Solid film

Rating: 9/10 (20 February 2016)

So the movie was pretty good. I liked the overall tone and how it absolutely satirized everything going on in 1950s Hollywood and even Hollywood today. The staging was also pretty good and allowed for punchlines of jokes and comedy to pay off, which is important in a satire like this. It's not necessarily as good as something say Wes Anderson or Edgar Wright would stage, but for what the filmmakers were going for, it worked out just fine. Being a Coen brothers' movie, it has all the tropes and signatures of them, both good and bad. The good is rich and lively characters with depth, amazing writing, great set design, and Roger Deakins on camera (which never isn't a good thing). The bad isn't necessarily a bad thing, but more of an annoyance in that the movie conveys the same message basically all other Coen brothers' movies have in that the only meaning life and art have is that which we as individuals put into it and nothing more. At times, the plot also felt kind of meandering, and I don't know if that was intentional or not, but it didn't really bother me because the scenarios were still pretty interesting to me and I feel like it might have to do with the layers of the film. It would honestly be a pretty cool case study.
Other than that, I'd say it's a pretty solid Coen brothers flick that's being unfairly underrated (and in some cases panned).