|
 Hail, Caesar! is the new comedy/drama film from The Coen Brothers. The film centers on Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin), "Head of Physical Production" for a major movie studio in the 1950s. Mannix is essentially a fixer; he helps cover up or solve the scandals of various movie stars and directors at the studio. Throughout the movie, Mannix deals with a kidnapped star (George Clooney), a singing cowboy (Alden Ehrenreich), an elitist director of prestige films (Ralph Fiennes), a starlet of "aquatic pictures" (Scarlett Johannsen) and many others. Despite how the trailers make it seem, these people are only loosely related and some of the plots scarcely overlap at all. I liked this movie quite a bit, even if it's a bit of a minor entry in the Coens' catalog. Tonally it reminded me most of Burn After Reading in that it was essentially a comedy of coincidence. Hail, Caesar! also incorporates some of the strong, yet backgrounded religious themes of A Serious Man. Anyone else have a chance to catch this this weekend? Blast Fantasto fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Feb 8, 2016 |
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
I saw this yesterday and have been thinking about it almost nonstop. There is a lot to unpack in this film. Might have to see it again to make sense of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
I think the screen I saw it on was smaller than the image in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
MorgaineDax posted:I think the screen I saw it on was smaller than the image in the OP. Sorry; I was phone posting and it looked normal to me. I threw some TIMG tags on it so it should be fine now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
I've never been crazy about the Coen bros. comedies, but I do believe that "mirthless chuckle" is a phrase I see myself using in the future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
I loved it. But I think the marketing campaign is wrong...making it seem like one of the Coen's wacky comedies. While it has some similarities to some of their previous movies, I was struck with it's overall originality. It's probably a movie which will appeal more to an older-aged audience. I was previously unaware of the actor who played the cowboy. I think his character was the highlight of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
I'm super excited for this but it's not out here until the 25th so I just wanted to say gently caress you
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
I'm still kind of...digesting this one, think it might be helped by a rewatch. Biggest laugh for me was Tatum's communist "Crossing the Delaware" moment across the screen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
I thought this was their funniest movie since O' Brother, tons of laughs in a love letter to old Hollywood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
tofes posted:I thought this was their funniest movie since O' Brother, tons of laughs in a love letter to old Hollywood. I did enjoy the Coens taking this justification to film a bunch of great scenes for types of movies you don't see anymore. The cowboy song, a classic Hollywood musical, etc. It definitely helps to be a fan of that period of cinema when you watch this movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
It reminded me a lot of A Serious Man, with the religious themes and seeming pointlessness of subplots and lack of resolution for many of the characters. The cast was all very good, with the guy that played Hobie being the standout. I thought it was hilarious, but the audience I saw it with apparently hated it. At least 7 people walked out, and there's only 65 or so seats in the theater. Maybe there wasn't enough Clooney for them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Mullitt posted:It reminded me a lot of A Serious Man, with the religious themes and seeming pointlessness of subplots and lack of resolution for many of the characters. The cast was all very good, with the guy that played Hobie being the standout. I really think the advertising made it seem like much more of a screwball, Clooney-focused comedy than it was. Walking out I remarked how weird it is that this got a wide release when A Serious Man and Llewelyn Davis didn't, since it's just as odd as those movies are. Goes to show you how much star power is worth. Blast Fantasto fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
My group laughed throughout, though each of us found humor in different lines and situations. I loved the narration. We were all cracking up at the end, and then a couple behind us declared it the worst movie they'd ever seen, which made us laugh even harder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
I also had a few older people sitting behind me who declared it the worst movie ever. However I also had a few what looked like high school age girls in front of me who seemed to love it, so I guess that balances out. Casting-wise, I don't know what was more surprising, actually seeing Christopher Lambert appear in a major film (one with Clancy Brown no less!) or seeing the bald guy from The Guild as one of the extras who drugs Clooney at the start. I also laughed a lot at the fact that they showed the preview for the Joseph Fiennes movie "Risen" before this... and then the actual Hail, Caesar! movie within the movie was basically the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
My wife and I caught this while America was enjoying the Super Bowl. We adored it. It was hysterically funny, beautiful, and incredibly adept at capturing the filmmaking aesthetic of the 1950s. I love Coen comedies and I love they way they sneak big ideas into absurd situations. I'm still processing this, but I am just over the moon right now. I especially love the way the film plays with your expectations of a Coens movie. I went in expecting various elements of classic Coenalia, but it seemed like they were happy to subvert your knowledge of their tics and predilections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
