, 'worth watching at home.'
So, to steal from the above-mentioned reviewer, 'worth watching at home.'
People were quietly leaving the theatre
A_Different_Drummer6 February 2016
Listen closely. We don't have much time because the film snobs will start banging the NOT USEFUL button and this review will disappear into the IMDb ether.
This film almost makes you wonder if the Coen Bros are caught in some sort of Star Trek time paradox and are doing their films backwards. If they had started with this film 32 years ago, the critics would say there were some clever set-pieces and the cinematography was superb but the concept should never have been greenlighted and the script was wretched. From such humble beginnings, in 2016, the Coen Bros would then be able to deliver BLOOD SIMPLE and probably win multiple Oscars for their "growth" as film makers.
But in real time, 32 years after Blood Simple, this film is so bad that people were voting with their feet and leaving the theatre at the 1:00 mark (approximately). The story is awful, the dialog is awful, and the voice-over is bad enough to be used as a "persuasion device" at Gitmo.
George Clooney should get a new agent because there is not enough money on the planet to compensate him for having to wear a costume that makes him look fat and bloated and 20 years older than he actually is. Only Channing Tatum rescues his own dignity in a tribute to Gene Kelly that actually is entertaining and engaging.
The is an awful film. I have never lied to you before and I am not going to start now.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Addendum 2-26: Frankly when I penned the above review right after leaving the theatre, I was not expecting to get involved in a controversy about how flexible the Coen Brothers were "cross-genres," or how clever and eclectic their fans need to be to appreciate the wonderfulness of this specific work. But since the controversy exists, I will add that generally the Coens have produced some of best films I have seen in my lifetime. Inside Llewyn Davis, for example, held my attention like glue, it was a polished gem. Most of their films are polished gems. Unfortunately this is not one of them. If you Google, you will find that, in spite of the sycophantic mainstream critics, this film has generated the Coens' worst box-office numbers ever. And that was the point I was trying to make. Viewers instinctively know the difference between a hit and miss. It's their job -- enjoying films is why they left home, endured the traffic, and found a parking spot in the first place. The actors here try hard, I agree, but the story and the script simply do not connect or resonate or form any empathic bond. The horror is that the "brothers" really should have known better. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))
This film almost makes you wonder if the Coen Bros are caught in some sort of Star Trek time paradox and are doing their films backwards. If they had started with this film 32 years ago, the critics would say there were some clever set-pieces and the cinematography was superb but the concept should never have been greenlighted and the script was wretched. From such humble beginnings, in 2016, the Coen Bros would then be able to deliver BLOOD SIMPLE and probably win multiple Oscars for their "growth" as film makers.
But in real time, 32 years after Blood Simple, this film is so bad that people were voting with their feet and leaving the theatre at the 1:00 mark (approximately). The story is awful, the dialog is awful, and the voice-over is bad enough to be used as a "persuasion device" at Gitmo.
George Clooney should get a new agent because there is not enough money on the planet to compensate him for having to wear a costume that makes him look fat and bloated and 20 years older than he actually is. Only Channing Tatum rescues his own dignity in a tribute to Gene Kelly that actually is entertaining and engaging.
The is an awful film. I have never lied to you before and I am not going to start now.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Addendum 2-26: Frankly when I penned the above review right after leaving the theatre, I was not expecting to get involved in a controversy about how flexible the Coen Brothers were "cross-genres," or how clever and eclectic their fans need to be to appreciate the wonderfulness of this specific work. But since the controversy exists, I will add that generally the Coens have produced some of best films I have seen in my lifetime. Inside Llewyn Davis, for example, held my attention like glue, it was a polished gem. Most of their films are polished gems. Unfortunately this is not one of them. If you Google, you will find that, in spite of the sycophantic mainstream critics, this film has generated the Coens' worst box-office numbers ever. And that was the point I was trying to make. Viewers instinctively know the difference between a hit and miss. It's their job -- enjoying films is why they left home, endured the traffic, and found a parking spot in the first place. The actors here try hard, I agree, but the story and the script simply do not connect or resonate or form any empathic bond. The horror is that the "brothers" really should have known better. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))
that old-time Hollywood religion
mukava9918 February 2016
The Coen brothers return to the olden days of Hollywood with a witty and eye-pleasing comedy that recycles several legends familiar to antique movie buffs but mixes them up just enough to hold the interest.
