Skip to main content

When Good Films Aren't Great: The Curse of Hail Caesar!


We tend to expect greatness from directors with a certain degree of prestige. To the point that when they don’t deliver greatness we can be as disappointed as if we’d seen a bad film. Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon and Hayao Miyazaki’s Ponyo for example are decent films, but they feel very underwhelming when compared to masterpieces like 2001 or Spirited Away. And this is pretty much the case for the Coen Brothers’ latest film, Hail Caesar!
Set in 1950’s Hollywood the film follows a fictionalized version of Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin), a production head and “fixer” for Capitol Pictures. The studio’s biggest project, a Biblical epic called Hail Caesar! is threatened when its star Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) is kidnapped by a mysterious organization known as “The Future”, and Mannix has to find him while preventing the kidnapping from getting out. At the same time he has to contend with a hapless rising Western star Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich) being forced by the studio into a Broadway drama film to the irritation of its revered director Laurence Laurentz (Ralph Fiennes); as well as the unexpected pregnancy of diver turned actress DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson). 
The plot of this film is a little unfocussed as we jump from one story to another. While a couple interconnect, others are clumsier, being introduced and then just sort of stopping without a resolution. The only thread is that Mannix is in some way connected to each of them. The Coens have given us these kind of fragmented storylines before most notably in The Big Lebowski. But what made The Big Lebowski work better was the larger than life characters.
The characters in this film aren’t bad, they’re just a little uninspired. Though all the performances are good, half the cast are recalling figures of the time. Johansson is modelling her performance on real-life diver-turned-actress Esther Williams while Channing Tatum in his sailor get-up and song and dance sequence is clearly channelling Gene Kelly. Even Fiennes seems to be doing a vague Laurence Olivier impression but is still really funny. Ehrenreich is very good, a much better up-and-coming star than his character, and Clooney with his classic movie star looks is perfect as Whitlock who’s sort of a send-up of stars like Richard Burton or Kirk Douglas. The character who should be keeping our attention though is Mannix and Brolin gives it his best, but he just doesn’t connect as well as he should. Though he does have some really great moments. The film also features some great minor performances from Wayne Knight, Robert Picardo, Clancy Brown, and narrator Michael Gambon, but there are also some misfires. I didn’t really think the gimmick of Tilda Swinton’s twin gossip columnists worked all that well. Also Jonah Hill and Coen staple Frances McDormand were sadly wasted. 
This movie though succeeds as a really good love letter to old Hollywood. Much like Barton Fink it excels in its attention to detail, both in the production aspects as well as studio politics. The film within a film Hail Caesar! is an obvious allusion to Ben-Hur right down to the subtitle “A Tale of the Christ” but it really captures the scope, grand speeches and acting style of the old epics. This is true of all the sets we visit and stories we’re presented, and for that I can’t say I didn’t enjoy them. Especially considering the reveal of who kidnapped Whitlock and why is pretty weak; and with it taking place far away from the studio lot, quickly makes it the least enjoyable story.
Hail Caesar! has a lot of the trappings of the great Coen Brothers films. The writing is great. Roger Deakins’ cinematography and Carter Burwell’s music is good as usual, and it has some enjoyable performances and great jokes. But it is unfocussed, and suffers from a few poor decisions and unmemorable characters. That said, it’s not bad. If you’re a fan of classic Hollywood like me, you’ll enjoy it for being a superb tribute. Just don’t expect it to be Fargo.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more