Hail, Caesar! (Coen Bros)

fruvai · 09-10-2015 5:18pm #1

New Coen Bros film out next year

Icaras · 09-10-2015 6:12pm

Looks hammy but I'm excited.

Slydice · 10-10-2015 12:46am

Wow so many faces I recognise

Tomagotchye · 10-10-2015 10:30am

Doesn't look my mug of tea at all. Still, I will probably watch it at some point

WHIP IT! · 23-11-2015 4:49pm

Saw the trailer for this yesterday and I thought it looked fantastic... fingers crossed :pac:

Mr E · 13-01-2016 1:18pm

Trailer 2 (one of the funniest trailers I've seen in a long time). Can't wait for this movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMUUKtF_BF0

bnt · 02-02-2016 12:52am

It's out in the USA this weekend. We have a little behind-the-scenes footage too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlwzGMTMMqA

Technocentral · 03-02-2016 9:10pm

Great to have the lads back, can't wait!

e_e · 04-02-2016 2:09am

Playing the Dublin Film Fest on the morning of the 20th.

09-02-2016 8:00am

A spiritual successor to Barton Fink, updated from the Forties to the Fifties, though lacking the sinister edge afforded to that movie by its parallels with fascism and European anti-Semitism. Here, the toothless spectre of communism forms the subtext, over which the farcical story plays out. The impressive cast provide little more than a succession of cameos. Still, if one ever wanted to see the Coen's take on an MGM musical, the tributes to On the Town and Million Dollar Mermaid are a treat.

e_e · 09-02-2016 5:52pm

C- Cinemascore and relatively low rating on IMDB. Looks like another weird and divisive Coen brothers movie which is usually them at their best imo.

JP Liz V1 · 10-02-2016 1:04pm

e_e wrote: »

C- Cinemascore and relatively low rating on IMDB. Looks like another weird and divisive Coen brothers movie which is usually them at their best imo.

Yes the reviews don't seem that too good for it but it has a great cast and looks funny

e_e · 10-02-2016 5:36pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Yes the reviews don't seem that too good for it but it has a great cast and looks funny

Well of 3 critics in particular I follow it got 5 stars from Robbie Collin and 4.5 each from David Ehrlich and Josh Larsen. Critics seem to generally really like it (80% positive reviews) but it's the audience that is divided, which is almost always the recipe for a very interesting film.

Probably won't be the broad comedy it's marketed as too.

Strumms · 10-02-2016 7:32pm

Anyone know if the IFI will be showing this at any stage ? Can't see a mention of it as upcoming on their website....

e_e · 10-02-2016 9:00pm

Strumms wrote: »

Anyone know if the IFI will be showing this at any stage ? Can't see a mention of it as upcoming on their website....

They normally list their new releases at the end of the month.

But failing that go to Lighthouse Cinema.

LuckyLloyd · 11-02-2016 9:05am

When is it scheduled for release here?

e_e · 11-02-2016 7:21pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

When is it scheduled for release here?

March 4th

Chain Smoker · 13-02-2016 8:02pm

This has been out for about a week here and I'm surprised how uninterested I am in seeing it.

Love the Coen Brothers, but they've been so f*cking good at the more bleak/serious/etc side of things since No Country For Old Men (A Serious Man and Inside Llewyn Davis are probably my two favourite films of theirs, Burn After Reading was grand as a lesser work shat out quickly between two brilliant films) that all I can feel about a comedy from them now is a slight tinge of bitterness.

MilesMorales1 · 14-02-2016 6:20pm

I thought it was out february 26th. Pushed back?

metaoblivia · 14-02-2016 10:20pm

Saw this last night. It's gotten fairly good reviews from critics, but audiences haven't been that thrilled. I think critics responded to the parody of Hollywood in the 1950s, which is really one of the big strengths of the film. But I'm not sure how well your average audience knows that era.

I thought it was funny and enjoyed it, but I wasn't wowed.

It's more of a "day in the life of Eddie Mannix," so not all of the subplots connect and some are wrapped up without the level closure that most viewers might want.

johnny_ultimate · 20-02-2016 3:20pm

It's testament to value of even 'minor Coens' when 'minor' is still so imaginative, bizarre and riotously funny.

After some of the most formally and thematically audacious films (plus arguably their most endearingly straightforward in True Grit) and returning to the setting of possibly their single most audacious work, Hail, Ceasar is unapologetically silly. It's light, broad and full of screwball ideas. It's, of course, very funny - that bit in the boat... - and has no shame about indulging and extending tangential comedic moments for the hard laughs. But this is Coens - it's still all backed up by playful and occasionally tricksy explorations of faith, communism and capitalism. Tongue, suffice to say, is firmly in cheek throughout though.

