Disappointing Adventure

Rating: 6/10 (30 April 2020)

Hail, Caesar! (2016) - [6/10]
The Coen Brothers typically make really good films - typically. There are moments in this film that are great, but those are just moments. The rest of the film is mediocre. I was quite disappointed with this film, and I think most people were. It felt really incomplete and all over the place. There really wasn't a main character, and most of the characters felt emotionally detached from the viewer. I couldn't connect with any of the cast (aside from one, maybe two characters) and when I began to do so, that character would disappear. With more than a couple absurd jokes, strange "out-of-the-blue" twists, and a star-studded cast, Hail, Caesar! (2016) tries to be so much, but fails to achieve anything it set out to accomplish (get it "set" because a large majority of the film takes place on various different film sets). There are three things that are good about this film. The production design, the cinematography, and the dialogue. The rest of the components that create a feature film feel incredibly lackluster. The writing (aside from the dialogue) isn't good, the acting is undistinguished, the editing didn't work, and the directing is disappointing. From a Coen Brothers' film, I would have expected better. I always wondered why no one ever talked about this film, and now I know why: it is forgettable. I watched Hail, Caesar! (2016) yesterday (from when I post this review), and I've already forgotten a lot about it; aside from the three things that are actually quite well done. I even took notes while watching it. It's forgettable. When a film is forgettable, that is not a good sign (it's more that you want to forget about it after viewing the film). Production design. This film excels in creating beautiful sets, settings, and mood. Each of the different stages in the fictional production company's lot (Capitol Pictures) perfectly captures the essence of 50s cinema. Production designer Jess Gonchor did an excellent job in capturing that era in every single set. I got a lot - a lot - of Wes Anderson vibes. Simply because of how vibrant, original, and complex each setting was. The different settings that Gonchor brought to life, really helped this film establish a realistic world. I haven't really talked about production design in any of my reviews, so I hope I sort of explained it well. The role of a production designer is to create the visual look of the story that is being told, and Gonchor's designs make this film look visually pleasing (coupled with Roger Deakins' camera work). But films aren't just about looking beautiful, they have to be compelling, have depth, and engage their audience. This film stands as an example of the fact that films can look gorgeous, but lack true beauty in their story. The story is so incredibly strange. That is part of the Coen Brothers' style, but what made this film strange is the way it jumps around. In terms of genre, tone, and story. There are scenes that drag, and then other scenes that feel two short (it almost makes you question "why did we just watch this"). On top of that, there really isn't a main plot. There are a couple of main plots. Thinking about it now, this film would have been much better as a TV show. The Coen Brothers try to squeeze so many different stories into one larger story, and it doesn't work. We jump around constantly, from one story to the next, and get lost in what is actually happening. It also jumps genres as a result of the many different stories. From comedy, to drama, to musical, and then back to comedy. If each of the different stories had been their own episodes in the Hail, Caesar! (2016) TV show, I think it would have turned out differently, but instead we get 5+ different complex stories jammed into an hour and forty six minute film. The stories don't have time to truly develop, as they're also edited to be occurring within each other, and the characters don't have time to truly develop either. When characters aren't able to develop, the actors' performances are affected. I expected more from all of the actors in this film. Each and every one of them has had stellar performances before, and in this it is as if they hadn't. They felt like amateurs. This is definitely a result of the writing. It must have been so difficult as an actor to figure out who your character is, and who they grow into, when there is very little to go off of. The best performance of the film was Alden Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle. He was actually extremely good in his role of Doyle, a country boy turned star who is forced by the studio to change his public image. I thought he was hilarious, having one of the funniest moments in the film, and was able to bring charm to this charmless film. Having actors such as Scarlett Johansson, Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, and George Clooney would make you think that there would be a lot of charm - but there isn't. Their performances are emotionless, dull, and unsatisfying. Josh Brolin also gives a good performance as the man with all the solutions, Eddie Mannix. He also has some of the funniest moments in the film, and brings a greater level of talent than most of the other cast. Although Hail, Caesar! (2016) has a star-studded cast, the performances aren't as masterful as you would hope. Hail, Caesar! (2016) pays great homage to 50s cinema, whilst making fun of cinema itself, and attempts to tackle issues in the film industry (such as writer unappreciation, public image, Communism , you read that correctly], and talent agnst). It fails from pre-production to create a compelling story, altering actors' performances, and narrative feel as a result. The cinematography, production design, and dialogue are the best parts of the film, but looks aren't everything in Hail, Caesar! (2016).