Pear
TI Forumite
Posts: 619 
|
Post by Pear on Feb 4, 2016 4:16:17 GMT -5
-A big focus of a Hail, Caesar! synopsis might be the kidnapping of George Clooney’s Baird Whitlock, a movie star taken and held for ransom by a group known as The Future. However, as much as that might seem like a central storyline, it’s really just a jumping off point for the Coens. It’s important, but a typical kidnapping plot is not what they’re going for here. Primarily, they’re exploring the intersections between faith, ideology, politics, and the movie industry as they dive into the old, studio-driven days of Hollywood.
-Channing Tatum song and dance number=gold.
-Roger Deakins does a great job with the artificial nature of it all, the scenes on the sets coming out crisp and vivid and the wide shots outdoors establishing Hollywood as a larger-than-life world. Speaking of, I actually met this guy on Monday at the premiere in LA (it was extra cool because they gave out passes to see the movie). I complimented him on his Sicario work!
-The ‘jumping from movie set to movie set’ doesn’t quite work throughout the film, and the scattered nature of it all results in half the cast ending up in glorified cameos (still a great job by everyone in the cast, though). I’m sure the Coens didn’t set out to write an extremely tight story here, but enjoyment is derived from moments in specific sequences rather than from how the sequences work together as a whole. In addition, far too many scenes come across as humorous asides in a film already with too many subplots; the digressions can be fun, but sometimes the film leads you to ask “What exactly is being digressed from?” even though you still know the answer.
-It’s Brolin’s character that the film returns to at the end, and without saying too much, it’s through Eddie Mannix–choosing between his current ‘fixer’ job and an offer at Lockheed Martin–that Hail, Caesar!‘s themes come full circle. Throughout, the film is both celebrating and sideways-glancing at Hollywood and the system, but at the end, it shines a ray of hope on what can keep us going and what makes Hollywood what it is: the belief in an idea that transcends the individual.
-Over the last few years, Jonah Hill has appeared in a Scorsese film, a Tarantino film, and now, a Coen brothers film. Never in a million years would I have imagined this would happen.
|
|
LazBro
Prolific Poster 
Posts: 10,281
|
Post by LazBro on Feb 4, 2016 9:36:28 GMT -5
No idea if I'll get to see it in the theater, but despite middle-of-the-road reviews, I'm very excited about this one. As perhaps was obvious in my defense of Intolerable Cruelty in the Coen thread, silly Coens are my favorite Coens. A bunch of lightly connected, humorous vignettes with strong performances sounds great to me.
And that goddamn cast!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Feb 4, 2016 10:02:19 GMT -5
I think we're probably going to try to see this Sunday morning. There's a 10:30 show at the multiplex with the big comfy recliners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Logoboros on Feb 5, 2016 20:36:04 GMT -5
Just got back. I had seen the B+ on I.V.'s review, but didn't actually read the review (until just now), so the huge expectations created in me by the trailer has been somewhat shaken.
I'm not quite sure what I think of it. I actually think over-familiarity with the trailer (which I've watched a bunch of times since Christmas) kind of impaired this first viewing. It made a lot of beats way too predictable (and messed up my expectations by leading me to expect more of a caper kind of film, with ScarJo and Tatum and Ehrenreich being called in by fixer Brolin to use their various talents to solve the mystery of the kidnapped Clooney -- so I was less prepared for the shaggy vignette-based structure than I might have been otherwise).
Though I don't really agree with a lot of IV's actual review, I'm presently inclined to agree with a middling sort of rating. I didn't really find it particularly funny, outside of a handful of setpiece gags, nor did the dialogue seem quite as snappy as I would normally expect from a Coen film -- especially one set in roughly the same period as Barton Fink, Hudsucker Proxy, and Miller's Crossing. The banter amongst the members of the future (especially the "shut up" refrain) seemed like a weak attempt by someone else to imitate Coen timing and patter.
Now I feel like I'm talking myself into more of dislike than I want to have. There certainly seemed to be some interesting thematic material ripe for unpacking and some of the individual images are grabbers. But most Coen movies give me this feeling whenever put one on or catch one on TV where I'm just constantly excited for the next great scene or line I know is coming up, but I have a hard time thinking I'll have that experience with future viewings of Hail, Caesar. I'm not one of those who has ever had to warm up to Coen movies. I saw Big Lebowski during its original (and famously coolly received) theatrical run four times. I loved The Man Who Wasn't There right away (which is one that hasn't had as big a turnaround in its reception as Lebowski). I don't even hate The Ladykillers, taken as a whole (though I do kind of hate the running IBS gag). But time will tell with Hail, Caesar!, I suppose. I didn't hate it, and I wouldn't call it bad. But it does strike me as perhaps a bit forgettable, which is the last thing I would ever expect a Coen brothers movie to be.
Edited to Add: A few positive observations, though.
