Hail, Caesar!

Now that the dust has settled, can we all agree that this was comfortably mid-tier Coen Bros? Not terrible. Not great. Just adequate.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=kGpsXuMvApo
twitter.com/AnonBabble

yep

they should stop shitting up movies with channing tatum and scarjo

It was a very good film. It's just that they've made a number of great films. Still, really funny, enjoyable, a nice ode to that time in Hollywood and style of films.

Tatum was excellent, scene stealing, twice. And again, fit into the Busby Berkeley mode of performance perfectly. Scarjo, yeah, not so much.

I'll give you half credit. Tatum was fucking excellent in the movie. Maybe the best performance of any of them.

Scarlett Johansson? Eh, not so much. Probably the weakest link of the main case. She didn't come across as her character, she came across as Scarlett Johansson trying to act like a character. The accent was fucking awful.

But yeah, Channing Tatum fucking killed it. The whole dance number was spot on, and the sub scene was probably the part of the movie.

Wasn't their best by any means, but I honestly don't get the hate it received.

It may not have been as deep or unique as their other films but it had some excellent moments; that dance sequence, the sub, Clooney's general goofy performance, the spaghetti lasso, "would that it were so simple" and so on.

It was fun, looked gorgeous and was an all round comfy movie, I enjoyed it.

it was bretty bad
there is absolute no quality to the film, a complete waste of time

memellenial pls

>that dance sequence
>the spaghetti lasso
I think what amazed me about scenes like that is that those guys don't actually do that. They don't do Gene Kelly dance numbers regularly. They don't work as a rodeo showman. They actually had to spend time learning some crazy shit just to act like they were the actors who could do that.

>"would that it were so simple"

youtube.com/watch?v=kGpsXuMvApo

It would have been better without George Clooney and only following Josh Brolin's studio problems.

Cut all scenes from Clooney with the commies and would be a better movie.

>cut out the only plot point which ties the movie togther and it would be a better movie

Nigga wut?

sorry fanboy its just not a good movie
a few dance scenes and a convoluted story makes cohen brothers just look like hacks

they should really go for quality over quantity

Making the plot point Josh Brolin's life would have been better.

it was okay, Coens on autopilot.

Brolin's character was meh
I know they serverd their purpose, but Scarlett Johansson, Tatum and Jonah Hill deserved more screen time.

I didn't like it, there were quite a few parts that I realised were pointless when the credits started rolling and the film left absolutley no impression on me. Usually a Coen brother's film at least hints at an underlying meaning to it but with Hail Caesar there didn't seem to be anything underneath.

So what would you want? An extra thirty minutes of contract negotiations at the Chinese restaurant?

>Jonah Hill
He was the only fairly major character who really seemed out of place and underdeveloped. Johansson was meh at best. I could've used more Tatum. I wish they had developed his whole communist thing more.

I only watched it once, but I was left with the impression that it's probably deeper than it appears. I'm NOT saying it's a deep movie, but probably deeper than it appears. I'm guessing that all the subplots with the various movies and styles all somehow work together with Brolin's life.

Again, not saying it's deep, but the Coens generally don't just half ass things (except for The Ladykillers), and I suspect that it works together well somehow.

>Coens on autopilot.
most accurate description I've heard
these "lukewarm" movies are gonna cost them dearly in the long rung
it seems they just love money alot

I'm sick to fucking death of Josh Brolin, he's shite yet he's in everything and I have no idea why

>these "lukewarm" movies are gonna cost them dearly in the long rung
How on earth does it cost them? They've got a pile of Oscars, even their shittiest movies still get good reviews. A-list Hollywood actors and actresses will do anything to be in their movies---for fuck's sake, just look at the cast for this movie. They can make any movie they want with complete control and complete artistic freedom.

How on earth will this cost them? It's not top tier work from them, but it has pretty good reviews over all and made back 3x its budget. They can keep doing whatever the fuck they want as long as they want.

The Channing Tatum hate meme needs to end. Just because every girl you've ever met wants his pee pee inside her doesn't mean he's a bad actor. Did you see Foxcatcher? He absolutely demolished the "ungrateful ape" role.

Alright everyone name your top 3 Coen flicks

For me it's :
No Country for Old Men
Barton Finks
Fargo

That's because you're a bong and are scared of his all-American manliness.

Ethan > Joel > Etan

Raising Arizona
Fargo
No Country

Depending on my mood, I could probably switch out Big Lebowski for No Country.

What do you like so much about Raising Arizona? I found it to be entertaining at most
There wasn't anything special about it except the qt

in 50 years those oscars and a list cast choices will mean shit (they mean shit even now)
they will be looked upon as some hollywood directors who had an okay career but with not much to tell.
it's the whole tarantino theory one bad movies destroyed three good ones, and they have a lot borderline crap movies(hail caesar included)

Go to bed, Etan
You should be prouder of your cousins

I didnt like this movie

Loved it tbqh

Is everyone seriously forgetting True Grit?

