Ave, César !

I was very surprised how quickly "Hail, Caesar" was in and out of the theaters...but now after seeing the film, I can completely understand why. It was as if the Coen Brothers simply said "let's do a film for ourselves...who cares whether or not the public enjoys it or not!". I appreciated it myself...but I am also not the average film-goer. As for the average viewer, the film makes allusions to many events in the history of Hollywood...but if you aren't aware of these events or rumors, you'll not understand or appreciate much of the film.

The story is based SLIGHT on the life of Eddie Mannix--a motion picture exec who was known as a 'fixer'--a guy who knew how to make bad problems do away...and with the bad behavior of many of the stars, this was an exhausting job. The story seems to be just a slice out of Eddie's life--possibly not the worst time as a fixer but a busy one. Through the course of the film, several problems arise--such as a pregnant single starlet and an actor of dabbles in communism. In each case, Mannix has to get to work to be sure the public never knows...and you see how exhausting this job is.

If you are looking for big laughs, you won't see them. There are a few small ones...just a few. Instead, it's more like a time machine trip to the early 1950s and you are that fly on the wall watching these Hollywood types as they go about their lives and doing stupid things. I do NOT strongly recommend the film but only mildly...and only if you are a real fan of the films of yesteryear AND are aware of the misbehaviors of some of our stars...or alleged misbehaviors.

It looks so good. Really, the feel of 1950s Hollywood has never been better, the photography is first rate with a stellar cast directed by the popular and very much held in esteem COEN BROTHERS. Trailer made it look like an fun Frank Capra kind of film. And when we walked out of it, given all the above, we missed something. A movie. There is none here. It is a great job made by talented people aplenty. It wants to be that fun film but never finds the movie. A few jokes. Not enough. Quirky fun characters, but not weird enough. Sublots aplenty, but they never run together and never are resolved. Good acting that goes nowhere. This fine film is just a bunch of dead end streets that are way too short with really interesting stuff on the side of the road but no intersection.

Neil Simon was given script advice once that all the characters have to meet in the play AT LEAST ONCE. Here, none meet at all. They have the subplot and that is it. Ending was weak too. Meh.

Sure, a lot of people hate this movie, and I get it, it isn't for everyone. Your enjoyment of the film solely depends on your sense of humor, expectations, and background knowledge of Hollywood films of this era.

I had read into this film a bit before I saw it, and therefore my expectations were pretty much surpassed. I already knew that there wasn't going to be much plot and that a lot of the big name actors and actresses in the film were in it very little. But, no matter how negative some of the criticism I heard, I still eagerly wanted to see it. And I did see it, and I loved it!

One of the main reasons why I enjoyed it so much was because of my previous information of classic filmmaking. I knew plenty about classic epic, musical, and western cinema, and there's plenty of nods to various filmmaking techniques of that era that I noticed. A lot of this film kind of feels like it was made back in the 50s, so I have to give credit to the Coen brothers for that.

My biggest complaint was how little screen time various actors got. Many of the people who were top billed are barely in the film at all. I mean, Jonah Hill is literally on the POSTER and yet he was in the film for hardly even a minute! Couldn't his part have been a bit longer? Or maybe he simply shouldn't have been on the movie's poster! Other actors/actresses were in it disappointingly little to, such as Scarlett Johansson, Ralph Fiennes, Channing Tatum, etc. However short their appearances may be, all of the performances are extraordinarily well done, which is why I wanted to see more of these actors in the first place!

Other flaws I found were rather minor. Certain gags went on a little too long, although pretty much all of the gags worked very well for a remainder of their existence. There also isn't much of a plot for a lot of the film. While there is SOMETHING resembling a plot, there was very little of it. Of course, normally in a film (unless it is experimental or a documentary), I like a bit of plot and conflict, and in "Hail, Caesar!" there wasn't as much of it as the trailer may want you to believe. But, the film didn't really need much of a plot to keep me hooked and entertained.

There certainly were more positives than negatives from my point of view. When a gag in the film worked, it worked extremely well. And the entire film is shot beautifully as well!

There's plenty of entertainment value to be had. There's a bit of comedy, mystery, music, and even some elements of drama. I enjoyed "Hail, Caesar!" quite a bit, and look forward to seeing it once again in the near future! While there are a few problems, all the positives make up for them really well! This is a great satire that I'd recommend to people who really appreciate older films, have a somewhat dark sense of humor, and don't mind a film with very little plot

In the Coen Brothers latest "Hail Caesar" we have exactly the same Hollywood-based mix of communist writers and Hedda Hopper-style gossip columnists as recently seem in "Trumbo": but the films could hardly be more different.

