Spot on.

Rating: 9/10 (1 March 2016)

I think a lot of reviewers are missing the point. The film is a cynical look at Hollywood. Every single scene is linked in a sarcastic POV at what's happening behind the screens.
Take, for example, the opening. When Saul of Tarsus is portrayed as an impoverished individual when transformed into Paul (he was a Roman citizen and persecutor of Christians at that point) and the mentioning of "the Frankish road" (the Franks weren't about at that time). Then you get the religious debate. The inconsistencies are not important to those gathered in the meeting; just the image of Jesus, how it could reflect on the church and if it's going to alienate groups of potential customers.
Take, for example, the dance scene. Openly gay, yet singing about missing women whilst they are at sea. And the director is gay. Not important in itself, but when linked to Clooney's character getting his break through role by having sex with said director it's an abuse issue.
Another example: The kidnappers are drooping exaggerated dialectic (communist philosophy) reasoning. They believe in something. Their handler obviously doesn't (favouring a dog he doesn't want over a lot of money for the "Just cause"). It's abusive. And Clooney's character sees their point. But when he voices it it gets beaten out of him. It's abuse.
I think suggesting the film is unhinged or just a string of pointless scenes is not doing it justice at all. It's layer upon layer of shallowness and abuse.
And Brolin's only redeeming feature is that he chooses to keep up the abuse, rather than settle for a job in the nuclear weapons industry. How harsh is that!