It is inescapably a film about film, like so many others from the brothers and others. While I'd have liked the Coens and Mr Deakins to push the visuals a bit more to even further emulate the classic Hollywood look, these are still delightful pastiches - especially the musical numbers that are both deeply impressive and totally, bizarrely preposterous (Busby Berkeley's trademark).

Affectionate and mocking, the Coens still serve up a compellingly manic effort here. It may not quite rank up there with their best, but that's an increasingly meaningless criticism given the wonderful diversity of their filmography at his point. They're clearly having a ball here, and even if history decides not to rank it alongside even their other great comedies, few other modern directors could deliver such a steady stream of imaginative jokes while casually, playfully embracing the material's thematic depths. And all while giving audiences one of the best moments of 'hilarity through repetition' since Sideshow Bob stepped on all those rakes.

Optimalprimerib · 21-02-2016 9:15am

e_e wrote: »

Well of 3 critics in particular I follow it got 5 stars from Robbie Collin and 4.5 each from David Ehrlich and Josh Larsen. Critics seem to generally really like it (80% positive reviews) but it's the audience that is divided, which is almost always the recipe for a very interesting film.

Probably won't be the broad comedy it's marketed as too.

I would take user reviews 10 times more seriously than critics. especially film critics as they tend to have soft spots for particular directors and try to be too clever sometimes.

The large spectrum the audience give, gives a more honest feel on what the movie is like.

fisgon · 21-02-2016 11:22pm

Saw this on Saturday morning in the Savoy. Weird time to be watching a movie, but it was during the DIFF.

The audience there seemed to love it, and so did I. It is a sheer pleasure, one of the previous posters suggested that the Coens are exploring certain areas of faith and politics as well as the comedy element, but I disagree. This is pure entertainment, funny, bright, everything done with a light touch.

It is also very meta, a film about film-making. It is in fact a celebration of filmmaking, there is one character in the film who insists on denigrating the whole business of the movies, and it is clear that Hail, Caesar! is the Coens' answer to such criticism. In fact, this is the only real serious theme in the whole movie, that making movies matters. I think the Coens have been very hit and miss recently, but this is them at their best.

pixelburp · 05-03-2016 12:43pm

It felt like the cinematic equivalent of goofing off, or watching the Coens indulge in what I presume to have been a genuine attempt to recreate the movie-making business from yesterday. It occasionally all came perilously close to pastiche and mockery, but even then it never lost that important sense of loving affection for the period and material. The extended dance and music numbers felt like the brothers were stopping the film and simply asking of the audience 'look, we'll get back to the plot in a moment but for now lets just enjoy this slice of period cinema'. There were plenty of threads about faith and capitalism, but they always felt half-there, a nod towards the political climate of that time rather than part of the overall scheme of things.

Not as overtly or intentionally funny as their broader, more deliberate comedies, but still made me chuckle more often than not. Nor could it be considered an essential piece in the Coen canon, but even those minor works are head and shoulders above the average.

Mickeroo · 05-03-2016 12:46pm

Very disappointed and baffled my local isn't showing this, they didn't get Spotlight either ffs.

tunguska · 07-03-2016 7:33pm

Saw this saturday night and there were a few walks outs. Which is saying something considering it was the light house. I was thinking to myself about halfway through that I wanted to walk out aswell. The crazy thing is though that since then its kind of grown on me. I find myself cracking up laughing thinking about some of the scenes(The Mirthless chuckle scene is comedy gold). So I dunno what to say, i think its gonna take repeated viewings but I can see myself loving it at some point in the future. Clooney is a riot too.

megaten · 08-03-2016 11:19am

Saw it on Sunday and the problem for me was that the main character wasn't near as interesting as everyone else in the movie.

pixelburp · 08-03-2016 7:00pm

tunguska wrote: »

Saw this saturday night and there were a few walks outs. Which is saying something considering it was the light house. I was thinking to myself about halfway through that I wanted to walk out aswell. The crazy thing is though that since then its kind of grown on me. I find myself cracking up laughing thinking about some of the scenes(The Mirthless chuckle scene is comedy gold). So I dunno what to say, i think its gonna take repeated viewings but I can see myself loving it at some point in the future. Clooney is a riot too.

To be fair, I suspect the level of enjoyment you might get from a film such as this is proportional to how much interest you have in the history of Hollywood cinema in first place. Hail, Caeser's a pretty unabashed love letter to the studio system of yesteryear and I could see how some might get impatient by the endless recreations of genres past; certainly if it was a subject you were apathetic about.

Banjaxed82 · 09-03-2016 1:26pm

Yeah, a devisive one alright. A lot of walkouts in my screening.

It's Coen brothers, so lots of imagination, and full of quirk and madness, but meandering and aimless at the same time.

Heard a few critics saying it's their funniest film since Big Lebowski... no, it's not. It's not really that funny. It's light hearted and raises a few grins, but not something I'll be watching any time soon.

