Hail, Caesar!

Es ist eigentlich eine nächste jüdische Spielfilm-Anekdote von den Coen-Brüdern, diesmal zum Thema Glaube an Verschiedenes (an Gott, an die Partei, an sich selbst, an Hollywood...) und wodurch und vor allem warum man ihn leugnen kann. Ich würde aber sagen, dass es sich hier im Unterschied zu (zum Beispiel) A Serious Man um eine verständlichere Anekdote handelt, in der sich trockene Witze, die fast stauben, mit solchen abwechseln, die unglaubliche Lachanfälle auslösen. Der Film hat mir sehr gefallen und die Stimmung der damaligen Zeit, welche durch Deakins' wunderschöne Kamera und Burwells leicht erkennbare Musik unterstützt wird, war beinahe magisch. Hobie Doyle? Sind Sie auch ein Kommunist? (08.03.2016)

It's a bit disjointed, it doesn't hold together, there are funny scenes, then less funny ones and then completely dull ones (the Soviet submarine). But as a whole, it's still a nice excursion to a time I love more than anything, the Golden Hollywood of the 1950s, when cinemas were ruled by naive westerns, even more naive sci-fi B-movie and swords and sandal movies. And I'll say one name: Alden Ehrenreich. I like this kid a lot, he's gonna be a star one day, trust me. (03.10.2016)

I was counting on the fact that this movie would be reminiscing about the old Hollywood from the middle of the last century. The fact that it would have a billion never-ending references was also a given. But the fact that the Coen brothers arrogantly thought that we all know everything about Hollywood and that we would not only understand all the references but that we would also laugh at them; well, they were greatly mistaken. The movie actually isn’t that funny and that’s despite the fact that Josh Brolin with his producer have the main role, which could in and of itself create a dozen of infinitely funny scenes. But the humor couldn’t be drier than a martini in the Virgin Islands. A pity, I like the Coens, but this movie was horrible. (15.06.2016)

I fell asleep twice, and quite deliberately, because this was unbearable. I haven't seen a more boring movie in months. There are about three good jokes and a lot of actors who probably enjoyed working in it, but otherwise I don't really know what it was supposed to be about. It's not funny enough for a comedy, not suspenseful enough for a whodunit, and terribly ordinary and unimaginative for a "Hollywood is full of idiots" type of satire. It tackles everything from knocked-up celebrities, the advent of television, the Cold War, economics, career ambitions and communist writers, but it's sorely lacking in lightness or any kind of distinctive identity, and all the scenes straight out of 1950s movies (the musical act, the fooling around in the water, the cowgirl) need to be cut by at least half. I'd quite like to hear what Clooney, Brolin, Johansson, Hill and Tatum had to say about the result when they first saw it. It will probably only entertain undemanding cinema-goers who are satisfied with familiar faces and the fact that it all looks quite nice. An annoying film. (25.02.2016)

There's a great idea behind Hail, Caesar! that is worth honoring, but it takes a wrong turn. The plot involving the communists, in which George Clooney (a standby of Joel and Ethan Coen) plays the fool, is not funny at all, no matter how hard you try to laugh. But the saddest part of it all is that the film, which is supposed to express love for the golden age of cinema, ends up portraying it with an almost satirical perspective, as a result of a comedy of errors. (01.03.2016)