Sure, its a remake, but damn I loved that movie. Great child actor, based Bridges, an actually good performance from Damon, and a great bit by Brolin. Fantastic score and cinematography.

Seems like its always overlooked.

It was super comfy

Am I the only person who thought the plot was almost nonexistent? It had good production value, a good cast of A-listers, and several interesting scenes, but it didn't go anywhere. In terms of narrative structure nothing was really going on, in addition to being extremely anti-climatic at the end. It didn't feel like anyone other than Channing Tatum accomplished anything.

It was okay.

>It didn't feel like anyone other than Channing Tatum accomplished anything.

Did you see Burn After Reading, A Serious Man, Llewyn Davis? Their films are not about accomplishing anything as such, and feature relatively simple narratives.

Middling even for them

Based Clive

the big lebowski
a serious man
hudsucker proxy

People forget how many great movies the Coens put out. They're like Woody Allen if he actually had some consistency. The Coen Brothers in my opinion have never made a "bad" movie. Some are worse than others, but even their weakest movie is preferable to most dreck out these days.
Especially with Hail, Caesar. The plot was all over the place but it had so many memorable sequences, and obviously a lot of time and effort went into recreating golden age hollywood. They put the work in even if they aren't on their A game script wise.

agreed, i think they are very good at making movies that would otherwise be bad look good or at least decent.

Tatum killed it in this film.

Who has had the more surprising turn in careers in Hollywood? Channing Tatum or Mcconaughey? Both of them continue to rack up legitimate credibility as actors.
I'd Tatum has an advantage because he has a wider range.

Woodititwer so simple

Tatum turning out to be a great actor is fucking hilarious. It's genuinely funny that this dude whose career only started because he was some Chad stereotype turned into a fantastic actor.

I'd say Tatum isn't quite there yet, he needs to kill it in a serious lead role that gets recognition and he might ascend to actually serious-tier

Foxcatcher was close but not quite there

Fargo
Inside Llewyn Davis (fuck you it's fantastic)
No Country for Old Men

How are they so good bros

For me, it really pays off on repeat viewings. I think that, since they were so young and still trying to make a name for themselves, there was an incredible attention to detail that's lacking nowadays. It's a comedy, but it's impeccably made, and a lot of allusions and self references within the film easily go unnoticed. The more I watch it, the more I see how stuff fits together.

>this is going to cost them
>because the oscars won't mean anything
>but they don't mean anything now aways

So, again, I ask you, how will it cost them? If the oscars are worthless now, then how do they lose anything by the oscars continuing to be worthless in 50 years? You said it's going to cost them, but if they have nothing of value to lose, then where's the cost?

This. They don't exactly follow a traditional plot structure. In fact, they really push against that in pretty much most of their films.

>culture crash
>culture crash
>culture crash

>hudsucker proxy
Seriously? I don't think it's as bad as people say, but I honestly can't see how it'd be anybody's top 3 for the Coens.

Coen brothers tier list pic pls

>Fantastic score and cinematography.
True Grit is a good movie over all, not great, but pretty good. But it probably has some of their best cinematography and music. Their movies have killer scores and based Roger Deakins always has fucking amazing cinematography, True Grit is near the top on that metric.

This 100%. Tatum has the potential to go big, but he's not quite there yet.

Hell, this movie actually made me respect him more. It was a minor role, but he really stood out among a fucking stellar cast.

i know, objectively there are better coen movies, but for some reason i've been a huge fan of the movie. i think i saw it on tv when i was really really young, the double stitches scene is actually one of my earliest movie related memories, so that's probably why.

Better than Fargo

They will lose the admiration of this one guy on Sup Forums, and if you ask me, it's too high of a price to pay for any Hollywood filmmaker.

NO ITS NOT!!!! :((((((

This.

I like Tatum. He was good in this and Hateful Eight. As a featured performer, he is exquisite, but I don't think he has the talent to fully encapsulate a lead role to its fullest potential. After a couple years, I'm guessing we will see a fantastic movie with him leading.

>jonah hill
>fairly major character

what, it was basically a cameo

Fargo
No Country for Old Men
A Serious Man

It was very good. Had that typical not really going anywhere but still entertaining vibe from A Serious Man

I liked it because the Coen's sense of humor wasn't too intrusive. The comedy wasn't too fettered by bizarre energy or hammy dialogue. I think it's a very smartly written movie.

Bearing in mind that "mid-tier" Coen movies easily beat god-tier movies by other directors

No I'd say it was pretty awful. It doesn't succeed in any form. It's not a compelling drama, the satire is limp and underdeveloped, the laughs are few and very far apart, the performances barely adequate. Even the cinematography was just sort of plain, they could have done much more to emulate the look of 50s films if that was the goal.