"Hail, Caesar!" is set in 1951 at the height of the Red scare and Cold War, and follows a tough but sympathetic hands-on studio producer (Josh Brolin) whose responsibilities include, in addition to budget, casting and moral code enforcement, defusing potential scandals that could damage Capitol's reputation and box office. He also happens to be a by-the-book Catholic who regularly goes to a priest to confess minor sins like cigarette smoking.
There is not a single boring or bad performance by any of the huge cluster of actors. Clooney as the doofus leading man whose kidnapping drives much of the plot, gives an inspired performance. Alden Ehrenreich is impressive on all levels as the wholesome and good- natured singing cowboy. Allison Pill is the embodiment of classic pre-feminist womanhood as the pretty, positive, loyal, uncomplaining, blonde cupcake of a wife who maintains the home front for the rugged breadwinner Brolin.
Many characters loosely suggest real figures of the studio era: George Clooney = Clark Gable; Tilda Swinton as twin-sister gossip columnists = not only Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons (who were definitely not sisters) but also carrying a whiff of rival siblings Olivia deHavilland and Joan Fontaine, born of British parents in the Far East, who famously hated each other throughout their parallel star careers; Scarlett Johansson = Loretta Young who covered up her out-of-wedlock birth by disappearing for a few months and resurfacing with an "adopted" daughter; Ralph Fiennes = a British variation on director George Cukor who was rumored to have had sex with pre-stardom Clark Gable; Alden Ehrenreich = Roy Rogers (whom he actually resembles); Channing Tatum = a dash of Gene Kelly and a dab of Dick Powell. And others.
This is not the first Coen film to incorporate musical performance and begs the question, why doesn't this team make an all-out film musical? The Channing Tatum song-and-dance number, vaguely reminiscent of Busby Berkeley's "Shanghai Li'l" from "Footlight Parade" and Ehrenreich's pitch perfect warbling in a Western musical scene are high points.
Memorable and brilliantly written scenes include a theological roundtable of religious leaders assembled by Brolin to vet the production of the titular film-within-the-film, a "Ben-Hur"-ish epic about a Roman centurion's encounter with Jesus Christ (the scenes from which are stylistically dead-on perfect take-offs on the post-WW2 widescreen ancient epics); and a parallel gathering of Hollywood Communist Party screenwriters strategizing philosophically about ways to use dialectical materialism as a guide to insert Party propaganda into film scripts and hasten a new world (goof: a Communist refers to making a cash "contribution to the Comintern" which had been long dismantled by the time this film takes place); a fey director's frustrated attempts to coach the miscast cowboy actor's delivery of high-toned cocktail party dialogue.
Finally we are reminded that movie-going in studio-era Hollywood was a kind of organized religious experience; no matter what traditional religious practices moviegoers or producers may have observed, the paganism of the screen experience was an equal influence on their lives.
"Hail, Caesar!" is set in 1951 at the height of the Red scare and Cold War, and follows a tough but sympathetic hands-on studio producer (Josh Brolin) whose responsibilities include, in addition to budget, casting and moral code enforcement, defusing potential scandals that could damage Capitol's reputation and box office. He also happens to be a by-the-book Catholic who regularly goes to a priest to confess minor sins like cigarette smoking.
There is not a single boring or bad performance by any of the huge cluster of actors. Clooney as the doofus leading man whose kidnapping drives much of the plot, gives an inspired performance. Alden Ehrenreich is impressive on all levels as the wholesome and good- natured singing cowboy. Allison Pill is the embodiment of classic pre-feminist womanhood as the pretty, positive, loyal, uncomplaining, blonde cupcake of a wife who maintains the home front for the rugged breadwinner Brolin.
Many characters loosely suggest real figures of the studio era: George Clooney = Clark Gable; Tilda Swinton as twin-sister gossip columnists = not only Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons (who were definitely not sisters) but also carrying a whiff of rival siblings Olivia deHavilland and Joan Fontaine, born of British parents in the Far East, who famously hated each other throughout their parallel star careers; Scarlett Johansson = Loretta Young who covered up her out-of-wedlock birth by disappearing for a few months and resurfacing with an "adopted" daughter; Ralph Fiennes = a British variation on director George Cukor who was rumored to have had sex with pre-stardom Clark Gable; Alden Ehrenreich = Roy Rogers (whom he actually resembles); Channing Tatum = a dash of Gene Kelly and a dab of Dick Powell. And others.
This is not the first Coen film to incorporate musical performance and begs the question, why doesn't this team make an all-out film musical? The Channing Tatum song-and-dance number, vaguely reminiscent of Busby Berkeley's "Shanghai Li'l" from "Footlight Parade" and Ehrenreich's pitch perfect warbling in a Western musical scene are high points.
