I have seen some of the other reviews on CP on this film, and they are entirely reasonable. For me it depends on the mood you are in when you want the film and what you hope to achieve by watching it.
It was silly, but very amusing and beautifully made and filmed with good performances. Certainly not as likeable, or as throughtful as other Coen Brother's film, as say Inside Lleweyn Davis. But that said, I watched this on a Sunday afternoon, and it was indeed the perfect Sunday afternoon film. You didn't need to engage your mind too much, but neither did the humour in the film negate being thoughtful about it.
As I mentioned, it's a film beautifully shot, with the set pieces impeccably designed. The dialogue is amusing and the characters great.
Just don't expect too much from it, enjoy it for what it is, and view it as the Coen Brothers having fun and poking fun at Hollywood and you won't be disappointed. It's well worth watching it, and definitely better (way better) than a two star film.
I used to like the Coen brothers. I really, truly did. But increasingly they're coasting on a wave of their past glories before splattering messily on the polluted beach of shameless self-indulgence. It's true that Hollywood movies made over 60 years ago look dated today. That's kind of inevitable, and not in itself funny. It's also true that some of them starred actors who weren't terribly good, but were massively hyped at the time for commercial reasons. Portraying movies from this period as terribly dated and their stars as talentless idiots who are literally at least borderline retarded is a cheap trick just about good enough to carry a five-minute sketch aimed at people old enough to remember where it's coming from. This is a feature-length comedy containing maybe three halfway decent jokes, the best and most relevant of which you won't get unless you remember John Wayne's 10-second cameo in "The Greatest Story Ever Told". Which, since it wasn't meant to be funny, ended up being a lot funnier than this entire movie (catch it on YouTube - it'll take you about as long to find it and watch it as it will to load this disk).
Is it hilarious that sailors in a spoof fifties musical sing about their yearning for women while dancing with each other, and it ends up looking more than a bit unintentionally gay? Perhaps, but if you think that's funny, you might as well watch the "Nothing Like a Dame" sequence from "South Pacific" this scene is directly based on, which has been mercilessly parodied for that very reason since long before most of you were born. Is it hilarious that big stars such as George Clooney play unlikeable characters with the IQ of live yoghurt? No, unless they actually get funny lines (which they don't), instead of plodding through the same tired schtick their buddies the Coens resort to every time they run out of ideas.
This film has almost no plot, and coasts along on the notions that the past was automatically funny because the people in it were more primitive than you, and deliberate bad acting is an adequate substitute for actual comedy. I'm not saying those Coens aren't talented, because they obviously used to be. I'm just saying that, on their recent form, this looks like the beginning of the end. Or possibly the middle of it. Seriously, Joel & Ethan, one more film like this and your careers are in trouble. Two, maybe three at the most, and your careers are over. And maybe it's about time.
I could not decide whether to give this film the thumbs up or thumbs down its title suggested, hence my own review title. The central idea of focusing on a big Hollywood "fixer" around which to build a movie that is both a homage to Hollywood's past and a critical spoof of some of its more famous productions seemed reasonable enough, but what resulted was a very mixed bag.
The script was far too variable, sometimes witty and enlightening, sometimes plain daft, and a stupid plot about communists in the system just never clicked, but individual performances and scenes were pretty good. Josh Brolin appeared as if out of nowhere to give a solid performance in the lead role, and Alden Ehrenreich looks a real find - it's damn difficult to give a convincing portrayal of bad acting, but he did it with charm and aplomb.
Some individual set pieces, such as the sailors in the bar dance routine were clever and entertaining, and it gave you a bit of an insight into how Hollywood worked in its "heyday", so all in all it was worth watching, even if not one of the Coen brothers more memorable efforts.
The Coen Brothers’ Hail, Caesar! fits the expected bill for how they approach comedy. It’s a twisted tale of strange characters, weird plots and a scattershot pace. Such direction doesn’t exactly mesh with the Coen’s more dramatic masterpieces, but they do have their own unique charm.
Hail, Caesar! is an amusing picture, but only in its pastiche format of scenes rather than as a whole. Similar to their work on Burn After Reading, there are dozens of funny scenes amid a rather scattershot script of 1950’s Hollywood. The basic premise is that legendary actor Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) is kidnapped during filming of an ancient Rome film production. His disappearance sets off a chain reaction of events and a headache for the studio’s scandal fixer, Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin). As he scrambles to keep the studio on schedule and track down the missing Whitlock, several odd characters grace the screen in scenes that gleefully parody the era. From the off nature of one-trick actors to the paranoia of communism, the picture rarely misses an opportunity to find some humor in this setting.
This may also be the movie’s biggest shortfall in how it delights in humor more segmented than whole. At least, it would be a shortfall if the cast and individual scenes were not as amusing as the central story arc. We don’t spend all that much time with George Clooney or his communist kidnappers that indoctrinate him. It’s an interesting and funny subject, but not strong enough to hold the picture even with its surprising what-if climax.
The real meat of this picture is the general Hollywood satire with an all-star cast eating up scenery. Channing Tatum dresses up as a sailor and tap-dances on tables while filming a musical. Frances McDormand plays back dailies as an editor with lightning fast reflexes so quick her clothing can get caught in the projector. Ralph Fiennes plays a European director that has a boiling frustration with his Southern-speaking actor played by Alden Ehrenreich. A table of religious figures with Robert Picardo as the rabbi bickers and squabble as Mannix asks the question if their studio portrayed Jesus right. Star after star is trotted out in classic movie costumes for ludicrous scenes of Hollywood’s golden era peeled back and torn down for the sake of comedy.
Though the movie becomes somewhat scattershot in its odd attempt at a story, I must admit that this type of satire hit the right beats for a movie lover. We tend to look back on the past for all its treasures and none of its trash. It’s the reason most audiences are familiar with 1966’s classic western The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, but not 1966’s historical disaster Khartoum. The great movies also provide a bit of escapism towards the era’s tough times of the Red Scare and paranoia about television being favored over cinemas. The Coen Brothers have an affectionate love for finding the darkness and drama of the industry and painting it with a comedic brush.
Hail, Caesar! is certainly an acquired taste built more for the cinemaphile that delights in the mockery of a unique time in moviemaking history. But if you find yourself in that category, this movie is a riot of playful jabs and homages to an era of musicals, historical epics and general schlocky movies of the 1950’s.