It really felt like a first draft of half baked ideas.

In 50 years nobody will remember their handful of misfires, just like every other artist. People will still talk about Fargo and NCFOM long after this is forgotten.

>it's the whole tarantino theory one bad movies destroyed three good ones
Hitchcock spent his last 15 years making mediocrities but that did nothing to undo the first 30 years of regularly making masterpieces

Mostly because Hollywood is a circle-jerk, but kind of I guess.... :/

Yea, unless they make a movie that is truly repulsive. Then people will remember that.

>30 years from now
"Let's have a Coen marathon, but skip over !"

>Yea, unless they make a movie that is truly repulsive. Then people will remember that.

The Ladykillers is a fucking terrible movie and is looked on by most as a terrible movie, and it didn't do too much damage to them.

I rate the Ladykillers higher than Intolerable Cruelty

Llewyn Davis and A Serious Man were character studies, and Burn After Reading is an intentional clusterfuck of stupid people being stupid with no greater purpose.

Hail Caesar is much more thinly sketched; it equally but underwhelming satires Hollywood, religion and the red scare, is part mystery caper, something of a character study but buries the lead among too many side characters and doesn't give him much character to begin with, and is full of throwaway comedic scenes that work to various effect. It's really all over the place and could have used a tighter narrative to tie things together

>looked on by most as a terrible movie,
Not by anybody who matters.

fuck the masses, ladykillers was a solid 6.5

>A Serious Man were character studies

Nope, it was not. It was a polemic, the Book of Job.

>comfortably mid-tier
that's a positive spin to the word 'mediocre'

whenever i watch a coen movie i feel like the coen's wanted the movie to be exactly as it was. there's some sort of confidence that i get from the movie somehow, which is why i don't think i find any coen movie bad, or even mediocre. even their movies i don't like feel well made to me.

absolutely

Yes, id also classify it as low-kino

Anyone know what font "Capitol Pictures Studios" is written in?

The scene where Brolin gathered all the religious leaders and the "would that it were so simple" scenes are very well done by any comedy film's standards.

its sad that people trying to copy their style do better work then they can aka fargo season 2

It was an entire movie of basically cameos.

Yeah, but that's basically a fight between retards at the special olympics. By any measure, they're the two worst, by far.

Looks like an all caps Futura, maybe.

>it seems they just love money alot
this movie was made out of pure love for the history and craft of filmmaking, youre talking out of your ass

I know the "would that it were so simple" was supposed to be the funniest scene in the movie, but the scene with the religious leaders was by far the funniest in my opinion. That's Coen style comedy and writing at its best. The orthodox priest complaining about the chariot race scene was fucking great.

thanks famiglia

Word. This was a $20m artsy comedy that was never made for a wide audience. Absolutely nothing about implies movie. Fuck, this is just two brothers who can now do whatever the fuck they want and just making a fun homage to cinema history.

They're producers on Fargo

It's mediocre by Coen standards. Still a good film.

>Jesus is not the son of god
>God likes jews the most

What did the coens mean by this?

It was an excellent commentary on 1940s and modern hollywood. There were a lot of layers to this movie too. Its an excellent movie to analyze.

I feel like this movie would have gotten better reviews if it wasn't advertised as an ensemble comedy.

I think that's the perfect description of this movie

I'm upset the cowboy didn't have to lasso any communists

This 100%

I was surprised how funny Tilda Swinton's bit was, and then the scene with Ralph Fiennes floored me. I watched a clip of it on youtube before seeing the movie and it did nothing for me but it was amazing in the movie. The whole thing was a lot better than I expected based off of the lack of buzz around it.

I saw this with two friends. I absolutely hated it and rank it with the likes of Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty, friend #1 thought it was average and put it in the middle of their filmography and friend #2 absolutely loved the film putting it in the Coens top 3.

For me personally, it felt like the Coens had a bunch of great ideas and funny moments and just dumped them into this bare bones film without any rhyme or reason. The plot was nonexistant, which usually works for them, but there was so much shit going on and none of it had anything to do with anything else.

bhery dipphicult
bhery dipphicult
a hush hush glade

>people saying there was no real ending
Did you not listen to Italicus' speech at the end? Movies and celebrities have become the new religion, the new Christianity. "Why shouldn't gods anointed appear here, among these strange people to shoulder their sins. Here, in this sun drenched land. Why shouldn't he take this form, the form of an ordinary man, a man bringing us not the old truths, but a new one?" Baird asks as the shots focus on the film crew. Isn't cinema a "new truth told not in words but in light"? And that's a truth we could see if only we had a character like Mannix who's there to act as another Jesus, someone to shoulder the sins of his studios' children, so that the image the poor and huddled masses will always be one of semi-divinity, a new kind of truth that works only if, in the image of the film industry, we have but faith.