"Hail Caesar" is the film within the film: the latest Victor Mature style 'God and Sandals' epic for Capitol Pictures, starring the megastar Baird Whitlock (George Clooney). Trying to keep this movie on track - together with all the other movies being concurrently filmed - is tough no-nonsense fixer Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin). These other movies include an Esther William's style water ballet starring gal-in-trouble DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson); an Anchor's Aweigh-style musical starring Burt Gurney (Channing Tatum); and a pot-boiling drama featuring non- acting singing-cowboy Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich).

To add to Mannix's tension, Whitlock is drugged and kidnapped before the final climactic Crucifixion scene can be filmed. Who's behind the plot and why, and can Mannix restore order while keeping the story out of the eye of voracious journalist twins Thora and Thessaly Thacker (both Tilda Swinton)?

The film plays out as a series of loosely connected vignettes, some much more successful than others. Johansson's water ballet, and indeed her entire sub-plot, is all rather dull and irrelevant and in my opinion could happily have been ditched.

Channing Tatum however is a revelation as a song and dance man in a Gene Kelly tribute. His song and dance number was for me the best part of the film and I could watch this stuff all day: I would personally LOVE IT if someone would make a complete retro-feature film in this ilk. Watch out too for Christopher Lambert ("Highlander") as his almost incomprehensible Swiss director.

Capturing the most attention though is young Ehrenreich as the upcoming star without a clue. Many of his scenes, especially those with classical director Laurence Laurentz (a brilliant Ralph Fiennes) are hilarious.

Popping up in cameos are Jonah Hill (as the fixer's well paid 'man to take the rap'); Frances McDormand ("Fargo") as a dottie film editor who really shouldn't wear scarves; and Robert Picardo ("Star Trek Voyager") as the Jewish representative in a contentious meeting of religious representatives discussing Christ's portrayal in the film ("So, a priest, a Protestant, a Greek Orthodox and a Jew walked into a studio...").

Having last year enormously enjoyed the studio tour at Warner Brother's studios in LA (HIGHLY recommended if you can book ahead for when you are in town) it was great to see the studios making an actual film there again (as opposed to TV). Cinematographer Roger Deakin has great fun suffusing the studio and everything else with a 50's glow, an effect extending to the old 4:3 screen format (which I can see generating some "my DVD is defective" returns in a few months!)

Is it any good? I think it's fair to say that this is a 'Marmite' movie (which if you are non-British is a way of saying that the film will massively divide opinion). I've not seen as many people walk out of a film at the cinema in recent years.

I personally found it a light-hearted and nostalgic trip into a golden age of studio-management, show-casing again the comic gurning talents of Clooney (particularly prevalent in the scene where he gets slapped around a bit and which demonstrates his range - as if we needed reminding after "The Descendants"). Brolin is great as the straight-guy Mannix and most of the rest of the cast add value, though Johansson seems Ill at ease with her role. I'm also afraid 2 x Swinton is not equal to 1 x Mirren in "Trumbo". But it is Alden Ehrenreich that is the real acting find of the film - a breakout role for him after more minor roles in films like "Stoker" and "Blue Jasmine".

This is not the best Coen brothers film, being patchy and spasmodic and, in places, rather too clever for its own good. I got the same feeling watching bits of this (for example, the writer's meeting scene) as I do in many Woody Allen films: that I am not politically / philosophically intelligent enough to understand the niceties of the script (and I'm considered quite bright!). This can be a bit alienating for an audience.

If I think back to all its numerous sub-parts it was often in 4-Fad+ territory.... but overall it's lack of cohesive story arc brings the overall confection down a notch or two.

(Please visit bob-the-movie-man.com for the graphical version of this review. Thanks).

I am a huge Coen Brothers Fan. Many of their films are hard core 10's in my ratings and I had an uneasy feeling going into this one. The trailer made me think of Intolerable Cruelty more than O Brother Where Art Thou or many of their other films.

It felt like a strung together series of little set pieces that didn't hang together as a whole. I won't mention the plot since there was virtually none and what there was was fairly flat and unimportant.

Normally the Brothers can overcome a weak plot (although strong plot-lines have driven several of their movies) with strong quirky performances and memorable cinematography.

Sadly, the dialog lacked snap, the film didn't pop off the screen looks wise, given that it's a period piece, and with such a strong cast, everyone looked tired - almost as if they had come in to film their parts after getting off their day jobs and they were just doing a favor to the Coen's.

Overall I've seen much worse but when you go to a Coen Brothers film, you just expect much more.