Why didn't audiences like this film?

Why didn't audiences like this film?

Because they don't understand all the old Hollywood references and jokes about Communist philosophy

Because they're a bunch of plebs. Movie was god-tier.

Most people don't know Marxists well enough to make fun of them.

super comfy desu

Because the people on the poster, other than Brolin, were barely in it.

>jonah hill gets his face on the poster instead of ehrenreich even though he has like 5 seconds of screen time

would would it twer so simple

It was mediocre and light on laughs. Not shit, just very average

Saw the movie with my now dead best friend, one pleb bitch said I heard as we were walking out of the theater said the best part of the movie was the popcorn her Chad boyfriend bought her. Reee!

american cant stand a single reference to communism. its sad.

because cohen brothers make shit movies. only reason why true grit and no country for old men are watchable is because they were adopted from novels.

i still can't tell if the film went over my head or just wasn't good i want to like the movie, but it just really doesn't go anywhere, it feels like it could be some experimental anti-film statement , every narrative thread kind of trailing off and pointlessly terminating, a main character whose arc invovles staying exactly the same which we never really feel he's going to waver from. its so goddamn lethargic, it keeps using goof cuts to film or fakeouts like the editor's scarf caught in the project to make it seem like somethings gonna happen but just fizzles outit even dabbles in a satirical film noir aesthetic but it's like it only cares about this about 1/3 of the time. it's like you put a bunch of industry satires in a blender and served em poured without bringing em into any sor of focus. the coen brothers have made a jacques rivette film.

because it was a huge buildup and then no pay off. nothing happened

My dear boy, why do you saw it "twerrr"

>implying the Marxists weren't 100% right

People who didn't understand the old Hollywood references will not get this film.

It's for faggots like me, basically, and it was perfect in so many ways.

Well like its not the about those other people, its about the manager. Its his story. Dealing with all that and having the struggle between taking a job for the money and security or doing what he loves. It didnt go anywhere cause his life is like that constantly and its just a little slice of his daily life on the job. At first I felt the same as you but then I watched it again.

Oh great, another Coen Bros. """"comedy""""

.. hurray.

kill yourself

yeah i do feel i may be in danger of underrating it. a serious man is a film that works at a similar pace but pulls it off better, a film i quite like but know many people whose tastes i respect dislike. guess i'll have to give hail caesar another watch, but even just as a piece about eddie mannox he's a very very flat character with no real faults, and none of the other plot events really affect him, his arc feels detached from the communist plot, he's not the one tracking down the suitcase he's always got a remove, on the job but about as much as the others are.
i'm also not sure what to make of the light spiritual themes of the film, and whether the marxism/christianity parallel was intended as satirical or not

Audiences didnt like it because they saw a bunch of A-Listers but forgot to read the Directors names.

Judging by the interviews, it seriously sounds like the Cohens just felt like making a movie paying tribute to and simultaneously parodying classic Hollywood.

The cohens dont make movies for anyone but themselves. They got 8 nominations for No Country at the academy awards and won half of them. 1 year later they release Burn After Reading which many consider one of their worst films (in my personal top 5). They dont give a fuck about awards or accolades. They just want to make movies, and THAT makes them based.

it was a love letter to what the coens love about the classical hollywood scene. the manager choses to stay, because he, like the coens, is addicted to the chaos. it was about how magical scenes are gritty and sweaty to shoot and how the image of actors and actresses are all built up, all the bizarre shit that goes down, and how they still find it a very pleasurable place to be.

>new true grit
>watchable

i think it's very different from a serious man. even though the red herrings and stories where nothing happens are in both (and other coen movies too), one's about them dealing with their childhood and much more existential, whereas hail caesar is much more lighthearted.

the christianity aspect i feel was mostly paralleled to the image of hollywood versus it's innerworkings, kind of like how the church is supposed to be very holy and divine yet still full of mundanity, bureaucracy and corruption. same goes for marxism, but i feel the mail reason marxism was in the movie was to mock the pseudo intellectual writers in hollywood.

that Ehenretiche kid was so good in that, I gotta be honest I hadn't heard of him before, but he was really solid and pushed that movie from what probably would have been a B without him to an A. Another good one Coens!

