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.
Add a Review
-
marcosaguado3 November 2016
-
planktonrules6 August 2016I 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. -
burlesonjesse511 February 2016Quirky and lingering, that's the Coen brothers way. And with a certain talent in every frame, Hail, Caesar! is a tribute to the movies or a tribute to their love of movies. Containing sumptuous period detail, a surplus of big-name stars, and behind-the-scenes accounts reminiscent of Robert Altman's The Player, "Caesar" goes back to the 1950's film industry with Joel and Ethan Coen as its unequivocal tour guides. They weren't alive when classical, Hollywood cinema was a mainstay. However, it feels like Minnesota's favorite sons were actually there, in a former life sort of speak. Their characters talk quickly, their characters smoke tons of cigarettes (in public places no less), and even legendary actor Danny Kaye is mentioned. Ah, the good old days.
Anyway, despite being semi-unfocused and somewhat erratic, Hail, Caesar! is expertly directed with every shot obtaining a level of film noir gleam. With its simplified diegesis, there is a little time to kill. The Coens give the audience halting scenes where actors show off an incredible skill set. All you gotta do is catch Alden Ehrenreich doing lasso work (with a plate of spaghetti and a rope) and Channing Tatum tap dancing his arse off. Amusing.
Harboring a budget of $22 million, set in 1951, and dealing with antagonists straight from the communist party, Hail, Caesar! tells the story of Eddie Mannix (an excellent Josh Brolin). He's the head of Capital Pictures and a quote unquote "fixer". He oversees the budgets and attitudes of movie stars as well as keeping their scandalous behaviors out of the press. When his biggest acting commodity (Baird Whitlock played by George Clooney) gets kidnapped and put up for ransom, Mannix has to come up with $100,000 just to smooth things over. Things to look for in Joel and Ethan's 100-minute opus: 1. cinematography of the highest order with Roger Deakins channeling residue a la Martin Scorsese's The Aviator. 2. a couple of neat sequences where Brolin's Eddie is watching dailies (to a film buff like me, that's interesting). 3. finally, Tilda Swinton plays twin, gossip columnists Thora Thacker and Thessaly Thacker. Fostering a ruthless and shallow demur, she makes today's media seem like child's play in comparison.
In conclusion, if you're obsessed with cinema (I know I am), intrigued by the ins and outs of Hollywoodland lingo, and want to revel in the Coen brothers strutting their movie within a movie pedigree, then Hail, Caesar! will cure your wintry blues. All I gotta say is "hail" yes! Rating: 3 stars.
Of note: As mentioned earlier, tons of stars and Coen regulars inhabit little or almost no screen time via "Caesar!". It's as if they are doing a favor for their filmmaker buddies. Jonah Hill plays a surety agent for a production company, Frances McDormand plays a chain-smoking editor, Ralph Fiennes plays a patience-tested director, Scarlett Johansson plays an impregnated A-list actress, Dolph Lundgren plays a Soviet "submarine commander", and Clancy Brown plays a co-star of a flick starring the Clooney trouper. With so many notable faces, I thought I saw John Turturro popping up as an extra. If you happen to read this review, correct me if I'm wrong. -
bob-the-movie-man7 March 2016In 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). -
geoaar-114 February 2016Let me start out by saying that I'm a dedicated Coen Brothers fan. I love their sense of humor and the high standards they cling to in filmmaking.
That being said, I think they should have brought more story to this effort. The production values, the sets, the props, the overall look, and dialog are just about as close to perfect as human beings can get. Every scene is just about flawless. And there's lots of chuckles and wonderful parodies of old time Hollywood films. The Esther Williams/synchronized swimming bit and the Gene Kellyesque barroom dance number were just magic. You'd swear Busby Berkeley was reincarnated for the choreography. But that's what you get for the price of admission. The little bit of story is hardly relevant to the rest of the film. Indeed, George Clooney's role could have been trimmed out in editing and the film would have been none the worse for wear.
So, go expecting a few really well-done parodies of old Hollywood musicals and a lot of inside jokes about Tinseltown gossip and fabulous production values. Just don't expect any story, cause there just ain't any. -
svorva19 February 2016My 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. -
EntropyFashion6 February 2016I 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. -
amountford10 March 2016The heart in a heartless world?
I am surprised at the number of reviewers describing this film as a shallow and meaningless picture as, for me, Hail Caesar is both a very coherent and exceptionally valid critique of the influence of money on the art of film-making. Perhaps this is because I have significant problems with being bombarded by endless remakes and superhero films which offer nothing constructive beyond nostalgia, dreams and escape. Hail Caesar's clear message is that Hollywood both seeks to control its actors, the world around it, and the views of its consumers.
But then, is not my enjoyment of such a clever and well-thought out critique of Hollywood not both a negation (the dialectic!)of the film's central message and proof that meaningful and clever films are still being made (though perhaps the relatively poor box office takings and negative reviews are still proof)? These ambiguities are reflected in the film itself and any critical film-goer. The Coen's clearly profit from and are products of a Hollywood they lay bare in this film. Whats more, the tenderness and love they have for Hollywood is evident throughout the picture. This love/hate relationship is something which resonates with me strongly as I spend hours condemning blockbuster hits to those around me whilst spending my weekends going to watch blockbuster films.