Memorable and brilliantly written scenes include a theological roundtable of religious leaders assembled by Brolin to vet the production of the titular film-within-the-film, a "Ben-Hur"-ish epic about a Roman centurion's encounter with Jesus Christ (the scenes from which are stylistically dead-on perfect take-offs on the post-WW2 widescreen ancient epics); and a parallel gathering of Hollywood Communist Party screenwriters strategizing philosophically about ways to use dialectical materialism as a guide to insert Party propaganda into film scripts and hasten a new world (goof: a Communist refers to making a cash "contribution to the Comintern" which had been long dismantled by the time this film takes place); a fey director's frustrated attempts to coach the miscast cowboy actor's delivery of high-toned cocktail party dialogue.
Finally we are reminded that movie-going in studio-era Hollywood was a kind of organized religious experience; no matter what traditional religious practices moviegoers or producers may have observed, the paganism of the screen experience was an equal influence on their lives.
Its okay
luke-a-mcgowan5 May 2016
1. I have never loved the Coen brothers, and it amuses me that most people's problems with this film are the problems I've had with Fargo, The Big Lebowski and No Country for Old Men - character arcs wrap up off screen with no time to enjoy that they are there, and the focus of the film seems to be on one uninteresting aspect instead of a much greater potential.
2. Interestingly, I found this less with Hail, Caesar. The film's final ten minutes did a lot to improve my opinion of this film, linking the seemingly independent stories of Ralph Fiennes, George Clooney, Tilda Swinton and Channing Tatum together to give a nice feeling that we saw a window of Eddie Mannix's life and that another window might show dozens of other things going on. I also enjoyed the emotional conclusion for Eddie regarding his future - it felt natural and satisfying after a movie in which we've seen him doing his job.
3. The film's trailer was misleading as hell. Enjoy the trailer as a two and a half minute short film, not as a teaser for the film because it will be a massive let down. As I've said, most characters have nothing to do with one another and you barely get to register and enjoy the presence of Ralph Fiennes before he's gone. All of his best moments are in the trailer. Every single one.
4. The film is also too long - this should've wrapped around the 90 minute mark. Most scenes involving Baird Whitlock and the communists who kidnap him are overly dialogue-heavy without being smart or witty. Each of those sequences is enough to put you in a slump of boredom. Ironically, the gag with Frances McDormand playing a buffoon editor wastes about three minutes of screen time. The film being edited together by that fictional character would explain a lot.
5. Of the acting performances, I really enjoyed Josh Brolin as Eddie Mannix. It is not a flashy performance or even a memorable one, but he does a great job and I'm glad to see him headlining the cast. George Clooney is probably the most memorable as the loveably dopey leading man who is besotted by rumours from his early career and convinced of the virtues of Communism. Hearing him proudly and innocently explain his new worldview to an irritated Mannix is akin to watching Cosmo Kramer on Seinfeld, and Mannix's short and direct response is probably the funniest part of the movie thanks to Clooney's expression.
6. Alden Ehrenreich is likely the star made by this film, as the polite Western star who cannot act in serious roles to save himself. He has great chemistry with everyone and nails each moment of the script as required. Scarlett Johannson is memorable in a small role, and its great to see Wayne Knight, Clancy Brown and Allison Pill getting work.
7. Roger Deakins' cinematography is a shining light in the film, especially Scarlett Johannson's glorious mermaid sequence.
8. The best directed segment of the film was the "No Dames" song and dance routine led by Channing Tatum. The choreography is flawless, the lyrics spot on and the cinematography fantastic.
9. It is a credit to Joel and Ethan Coen's script that things do flow together. There are a few Chekhov's guns throughout, characters who distract you with their presence only to reveal themselves as being more important at the end. There's also some witty banter - such as between Mannix and four church leaders regarding the depiction of Christ - although let's not hail it as perfect, because then we have to sit through those Communist scenes again.
10. I wasn't insulted by Hail, Caesar but after watching the trailer so many times I'd be lying if I said I was wholly satisfied.
2. Interestingly, I found this less with Hail, Caesar. The film's final ten minutes did a lot to improve my opinion of this film, linking the seemingly independent stories of Ralph Fiennes, George Clooney, Tilda Swinton and Channing Tatum together to give a nice feeling that we saw a window of Eddie Mannix's life and that another window might show dozens of other things going on. I also enjoyed the emotional conclusion for Eddie regarding his future - it felt natural and satisfying after a movie in which we've seen him doing his job.