>hobie and carlotta dinner scene

Because it wasn't funny. I can take the non-plot and overreliance on historical references for jokes but it just is not funny enough to justify itself, in my opinion

References don't make a movie

Well its not that he has no faults, its that we dont see much of them. We catch a glimpse into his life. You could say he is a workaholic, since he misses out on lots of time with his wife and kids. the part about forgetting to call the baseball coach. He lied to his wife but it was about something small, smoking. Hes a normal person. A regular guy. Its a normal person in a world of crazy people, that's why its funny.

On the other portion, I have no idea

The biggest thing he was in was a teen romance movie. It was a crappy movie but he has some charm and made watching him enjoyable

I downloaded it, scanned it for a minute, and then deleted it.

I hate that hammy over-acting style.

The last Coen movie I saw was Barton Fink, and it had that same weird, overly-dramatic, affected style, which ruined the movie for me. Hail Caesar looked like it was even worse.

I've seen some really excellent Coen movies, but the characters need to be mostly normal people, like Fargo, and the awesome No Country.

The audience I was with enjoyed it. Granted I was one of the younger people there and I'm 30. I doubt many people under 40 can relate to it.

You mean the Cohen brother and sister

t. millennial triggered by references to things he knows nothing abotu

>You mean the Cohen brother and sister

Oh, are they going down the same road as the Wachowskis?

Look upon this pleb and his inability to understand any form of style

It's kind of a hollywood circle jerk and some of the humor is a little high brow for your typical retard pleb

it was clickbait in movie form

I liked where they had a sound stage or whatever named after the famous wrestling movie actor from Barton Fink.

It's the only time i so much as smiled.

Beyond the well executed tribute to old hollywood, the movie felt pointless to watch, mainly because there was no story. Its fun in moments but didn't really feel satisfying as a movie overall.

>a Cukor/Minnelli composite as the stock closeted director type
>Esther Williams homage
>5 minute one note gay sailor joke making fun of On the Town
>generic corny old cowboy movie
>Carmen Miranda hat
>Blacklisted screenwriters
Really deep references, 10/10 kino for informed patricians only

Murder yourself

Their best movie is Oh Brother Where Art Thou and it isn't even close

>references

reddit

because it was a terrible movie

AHHHHHHHH
AM A MAAAAHAAAAN
OF CONSTANT SORROOOOOOOOW

Wallace Beery. Wrestling picture. Whadda need, a road map?

He was also in Tetro, that Francis Ford Coppola movie.

Relax. Just revisit it in 10 or 15 years. You'll like it more although it won't change at all.

Coens need to do a con man movie. Base it on Doc Maurer's classic study (the book that The Sting was based on).

This was so bad it's one of the few films I have dropped

The coen brothers are shit besides Fargo, which isnt great but good

"To study the lingo of the con is inevitably to study the con itself," writes Luc Sante in his foreword to this classic work of urban anthropology, originally published in 1940. "A term such as cackle-bladder or shut-out cannot be properly described without giving a full account of its use, and such an account cannot be illustrated by stick figures." Thus The Big Con is filled with richly detailed anecdotes populated by characters with names like Devil's Island Eddie, the Honey Grove Kid, the Hashhouse Kid, and Limehouse Chappie ("distinguished British con man working both sides of the Atlantic and the steamship lines between, all with equal ease"). David Maurer spent years talking to con men about their profession, learning about each and every step of the three big cons (the wire, the rag, and the payoff). From putting the mark up to putting in the fix, Maurer guides readers through the fleecing--pretty soon you'll be forgetting the book's scientific value and reading for sheer entertainment. (A cackle-bladder, by the way, is a fake murder used to scare the victim off after his money's been taken. As for the shut-out, well, that you'll have to learn on your own.)"

I know Hollywood likes to jerk off to it's own history but does it have to be so damn boring