Ave, César!

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.

Review: I'm usually a fan of these type of quirky movies but this film was all over the place! There was so much stories going on at once, so it was pretty hard to follow and I wasn't that impressed with the different characters that kept on getting introduced throughout the movie. George Clooney's weird face expressions made me laugh in a few of the scenes and Tilda Swinton, who played the twins Thora Thacker/Thessaly Thacker, also was quite funny but I didn't really see the point of some of the characters. Jonah Hill (Joe Silverman) and Ralph Fiennes (Laurence Laurentz) are only in a couple of scenes, and the main character, Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) just seems to be running around, trying to keep everyone happy. The movie is based in a movie studio during the 1950's, and it follows Eddie Mannix, who is trying to find a big shot actor, Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), who has been kidnapped by a bunch of writers. While he is on the hunt for Whitlock, who is being held for a ransom of $100,000, Mannix has to make sure that the big budget movies that are being filmed, are under control, and he has to handle the press who are constantly on his back for information. The period was portrayed quite well throughout the movie, and Josh Brolin played the lead quite well but it was hard to find a point to the whole project. There wasn't much of an ending to the various stories and no one seemed that bothered about Baird Whitlocks random disappearance. With all of that aside, it's a still a watchable movie, because you don't know what directed the plot is going to take from one scene to the next but I still expected something special, once I saw the cast. Its not the type of film that will go down as a classic but I have to commend it for it's originality and witty script. Watchable!

Round-Up: After watching many of the Coen Brothers work, I was really looking forward to this movie but it didn't live up to its expectations. There first movie came out in 1984, called Blood Simple, which was followed by Raising Arizona, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink and the Hudsucker Proxy. They then hit the big time with Fargo, in 1996 and then came the brilliant, The Big Lebowski, which I thoroughly enjoyed. After that came O Brother, Where Art Thou?, The Man Who Wasn't There, Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers, Paris, je t'aime, No Country For Old Men, Burn After Reading, A Serious Man, True Grit and Inside Llewyn Davis, which all made a profit at the box office and established there name in Hollywood. All of the A-list stars want to work with them, mainly because of there unique style and approach to film making. I wouldn't say that this film is there best work but it won't damaged there reputation as great film makers.

Budget: $22million Worldwide Gross: $63million

I recommend this movie to people who are into their mystery/comedies, starring Josh Brolin, George Clooney, Ralph Riennes, Alden Ehrenreich, Scarlett Johansson, Tilda Swinton, Channing Tatum, Frances McDormand, Jonah Hill, Veronica Osorio, Alison Pill, Chrisopher Lambert and Clancy Brown. 5/10

HAIL CAESAR! ("A Story of the Christ", as we are told in the title card) is one of those offbeat gems that I have no doubt grows in affection with repeated viewings. Folks here complain that it's not a laugh-a-minute farce, that it's not this, that it's not that...

Here's what it *is*: the film version of RADIO DAYS.

Just like Allen made a loving pastiche of radio at its height in the 1940s, so have the Coens done for film at the tail end of its Silver Screen era, when studios manipulated its contract players and worked the media to prevent the "unfortunate" aspects from being revealed to an audience that just wanted escapism fantasy. Josh Brolin is the tightly-wound studio "head of physical production", an enforcer who's being seduced by a potential job with Lockheed to oversee work on the atom bomb. Before he can come to a decision about whether or not take it, he has to deal with the sudden disappearance of the slightly disconnected-from-reality George Clooney (who looks like he's having a blast in this, especially in the final scene of his big budget sword-and-sandel Jesus epic). Along the way, we see the Coens' take on Esther Williams, Carmen Miranda, Gene Kelly, and a host of other stars from the era...

... and this is what makes the film so damn much fun. It's not about the story, it's about how the Coens are celebrating the films we have perhaps idealized a bit too much: Esther Williams' underwater ballets and Gene Kelly in NYC for 24 hours and Gary Cooper trying to play it in a toney, high-class period drama. There are so many references to the great films of the day that if you blink, you'll miss a few — they follow fast and furious and sometimes with little more than a sly wink. If you are an old time movie buff, you will love this film to tiny little bits. If not... well, you probably wont enjoy it all that much.

But then the Coens probably didn't make it for you, did they...

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