3. The film's trailer was misleading as hell. Enjoy the trailer as a two and a half minute short film, not as a teaser for the film because it will be a massive let down. As I've said, most characters have nothing to do with one another and you barely get to register and enjoy the presence of Ralph Fiennes before he's gone. All of his best moments are in the trailer. Every single one.
4. The film is also too long - this should've wrapped around the 90 minute mark. Most scenes involving Baird Whitlock and the communists who kidnap him are overly dialogue-heavy without being smart or witty. Each of those sequences is enough to put you in a slump of boredom. Ironically, the gag with Frances McDormand playing a buffoon editor wastes about three minutes of screen time. The film being edited together by that fictional character would explain a lot.
5. Of the acting performances, I really enjoyed Josh Brolin as Eddie Mannix. It is not a flashy performance or even a memorable one, but he does a great job and I'm glad to see him headlining the cast. George Clooney is probably the most memorable as the loveably dopey leading man who is besotted by rumours from his early career and convinced of the virtues of Communism. Hearing him proudly and innocently explain his new worldview to an irritated Mannix is akin to watching Cosmo Kramer on Seinfeld, and Mannix's short and direct response is probably the funniest part of the movie thanks to Clooney's expression.
6. Alden Ehrenreich is likely the star made by this film, as the polite Western star who cannot act in serious roles to save himself. He has great chemistry with everyone and nails each moment of the script as required. Scarlett Johannson is memorable in a small role, and its great to see Wayne Knight, Clancy Brown and Allison Pill getting work.
7. Roger Deakins' cinematography is a shining light in the film, especially Scarlett Johannson's glorious mermaid sequence.
8. The best directed segment of the film was the "No Dames" song and dance routine led by Channing Tatum. The choreography is flawless, the lyrics spot on and the cinematography fantastic.
9. It is a credit to Joel and Ethan Coen's script that things do flow together. There are a few Chekhov's guns throughout, characters who distract you with their presence only to reveal themselves as being more important at the end. There's also some witty banter - such as between Mannix and four church leaders regarding the depiction of Christ - although let's not hail it as perfect, because then we have to sit through those Communist scenes again.
10. I wasn't insulted by Hail, Caesar but after watching the trailer so many times I'd be lying if I said I was wholly satisfied.
Another Bomb for the Coen Bros.
brooks2502 January 2017
I'm glad this one was on HBO because if I paid for it at a theater I'd be really unhappy (and, once again, disappointed at a Coen Bros. film). I'm not saying that a film cannot have a variety of tones and multi-layered themes. But at the end of the day, it must know what it wants to be overall: a comedy, a message movie, a thriller, a historical film, etc.
Hail, Caesar is crammed full of A-list actors stuck in a failed concept of a movie. I can't say that the Coen Brothers are afraid to go for it, whatever "it" is. Sometimes their off-beat approach strikes gold as in Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, Fargo or O' Brother Where Art Thou. Then again, they have more than their fair share of black comedy (?) bombs such as Intolerable Cruelty, Burn After Reading and The Lady Killers. Well, sorry to say, add this Hail, Caesar to the bomb list and hope their next project is another gem like No Country for Good Men or True Grit.
Hail, Caesar is crammed full of A-list actors stuck in a failed concept of a movie. I can't say that the Coen Brothers are afraid to go for it, whatever "it" is. Sometimes their off-beat approach strikes gold as in Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, Fargo or O' Brother Where Art Thou. Then again, they have more than their fair share of black comedy (?) bombs such as Intolerable Cruelty, Burn After Reading and The Lady Killers. Well, sorry to say, add this Hail, Caesar to the bomb list and hope their next project is another gem like No Country for Good Men or True Grit.
Maybe not Hail, Caesar, but certainly praise, Caesar.
Ben_Cap14 February 2016
Hail, Caesar! brings all of the elements of a good Coen brothers satire. It is incredibly casted, truly funny and difficult to fully understand at times. Even though the classic movie references went over my head most of the time, the clear attention to detail and an obvious massive amount of research shines through to make Hail Caesar if nothing else a very watchable 2 hours.
