MovieChat Forums > Hail, Caesar! (2016) Discussion > Can you really enjoy this movie without ...

Can you really enjoy this movie without understanding cinematic history?

posted 8 years ago by Rizzyay
36 replies | jump to latest

Yeah, I just finished watching the movie. It was allright, not great but allright. To me, it was a parody of Hollywood history. I have luckily been studying the cinematic history lately, and thus understood pretty much all the jokes about the movie genres and the communist schemes that were presumed to exist in the 50s (that were for most part exxaggeration, which of course you would also have to know in order to understand the joke). Can you really like this movie at all without having understanding of movie history? If not, then the Coen brothers really made a movie for a very narrow audience!

For me 6/10. It was a decent 3-star-film about the spoofs of movie history.

Without understanding of cinematic history I would've missed all the jokes, and it would've been propably like 2/10.

[–] LCShackley 8 years ago

I don't think so, hence the low ratings.

[–] mutationjason 8 years ago

I'm about to watch it. I'm glad I was a film major.

[–] mutationjason 8 years ago

Watched it last night. I don't think you need to know film history necessarily but just have some idea that people were terrified of Communists infiltrating everything including Hollywood. I remember learning that in American History before I studied film history. It might help to at least have seen a big movie or two from the 1950s. I think a lot of people are turned of by period pieces these days.

[–] jan_kuehn-72594 8 years ago

Agree ! Good cast, great craftsmenship, good script too. But still.....it dosen't work. Sad. I'm a Coen Bros. admirer otherwise.

[–] chicago85 8 years ago

Its a comedy. If you want a more serious look you might read "Stardust" by Joseph Kanon. Its about Hollywood after WWII and the communists and communist hunters. Kanon has written many mysteries about this period. The Good German was made into a movie but not as good as the book.

Stardust is a novel but does give the flavor of LA like James Ellroy did in books like LA Confidential.

I don't know everything. Neither does anyone else

[–] WoodCheese 8 years ago

You don't need cinematic history at all. I barely knew a few references, and enjoyed the movie a whole lot anyway. Just like with other Coen Bros movies, it's all in storytelling. There doesn't need to be any "messages".

Great acting, great directing. Funny, entertaining and interesting movie. Not their best, but a solid 7/10. Would watch it again.

[–] jrhpax 8 years ago

The initial question is a good one. The answer: I'm not sure.

I liked the movie great deal. I also know a great deal about movies.

This was worth seeing if only for (1) the synchronized swimming scene, (2) the Channing Tatum dance number and (3) several scenes of Hobie making a western and lasso-ing spaghetti. In fact, the movie has a lot of wonderful stuff. But I think it's more enjoyable for those of us who have seen the originals.

This movie is not beloved on IMDB, but I'd recommend it.

[–] fang123horn 8 years ago

Maybe that's why I consider it one of the best films of 2016 because of my knowledge of Old Hollywood but I think also the way the Coens put together all these references just made it an even more of a delight for myself. Honestly the movie's rating should be in the 7's.

[–] kdrbrill 8 years ago

Well, you're easy to please I guess.

Yes, it had some enjoyable moments, but could've been SO much better, tighter. Too many unnecessary characters and subplots. Also, it would've been maybe a 7/10 if they had spent more rehearsal time or 'choreography' on the water ballet sequence, which were clearly meant to suggest Esther WIlliams' number, instead of pasting together a series of redundant camera shots.

The same goes w/Channing Tatum's Gene Kelly impersonation. The tap number, if one could call it that, was just painful, like something out of a beginners tap class for 8 year olds. If he had offered to rehearse for another month -- which he can do w/his wealth -- it could've been at least passable.

Still, there were some good bits, especially with Swinton playing twin gossip columnists. Clooney was good as well, although he needs to put down the cigarettes and cocktails -- he looks at least 10 years older than his real age.

IMO, the rating should be about 4/10, maybe 5 if one is generous. But one of the best of 2016? We'll have to agree to disagree.

[–] drew1116 8 years ago

"The same goes w/Channing Tatum's Gene Kelly impersonation. The tap number, if one could call it that, was just painful, like something out of a beginners tap class for 8 year olds. If he had offered to rehearse for another month -- which he can do w/his wealth -- it could've been at least passable."

I'm glad you brought this up. It really looked like Channing was dancing in slow motion. That said, I enjoyed the number, but don't watch Singin in the Rain before watching this movie.

[–] erkucz00 8 years ago

It helps, but I just watched it, and my sister, who knows next to nothing abot movies still thought it was funny. Theres a deeper meaning here though, about the importance of movies to culture, that you can get no matter what.

Hello...My name is Inigo Montoya...You killed my father...prepare to die.

[–] yahko_kun 8 years ago

I studied Hollywood and the history in univercity, how it went through each decade from the 20's up to the Bourne series. All the economic, religious, technical aspects, how actors grew from flat dancing performances to great on screen characters.

I did pickup on those elements in HC. I just didnt find them funny or they felt out of place. I do not think you need to know the history to enjoy it. I knew the history and didnt enjoy it because it was almost done too much in a sarcastic way in making fun of Hollywood's history.

I think its done well, acting was good, you felt being in that era it was just not an interesting movie.

[–] WarpedRecord 8 years ago

I'm not sure you really have to understand cinematic history to appreciate this, because it's all right here. But it probably helps. A weaker Coen brothers effort, but still moderately entertaining.