Classic or Formula Coens is in Eye of the Beholder

Rating: 6/10 (13 February 2016)

The Coen brothers have been making their style of movies for long enough now that they have a definitive formula to their screenplays. Everything therefore is gauged in your appreciation of their formula. Many claim to have spotted a trend of classic followed by a dud. I have not paid that close attention to that phenomena, but I judge by my own reaction: was I entertained?, was I drawn into the story? Everyone may have their own list of favourite Coen bros films throughout the years, and there may be certain attachments beyond the quality of the filmmaking that can be attributed to that.
For instance, I found "Fargo" to be a simple tale with a B-movie budget, with the Coen's tapping into an obvious well for humour - the quirky behaviour and language of Minnesotans.
"Miller's Crossing", on the other hand, is such a well layered piece of scriptwriting that it deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence with "Godfather" and "Goodfellas".
"Barton Fink" I have a bias against since I knew for a while that this script was born out of exhaustion when the script for "Miller's Crossing" was taking so long. It feels like a half-baked attempt at finding nuance while hoping to get a green light by throwing horror into the second half.
I'm sure I have already caused disagreement with other Coen bros fans. "Barton Fink" has a legion of critics who say it's one of their best works. Which brings us to the too lightweight "Hail, Caeser!". Right off the bat - where is George Clooney? Sure, he is kidnapped, but that shouldn't limit his screen time to a few poignant pieces of dialogue with his captors. Same goes for Scarlett Johansson, which is really only a cameo. She is talked about more off-screen than is seen on-screen.
I thought many critics would be comparing this film to "My Favorite Year", where a big movie star disappears, and a studio employee is responsible for finding him and returning him back for the big finale. The era for that film is the golden age of television. This is a slightly older period, but nevertheless the script is a series of set pieces meant to highlight movie-making of the early 1950s. What actually brought me out to the theatre to witness this on the big screen was Roger Deakins' cinematography; only to be denied a proper showing with a dim bulb and fuzzy out-of-focus image.
This film is a series of set pieces, kind of stitched together through the Capitol Studio lot, with James Brolin being the ringleader. Here I was not sure what to make of Brolin's character. Is it a complaint that he was too normal (too human)? There are other set pieces that are close to slapstick, including Clooney's character, which kind of betrays the tone with the more serious Brolin and his tender wife. With other films taking the film-within-a-film motif to a greater degree, I felt the characters had too few layers, and hence a little less satisfying.
But then again, a lightweight Coen bros film is still astute in fleshing out dialogue and finding an offbeat subject that has a sense of individuality. With some setpieces finding true smile-inducing characters with appealing antics (Alden Ehrenreich performs lasso tricks!), and a briskly paced day-in-the-life of the motion picture studio, this film still has much more to offer than other similar attempts (puts the over-rated "The Artist" to shame).
I am writing this review having just watched it, and perhaps it would be more fair to let this movie settle in my mind before deciding whether to give this a thumbs up or thumbs down. On the one hand, the editing room scene feels like classic Coens. But on the other hand, attempts to build tension don't connect in the climax. There certainly is a split between critics and audiences in finding the love for this outing. Almost the same complaint was made about the flawed "Tomorrowland" which was supposed to feature George Clooney prominently, only to disappear for the first 40 minutes or so of the film. In this case, our likable gruff, Mr. Ocean Eleven, is dressed both in character and in costume for a larger scope adventure, instead literally is parked in a chair for almost the entire film. So for that I was disappointed. James Brolin, who had the right tone and was a lot more intriguing in the recent "Sicario", is a little too normal for this film, and he is the main character.
With a star studded cast and a story that jumps around a lovingly recreated early 1950s Hollywood, it is hard to get emotionally involved with any of the main characters, so the final determination I suppose comes down to - was I entertained? I would say, just barely, making this a more mediocre outing than other heightened Coen worlds that are preserved in the pantheons of the critical mass. On the other hand, on a cold February afternoon that a Minnesotan like me decides is better spent inside a movie theatre, I felt I got my money's worth.