The Coens have always been great at casting and this may be their best effort. Some characters are underutilized but the leads are damn near perfect. Clooney may be the best vessel for the Coens to put their brand of physical comedy on screen and He always seems to be on the same page with them. Josh Brolin is never a guy who I have been concerned with putting a great performance on screen and he, like Clooney seems to have found this nice median with the Coens making a character here that will rank among Brolin's best. The rest of the cast as previously stated is filled with strong performances by major leading actors. Alden Ehrenreich should not go unmentioned as Hobie Doyle, a movie cowboy who is thrust into the world of dramatic acting. This may have been the find of the movie for the Coens, and I am excited to see wheat he can do.
I have always preferred the Coen brothers satires more than their more serious movies and that is because of the strength of the writing. The dark and subtle humor that they are able to achieve is usually top class, but this movie has a little more Ladykillers than Fargo. Hail, Caesar! is without a doubt an attempt at a more mainstream comedy. This is not to say the movie is not funny, it is a funny movie, but the comedy comes from a more traditional sense, which only disappoints because of the strength of their more subtle comedy. There are more classic cinema references in this movie than I can count, and most of those went over my head, but I think that is the Coens intention. They wanted the movie to be satisfying for movie buffs and the casual viewer and the like.
When first watching the movie I was disappointing in the look of the film. I figured with the Coens making a movie about classic cinema that the look of the movie would be right out of the golden years of cinema and when the movie started I was not given what I expected. As the movie progresses and we stop in on all of these different movie sets I was proved wrong. They wanted a visual separation between when the viewer is watching the movie presented on screen, and the movies inside the movie on screen. The classic dramas look as if someone time traveled to the 1930s and grabbed an actress in full costume and makeup and brought them back to the Hail, Caesar! set. A very impressive looking movie, especially for fans of cinema.
I scored the movie lower than most Coen brothers films, not because it was not a good movie, or there was something in it that turned me off, but just because the catalog of Coen brothers movies is so strong. Hail, Caesar is no Fargo or Lebowski or O' Brother Where Art Thou, but then again is was never supposed to be like any of those movies. They are at the point in their careers where they don't need to make their innovative and groundbreaking movies to prove themselves anymore. It seems like they are just doing movie about things that interest them more than what they think will surprise everyone. If you are a Coens fan check it out. If you like semi-off brand comedies give it a shot, just know what to expect going in.
The Coens have always been great at casting and this may be their best effort. Some characters are underutilized but the leads are damn near perfect. Clooney may be the best vessel for the Coens to put their brand of physical comedy on screen and He always seems to be on the same page with them. Josh Brolin is never a guy who I have been concerned with putting a great performance on screen and he, like Clooney seems to have found this nice median with the Coens making a character here that will rank among Brolin's best. The rest of the cast as previously stated is filled with strong performances by major leading actors. Alden Ehrenreich should not go unmentioned as Hobie Doyle, a movie cowboy who is thrust into the world of dramatic acting. This may have been the find of the movie for the Coens, and I am excited to see wheat he can do.
I have always preferred the Coen brothers satires more than their more serious movies and that is because of the strength of the writing. The dark and subtle humor that they are able to achieve is usually top class, but this movie has a little more Ladykillers than Fargo. Hail, Caesar! is without a doubt an attempt at a more mainstream comedy. This is not to say the movie is not funny, it is a funny movie, but the comedy comes from a more traditional sense, which only disappoints because of the strength of their more subtle comedy. There are more classic cinema references in this movie than I can count, and most of those went over my head, but I think that is the Coens intention. They wanted the movie to be satisfying for movie buffs and the casual viewer and the like.
When first watching the movie I was disappointing in the look of the film. I figured with the Coens making a movie about classic cinema that the look of the movie would be right out of the golden years of cinema and when the movie started I was not given what I expected. As the movie progresses and we stop in on all of these different movie sets I was proved wrong. They wanted a visual separation between when the viewer is watching the movie presented on screen, and the movies inside the movie on screen. The classic dramas look as if someone time traveled to the 1930s and grabbed an actress in full costume and makeup and brought them back to the Hail, Caesar! set. A very impressive looking movie, especially for fans of cinema.
I scored the movie lower than most Coen brothers films, not because it was not a good movie, or there was something in it that turned me off, but just because the catalog of Coen brothers movies is so strong. Hail, Caesar is no Fargo or Lebowski or O' Brother Where Art Thou, but then again is was never supposed to be like any of those movies. They are at the point in their careers where they don't need to make their innovative and groundbreaking movies to prove themselves anymore. It seems like they are just doing movie about things that interest them more than what they think will surprise everyone. If you are a Coens fan check it out. If you like semi-off brand comedies give it a shot, just know what to expect going in.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