I think one moment in particular, of many, that feels so classically Coen was the super-wide shot of Hobie walking from the door to the couch, and the only sound is the delicate squeak of his shoes. Another great comedy from the masters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
I loved it and thought the trailers portrayed its sense of humor pretty much spot on, it was exactly what I expected. I almost never say this but I actually wish it were longer, I would have loved spending more time with literally any of these characters. My big surprises were Wayne Knight and Robert Picardo, both of them ruled. As far as content goes I was surprised it was so family friendly; this is barely a PG-13. So much of it is so dopey and wholesome that it's just totally endearing. A True Jar Jar Fan fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
I agree that the marketing was misleading but I liked the movie all the same. Cohen movies are weird for me. I really enjoy them when I see them in theaters but I never to bother to buy them on video. I swear that Johanson and Hill were in for... a favor? No. Their story is so brief and unrelated that it could be cut and filled in with anything else. I would have preferred a tighter narrative with Clooney being in "danger" for the whole movie and Brolin trying to find him and then at the end with a martini and a magazine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
"Would that it were so simple" Thought it was fantastic. I'll agree with what looks like most in the thread in there is indeed a lot to unpack-and some of the narrative Especially Johannssen's storyline really didn't do anything but overall enjoyed greatly. I especially liked how even among the communists they still cling to the superficial elements associated with Hollywood like Clooney trying to relate Marxist dialectic to some dumb celebrity anecdote and Tatum (at least I think) trying to project the image of a leading man when boarding the Soviet Sub and writers being upset with the briefcase of money sinking despite being, well, communists. The SituAsian fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
I loved this movie. I liked the use of old film techniques like matte paintings, wipes and the cheap model for the Russian sub. Can someone explain how the Studio System worked? There seemed to be a lot of detail and humour I missed by not knowing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Can someone explain how the Studio System worked? There seemed to be a lot of detail and humour I missed by not knowing. This was kind of the feeling I had through the whole movie, that there was a joke that I wasn't quite getting. I haven't seen A Serious Man or Inside Llewelyn Davis so perhaps that would have given me a better reference point for this movie rather than films like Fargo and Burn. Still really liked it though. The scene with the four priests was probably the comedic highlight and Robert Picardo absolutely stole that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 15:39
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I loved this movie. I liked the use of old film techniques like matte paintings, wipes and the cheap model for the Russian sub. The key thing to understand is that during the Golden Age of Hollywood, most stars were under long-term contracts with a particular studio, which is why fixers were necessary for the studios- having a star's reputation collapse hurt the studio. Hail, Caesar! takes place right after the collapse of the studio system proper, when the studios were barred from owning theaters. During this period, the production of films fell by more than half from the 1920s, as without guaranteed markets and the ability to manipulate the showings directly, a million-dollar bomb could be a huge problem financially. Movie stars thus became incredibly important in terms of getting people in theaters (as did directors and writers). As a consequence, they became more powerful, to the point where 10% of the gross wasn't uncommon for a star to receive. So Hobie gets his role in a prestige drama because they needed to recoup the expense of keeping Lawrentz make his own movies.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Can someone explain how the Studio System worked? There seemed to be a lot of detail and humour I missed by not knowing. Everything the Communists said is pretty much what they teach you in school about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
I really enjoyed it with the highlights being the religious conference, Ralph Fiennes and Alden Ehrenreich's scene, and the whole part with the sub at the end. Also, Clancy Brown and Wayne Knight showing up was great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:59
|
|
Ville Valo posted:a couple behind us declared it the worst movie they'd ever seen, which made us laugh even harder. This happened at my theater as well. I've never seen someone so ready to giddily and loudly express that they have no taste. It was surreal.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
MTV Crib Death posted:This happened at my theater as well. I've never seen someone so ready to giddily and loudly express that they have no taste. It was surreal. To be fair, if you go in expecting a comedy where a bunch of A-list actors have to rescue George Clooney and instead get a love letter to 50s Hollywood, those A-listers get a collected 10 minutes of screentime, Josh Brolin is Jesus, and there's long scenes about Marxist theory, you might be a little put-out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Blast Fantasto posted:Despite how the trailers make it seem, these people are only loosely related and some of the plots scarcely overlap at all. This is the most important thing to note... the trailer is pretty deceptive in implying that this is going to be a sort of men-on-a-mission film in which a crew of Hollywood people team up to rescue one of their own. It's absolutely not that, which is kind of disappointing. Still a pretty good movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