I did love Tilda Swinton's costumes, with their fantastically absurd feather-antennas -- she felt the most like a vintage Coen character to me. I was also rather impressed by Scarlett Johansson. I've generally be rather underwhelmed by her performances, but I thought she really sold a strong character here (and I had doubts about the accent from the trailers, but I thought it worked great in the film). I also liked Brolin for how he was able to make Eddie look both powerful and assertive and someone everyone's intimidated by, and yet also kind of vulnerable and insecure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Feb 7, 2016 18:11:55 GMT -5
We saw it this morning. We both liked it - I think my wife more than me, though I enjoyed it quite a bit - and both of us, I think, liked it more than Logoboros did. I think it works best simply as a straight comedy; some of the "deeper" material undercut it, if anything, and didn't accomplish enough on its own. Channing Tatum was major scene-stealer in it; I've never actually seen him be good in anything before, and it's clear he's got some good comic chops.
My experience with Coen Brothers movies tends to be that if I like it the first time I like it more the next; the only ones that didn't get better to me on subsequent viewings were Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty.
Also, if you play a drinking game with it where you take a drink every time you recognize a character actor you will die of alcohol poisoning. Yes, even if you're one of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Return of the Thin Olive Duke on Feb 12, 2016 12:58:11 GMT -5
This is certainly a movie about why people make movies. I realized watching that I'd actually seen them making it at Union Station in Los Angeles, and somebody suggested I send in for a part a year ago, but nothing came of it. I was amused by quite a bit of this movie, but not that much. This will require subsequent viewing down the line for a proper opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Lemur on Feb 13, 2016 20:16:05 GMT -5
Saw the 11:45 showing today on a lark and enjoyed it a lot, though I also like the sort of interlinked-episodic structure a lot, divided by Mannix’s glances at his watch—despite being an exec Brolin did convey a sort of classic film star charisma (tinged by fatigue) that really helped carry the film. It really showcased a lot of the fine details and character work: the chemistry between Herbie and Carmen, with him showcasing his lariat and her the head-balancing dance act, was quite cute, as was the sentimental turn of ScarJo’s story (regardless of where it eventually shakes out in terms of the Coen Bros. filmography in terms of quality, it certainly is one of their least dark). The musical numbers were likewise great—I thought the red ventral/yellow dorsal swimming suits were pretty clever. Also, Bob Picardo—annoyed, slightly pissed Bob Picardo! “God is a bachelor, and an angry one too!” And Wayne Knight!
I had a lot of sympathy for Clooney post-kidnapping—I’ve showed up at some parties where I’ve felt like I was in his position. I can see why IV pinned the film as conservative. The Communist (capital-C) writers’ motivation might be sympathetic, but their course of action is definitely not, with Burt’s leap to the submarine (what a scene! and as someone who recently got a sailing certification one that briefly scared the shit out of me) highlighting that there was a degree of self-delusion and narcissism involved. This is paired, though, with his character’s conversion to Christianity—apocalyptic faith of a different sort. And Mannix chooses work over apocalypse in the end. It might not be fully formed—or maybe it will be on multiple viewings—but it’s more than just a trifle.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Feb 17, 2016 12:07:12 GMT -5
We saw it last night in an otherwise-empty theater with leather recliners, the first time I've ever realized that particular dream of mine. It's the only way I want to see movies ever again.
Sooo many character actors; I loved it! Maybe I ought to stop reading AVC movie reviews altogether, because it was much better than I expected. I already know better than to trust complaints of overstuffed plot, something that (while not exactly desirable) I've never had trouble with.
Sure, it's not peak Coens, but I thought it was great.
|
|
|
|
Post by Superb Owl 🦉 on Feb 21, 2016 12:43:15 GMT -5
Saw it last night and if nothing else it was a very enjoyable date night movie. I was glad I knew about the vignette structure of the thing going in, if that's what you're expecting almost all of them are a lot of fun.
And Channing Tatum really came along in the wrong era didn't he? I wonder if he has any desire to do a full throwback song and dance movie, I think it would work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Powerthirteen on Feb 21, 2016 18:38:03 GMT -5
I loved so much about this movie. One thing that occurred to me: as many other people have pointed out, the episodic nature of the movie means that a lot of the big name stars end up in only two or three scenes. But what this does for the viewer is provide an experience analogous to Mannix's own. Just like a day in his life will intersect casually with any number of the biggest movie stars, but have its own agenda instead of focussing on them the way we would if we met them, so the movie gives us brief encounters with the movie stars we came to see, but pulls away from them to pursue its own goals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Douay-Rheims-Challoner on Mar 10, 2016 14:40:49 GMT -5
I just saw this (it premiered here this month) and I loved it. I mean, for god's sake, one of the communists had his hair done up to look like a dead ringer for Leon Trotsky, and later the stirring voices of the Red Army Choir as they row to the submarine (a shot so portentously silly in the trailers I assumed it was just another one of the film's many movies-within-the-movie.)
The faux-poetic dialogue of Hail Caesar's hoary old epics felt dead on (right down to the random, inexplicable errors like calling a Gallic road 'Frankish', to sound obscure but hardly accurate) and yet there was a warmth about it, about films and filmmaking, that complicated it nicely. There's a real love for old Hollywood here; a joy in the stuntwork of a Western and the elaborate dance numbers of a musical.
Also, this is the second Coen Brothers film in a row to feature a former Star Trek: Voyager castmember - Ethan Phillips as Llewyn's neighbour in Inside Llewyn Davis, Robert Picardo here, as the Rabbi.
Also, Laurence Laurentz Presents.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Mar 10, 2016 18:50:01 GMT -5
And it's the least wankeriffic movie about movies I can think of easily.
|
|