Telecaster58 · 09-03-2016 2:10pm

I thought it was hilarious. The scene involving Ralph Fiennes and the cowboy was one of the funniest I've ever watched.
The musical numbers were superb.

homerun_homer · 11-03-2016 11:36am

I was very disappointed in this film. I love the Coen Brothers and was loving the trailer but this did not deliver the laughs like I hoped. I get that this may wash better with certain people, maybe those with far more knowledge of 50s Hollywood and

communism in that era

etc but in general it just all didn't go down well for me. Am I wrong or did ScarJo's subplot have nothing to do with the rest of the movie?

I thought the cowboy actor was the best character in it, however most of his best bits are already in the trailers. Josh Brolin's Eddie Mannix was very uninteresting, as was George Clooney. I said to my clearly unimpressed gf afterwards that there'll no doubt be essays and write ups about the greatness behind what we saw, the subtleties and in jokes but at that I still don't think I'll be drawn back.

This is the second time in a row I've felt let down by the Coens after Inside Llewyn Davis also disappointed me, but largely because of my expectations going in. The Coen Bros doing a film about a musician in NYC trying to make it, my imagination got the better of me but I am going to be revisiting it. Like Mark Kermode said "I wanted to love it" and he said it's got better on subsequent viewings. Hail Caesar I don't think I'll be re-watching.

Strumms · 11-03-2016 7:25pm

Watched it last week in the IFI. I was quite disappointed overall. There are a few funny scenes but on the whole and as a body of work it doesn't do it for me, the story is pretty weak. I felt it was a waste of a really really great cast. As another poster said Eddie Mannix and several of the characters or not at all interesting. Sat through it just hoping at some point it would take off a bit but it didn't. There were no walk outs but people seemed pretty happy to get their coats on and get out of there at the end. I am a huge fan of the Coen's even the films that might be considered towards the weaker end of their arsenal but I was really bored for large parts of this. Might be worth a revisit down the line but not without alcohol next time maybe !

ancapailldorcha · 12-03-2016 5:03pm

I didn't really get this to be honest. I've no idea what the point of it was. The trailer suggests that Josh Brolin's character is putting together a crew to try to rescue George Clooney's character.

e_e · 12-03-2016 6:31pm

Asking for one finite point from a Coen brothers movie is a bit like asking for car chases and exploding helicopters from a costume drama. :P

I actually think a lot of people are overlooking aspects of Hail Caesar because of its farcical nature, there's a lot there about art/entertainment, spirituality, morality and politics here. It just coats it in more absurdity than the likes of A Serious Man and Inside Llewyn Davis.

12-03-2016 6:37pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It's testament to value of even 'minor Coens' when 'minor' is still so imaginative, bizarre and riotously funny.

After some of the most formally and thematically audacious films (plus arguably their most endearingly straightforward in True Grit) and returning to the setting of possibly their single most audacious work, Hail, Ceasar is unapologetically silly. It's light, broad and full of screwball ideas. It's, of course, very funny - that bit in the boat... - and has no shame about indulging and extending tangential comedic moments for the hard laughs. But this is Coens - it's still all backed up by playful and occasionally tricksy explorations of faith, communism and capitalism. Tongue, suffice to say, is firmly in cheek throughout though.

It is inescapably a film about film, like so many others from the brothers and others. While I'd have liked the Coens and Mr Deakins to push the visuals a bit more to even further emulate the classic Hollywood look, these are still delightful pastiches - especially the musical numbers that are both deeply impressive and totally, bizarrely preposterous (Busby Berkeley's trademark).

Affectionate and mocking, the Coens still serve up a compellingly manic effort here. It may not quite rank up there with their best, but that's an increasingly meaningless criticism given the wonderful diversity of their filmography at his point. They're clearly having a ball here, and even if history decides not to rank it alongside even their other great comedies, few other modern directors could deliver such a steady stream of imaginative jokes while casually, playfully embracing the material's thematic depths. And all while giving audiences one of the best moments of 'hilarity through repetition' since Sideshow Bob stepped on all those rakes.

Do you post in soccer as an alter account?

It's a very floral review. :pac:

MilesMorales1 · 13-03-2016 3:16pm

I absolutely adored it. Wanna see it again now.

gucci · 14-03-2016 9:22am

Telecaster58 wrote: »

I thought it was hilarious. The scene involving Ralph Fiennes and the cowboy was one of the funniest I've ever watched.
The musical numbers were superb.

Yeah I really enjoyed the visual set pieces

The Navy Bar / The synchronized swimming/the cowboy scene

and some of the dialogue was hilarious too

The scene with the priests and rabbis could have went on for an hour and I would have gladly watched

But for me the overall movie just didnt grip me or piece together how I expected. It was just a serious of scenes that I cared about some not about the others. I will watch it again of course, as it was entertaining, but too much of it went over my head.....but over all would rank pretty low on my coen brother list on first watch (FWIW i liked Inside Lwyen Davis!)