I thought this would be a movie about ralph fiennes having to direct a horrible production, I didnt watch the trailer so I missed out on the kidnapped actor thing. Both of those sound more fun than some meandering self indulgent old timey hollywood love letter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
The promos turned the movie into a huge bait and switch. I feel bad for anyone who paid to see it and got bamboozled. I kept hoping for a scene where it all became worth it (like JK Simmons at the end of Burn After Reading) but that never happens. I guess the Coens tricked me good and showed how stupid I am for supporting the studio system? Reminds me a lot of A Chorus Line which is great of people who know the inside ball, but otherwise why would anyone else care? Mannix was a cool enough character and you understand his choice by the end of the movie, although he has a line that states it explicitly which kind dulls his choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
This movie was brilliant. It reminded me of an old Pasolini short - "La Ricotta," which is also about a crass studio production of the Christ story. This is a very awesome, entertaining film about the intermingling of entertainment and ideology, and I loved it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
The trailers 100% nailed the tone of the movie's jokes. It did not explain the entire plot. That's not a bait and switch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
While I am with many others in here that having just seen it, I still have a lot to unpack, I must say that the "love letter" to Old Hollywood seems only half true. It seemed clear to me that the movie is so much about the reservations that a couple of lifelong writer/director/producers have about working in the business of "dreams." There's a strong religious guilt that the Coen's throw into their stories and the whole movie seems to be about reconciling the two sides of the business: artsy and business-politics. Most of the time the people who want to do the right thing (Clooney)/do a good job at their work (Ehrenreich)/make a great piece of art (Fiennes) are consistently at odds with how the studio system wants them to be. The meta-text about The Christ [scene not filmed] is something I'm still chewing on. Very funny stuff, but extremely biting. E: I have to add that the final shot being a pan up to the golden light of the heavens and immediately cutting to WRITTEN, PRODUCED, & DIRECTED BY JOEL & ETHAN COEN is a fantastic joke to end on. I absolutely loved their sense of humor in this. Kart Barfunkel fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
I saw this and The Revenant last night while sports nerds were hunting down that superb owl or whatever. I didn't think it was that great after it ended. I constantly felt like I was waiting for a punchline, and that it was (as others have stated) tapping the self-indulgence bucket a bit too much, and that there wasn't enough resolution/tying-together of the various sub-plots. Then I remembered that this is my reaction to every Coen Bros. movie on the first watch. So now I have to see it again. I couldn't sit 20 minutes through Burn After Reading on my first watch (at home), but if people are saying it's like Hail, Caesar! then I'll have to give both of them a second look. Addendum: as an employee of a defense contractor, the demonization of the Lockheed Martin character gave me a few mirthful chuckles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
What, specifically, is an actor "drying out"? Rehab? They speak of it so commonly that it felt more like a post-bender hangover that just has to be waited out. Asked in General and I'll ask here: are there any (non fiction) books or films about the era being depicted in this movie? I've had a curiosity about it since playing The Movies and I don't know where to sate it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:What, specifically, is an actor "drying out"? Rehab? They speak of it so commonly that it felt more like a post-bender hangover that just has to be waited out. The old name for detox or rehab.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
I just listened to a podcast about the REAL Eddie Mannix and... hoo boy... the fake Eddie Mannix is a much better dude than the woman-beating, rapist-defending shitbag that MGM used to harass people: http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/you_must_remember_this/2015/11/eddie_mannix_mgm_s_fixer_and_the_scandal_of_patricia_douglas.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Asked in General and I'll ask here: are there any (non fiction) books or films about the era being depicted in this movie? I've had a curiosity about it since playing The Movies and I don't know where to sate it. The Genius of the System.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Clooney's facial expressions whenever he got screen time just killed me. A lot of the humour and subtext of the movie came through body language like Scarlett Johnason's having no confidence in the rig that was raising her, so I'm not surprised if big parts of the movie flew over many people's head. It's been a while since I've seen such a visual movie. I just loved the whole thing so much. Aramis fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Anal Surgery posted:I just listened to a podcast about the REAL Eddie Mannix and... hoo boy... Uh wow. I highly doubt it would be a coincidence or oversight so I wonder why the Coens decided to use this guy's name for a character who gets broken up over sneaking a few cigarettes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
Eddie Mannix was a weird dude because even though he was a giant flaming psychopath he was also a hardcore Catholic. Like, by all accounts he may have had George Reeves killed not for loving his wife (which he was entirely down with since he was seeing someone on the side anyway) but because he broke her heart by cutting ties to marry another woman. In the film you could easily interpret it as less that he feels bad for doing wrong and more that he feels bad for breaking his word.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:23
|
|