Perhaps the negativity felt toward this film is on it being miss-sold (that's capitalism for you) as an uproariously funny slapstick film. It is far from laugh out loud funny and has a more consistently playful and sardonic tone. The film follows a day in the life of the 'fixer' Eddie Mannix who enforces the will of his never seen higher power (the executives.) As you follow his travels you are transported around the products of Hollywood (I am not overly familiar with the films they are critiquing) and experience the playful but ultimately meaningless creation of the major Hollywood staples of the time.
The story follows the kidnapping of the star of the companies big blockbuster - Hail Caesar. The depiction of Jesus Christs' life within the film is itself a reflection of Hollywood's attempts to subsume religion to its own power. In one excellent scene the representatives of the major religions sit slavishly before their master (Eddie Mannix) whilst engaging in some irrelevant theology but all ultimately agreeing that the motion picture is fine.
The communists who capture Hail Caesar's star are then introduced into the story. The pastiche of a bunch of old men in woolly jumpers sitting round and analysing the role of films within society and their own position as film-makers reflects perfectly the failure of Frankfurt School Marxist intellectuals (like Marcuse) who failed to connect with the masses. This is despite their cunning attempts to smuggle the communist message into Hollywood (a playful reference to the absurd McCarthyite hunt of the 1950s) and indeed their own success at converting the sincere star of Hail Caesar. The communist message is eloquently upheld by the star (perhaps it is powerful) who literally explains it to Mannix the enforcer who responds by slapping him down. Mannix himself is well aware of Hollywood's message and power as is shown by his decision to stick with Hollywood despite the offer of work from an aviation company involved in producing the H-bomb (showing that film and the ability to communicate dreams can be more powerful than fear.)
The film end's with the star building up a powerful narrative as he addresses Christ on the cross before stumbling into incoherence. This is the perfect metaphor for a film industry which produces plenty of verbose hype but communicates little of substance to its consumer (a la the Revenant!) Style over substance.
The negation of religion by film is then completed with Eddie Mannix walking off into the light and the film lingering on the Christian imagery of a Hollywood who now rules the minds of the masses.
Maybe I read too much into it but I thought this film was stunning, its many sardonic and eclectic scenes keep popping into my mind and I have been mulling over the film ever since. Maybe I shall follow this fare with a superhero film to escape into! -
bob the moo18 September 2016This 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. -
blanketman774 February 2016Caught 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. -
reisen557 February 2016It 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. -
info-123886 February 2016HAIL 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... -
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. -
richard-17876 February 2016This 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. -
1930s_Time_Machine29 March 2024Forget 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. -
chaitusp11 March 2023Coen 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.
-
simon_ecc26 April 2020One 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. -
StevePulaski5 February 2016After 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. -
Mister8tch6 February 2016Lots 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. -
ls-7342025 February 2018Hail, 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 -
Full disclosure, I'm a huge fan of the Coen brothers and I'm probably going to give a recommendation to just about anything they make. This film is no exception. That being said, this movie is quite a bit different than I was expecting but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The Coens usually manage to surpass my expectations but this film didn't interest me quite as much as their other work. I still enjoyed it though and we'll get to some of the problems in just a moment. For now, let's take a look at the story.
Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) is a fixer in 1950s Hollywood and his main job is basically taking care of all of the directors, actors, and actresses working for the studio. These include Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich), Laurence Laurentz (Ralph Fiennes), and DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johannson). Mannix is busy with everyone's problems but things get even worse when Baird Whitlock is kidnapped by communists demanding a ransom of 100,000 dollars. In addition to this craziness, Mannix is contemplating a move to a different career and starts to question his future.
Alright, this probably goes without saying but the cast for this film is topnotch. Brolin does a decent job as Mannix and I thought he carried the movie relatively well. Brolin has never been the kind of guy to emote a great deal but I still found myself smiling from ear to ear while he's trying to deal with all these different (and quite frankly, childish) problems. Clooney gives us a fantastic Whitlock and it makes me wish he would do more comedy. Whitlock is a great actor but he's dimwitted and doesn't seem to realize the situation he's in. Everyone gave pretty good performances but there are so many characters that it feels like none of them really get a whole lot of attention other than Mannix. Most of the characters did play a part in the overall story of the film (Scarlett Johannson wasn't one of them) but our time with them was so brief. For example, Channing Tatum plays a character named Burt Gurney. Gurney only shows up in about three or four scenes throughout the movie but his character still plays an important role in the overarching plot. I would say it felt like a waste if it wasn't for the very well done dancing scene involving Gurney and some other actors.
Everything looks pretty much exactly how you would imagine it would look. This is 1950s Hollywood after all. Lots of different film sets and the California countryside make it obvious where we are. It's straightforward but it gets the job done and it looks great. It's obvious that the main point of the story is to follow all of these wacky personalities and the different sets and locations just let us know what they're doing at the time. I did enjoy Ehrenreich's character stepping onto a fancy ballroom (it's not really a ballroom but I don't know what it's called) set for the first time and being obviously out of his element.
Honestly, I enjoyed the story and the characters quite a bit but the plot still feels a little loose. I enjoyed all the characters so I don't know who I would have gotten rid of but it's obvious that there were just too many people and not enough time for each one. Still, it's not perfect but the movie is enjoyable and the Coens' have a very particular sense of dry humor that I can't help but enjoy. I would recommend giving it a shot but just don't go in expecting the next Big Lebowski or anything like that. -
pegasus38 February 2016From 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.
-
framptonhollis21 February 2016Sure, 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 -
duoseraphim-598-53262119 May 2017This 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.' -
A_Different_Drummer6 February 2016Listen 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))