Looper007 · 17-03-2016 3:33pm

I loved it, it's not grade A Coen Brothers but it's still a lot of fun. I wasn't blown away with the whole Kidnapping plot with George Clooney felt it slowed the movie down. Loved everything involving Josh Brolin's Eddie Mannix and especially Aiden Ehrenriech as Toby the good old cowboy who's really the heart and soul of the film. Throw in get cameos from Ralph Fiennes and Scarlett Johansson. You have a flawed Coen Brothers film which is better then most films out.

The Black Oil · 19-03-2016 2:30pm

Think it took a while for this to get up to speed with the humour. The audience in my screening wasn't really feeling it until about 25-30 minutes in.

They did a great job with the casting here, evoking the era and the cinematography. The guy who plays Hobie really does look like a film star from that time. It's a love letter to cinema. One of the Coens easier efforts. Fairly enjoyable. Scarlett Johansson's accent. :cool:

Sad Professor · 20-03-2016 2:25am

e_e wrote: »

Asking for one finite point from a Coen brothers movie is a bit like asking for car chases and exploding helicopters from a costume drama. :P

I actually think a lot of people are overlooking aspects of Hail Caesar because of its farcical nature, there's a lot there about art/entertainment, spirituality, morality and politics here. It just coats it in more absurdity than the likes of A Serious Man and Inside Llewyn Davis.

This has kinda always been a problem for the Coens. It's a shame because I don't think they invest anything less in their screwballs than in their crimes films.

Frank O. Pinion · 30-05-2016 9:42am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I didn't really get this to be honest. I've no idea what the point of it was.

In the Steven Spielberg movie "E.T.", why is the alien brown? No reason. In "Love Story", why do the two characters fall madly in love with each other? No reason. In Oliver Stone's "JFK", why is the President suddenly assassinated by some stranger? No reason. In the excellent "Chain Saw Massacre" by Tobe Hooper, why don't we ever see the characters go to the bathroom or wash their hands like people do in real life? Absolutely no reason. Worse, in "The Pianist" by Polanski, how come this guy has to hide and live like a bum when he plays the piano so well? Once again the answer is, no reason. I could go on for hours with more examples. The list is endless. You probably never gave it a thought, but all great films, without exception, contain an important element of no reason. And you know why? Because life itself is filled with no reason. Why can't we see the air all around us? No reason. Why are we always thinking? No reason. Why do some people love sausages and other people hate sausages? No ****in' reason.

I loved Hail, Caesar!, the Coens have never disappointed me.

Achasanai · 30-05-2016 3:24pm

I really liked it. I read somewhere that Coen Bros films are either madcap comedy or gruesome serious films, and while I don't think that necessarily applies, I do think their films can be broadly put into the category of those with substance and those that can work without putting a huge amount of effort (although, often, these ones are rewarded by multiple viewings).

Sad Professor · 30-05-2016 3:43pm

Achasanai wrote: »

I really liked it. I read somewhere that Coen Bros films are either madcap comedy or gruesome serious films, and while I don't think that necessarily applies, I do think their films can be broadly put into the category of those with substance and those that can work without putting a huge amount of effort (although, often, these ones are rewarded by multiple viewings).

Strangely enough I think their screwballs require more effort from audiences and critics alike than their crime dramas, and with a few exceptions they haven't really received that effort. Realism is considered more creditable and people just accept it without thinking about it, even if it's just as artificial as more surreal genres. The Coens have deliberately played on this in some of their later films, making me think it's been a source of annoyance for them. For example, I always thought Fargo (their most conventional film up that point) with it's "true story" tagline was their irritated response to the criticisms that Hudsucker was too artificial. Ironically it went on to be their most critically acclaimed film.

pumpkin4life · 30-05-2016 3:57pm

Achasanai wrote: »

I really liked it. I read somewhere that Coen Bros films are either madcap comedy or gruesome serious films, and while I don't think that necessarily applies, I do think their films can be broadly put into the category of those with substance and those that can work without putting a huge amount of effort (although, often, these ones are rewarded by multiple viewings).

would that it were so simple

Mizu_Ger · 30-05-2016 4:10pm

About halfway through this I was wondering where it was all going, but realised it's a string of vignettes of everything they love about Hollywood during that period.

The biblical epic; studios controlling their star's lives; the singing cowboy who can't act; the intellectual, British, director; the musical numbers; mechanical editing machine (that could kill you!) etc

and Josh Brolin's character

forgoing the easy, well-paid (safe) industry job in favour of the movie industry

.

I never found it boring and was smiling the whole way through. It's very inconsequential, but doesn't suffer for it.

Hail, Caesar! (Coen Bros)

Comments