Hail, Caesar!

As the song goes, there's no business like show business. And sometimes the behind the scenes antics are more entertaining than the finished product. Romantic entanglements, petty squabbles, disorderly behavior...these are some of the problems one might face.

And boy, all these problems and more come into focus in Joel and Ethan Coen's Hail, Caesar! (and then some). Set at a small Hollywood studio during the 1950s, it follows the chaotic (and sometimes screwball) antics its stars endure and studio fixer Eddie Mannix (played to deadpan glory by Josh Brolin) trying to cover up said antics. It's a task easier said than done when Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) gets kidnapped.

But it's not just the state of Hollywood Hail, Caesar! shines a light on. After all, it's set during a time of high tension (thanks to the Cold War) and higher morals. Debauchery, pregnancies out of wedlock and certain political leanings weren't exactly smiled upon back then, especially if you work in Hollywood.

While watching Hail, Caesar!, several observations were made. Brolin and Ralph Fiennes need to do comedy more often (Inherent Vice and The Grand Budapest Hotel respectively are recent testaments to that claim), Clooney needs to ham it up more often, Channing Tatum has a promising career as a character actor ahead of him (if The Hateful Eight is also any indication), and Alden Ehrenreich  will hopefully be sought out more after this. Oh, and the Coen brothers need to add some more depth to their female characters. (Fargo isn't enough!)

A few problems aside, Hail, Caesar! is an entertaining watch. (Certainly less melancholy than the Coens' previous film.) It honors both a bygone era of Hollywood and the escapist effect movies have on us. (Oh, an amusing bit of trivia. Mannix was a real-life Hollywood fixer and was also featured as a character in Hollywoodland ten years prior. Mannix's wife Toni in the latter film was played by Diane Lane, Brolin's then-wife. Deliberate casting or just a coincidence? You decide.)

My Rating: ****1/2

Inside Llewyn Davis

The films of Joel and Ethan Coen frequently feature characters whose lives go from bad to worse and, quite frankly, they deserve it. This is why their new film Inside Llewyn Davis feels so different from the likes of The Big Lebowski and A Serious Man.

How so? The lead character, excellently played by Oscar Isaac, is actually sympathetic amid all of his bad luck. (Then again, Llewyn doesn't complain about his problems every other scene like the protagonists in other Coens films.)

But like other Coens films, there is a wide array of supporting characters throughout Inside Llewyn Davis. They're all have screen time for only a short amount of time but it's what they do during that time that makes their performances last. (Sort of like what Steve McQueen did with 12 Years A Slave.) However, this film is easily Isaac's.

There are other aspects of Inside Llewyn Davis that simply must be mentioned. Along with the Coens' direction and the many performances, there's Bruno Delbonnel's cinematography which makes the film look like photography of the era. And the music. Oh, it will get stuck in your head.

Inside Llewyn Davis is the most human film the Coens have ever done and it's simply phenomenal. All of its elements came together to make a film that just resonates. I know I'll get some controversy for stating this, but Inside Llewyn Davis is easily the Coens' best film to date.

My Rating: *****

Blood Simple

Jean-Luc Godard once said, "All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun." This is also the guide to make a film noir. (I mean, they're practically essential.)

This is also what Joel Coen followed when he made his debut Blood Simple. Made with a shoestring budget and a simple premise, the film takes the standard crime drama and is given a few twists courtesy of Coen and his brother Ethan.

As with any early film of a prominent director, you can pick up on certain trademarks throughout. In regards with Blood Simple, there are subtle additions that would be seen in later Coen Brothers films. It's small stuff like lighting or editing, but they're very Coen Brothers.

But the most telling Coen Brothers element in Blood Simple is the (excuse the slight pun) intolerable cruelty the characters inflict on each other. It's just a detail like that must have made some critics back in 1984 raise a few eyebrows. (It's more of a shrug nowadays due to films being excessively violent.)

Anyway, Blood Simple is noir at its finest. It's not very often that you see a film with a limited production that resulted in a satisfying way. This isn't a film often talked about, and I don't understand why that is.

My Rating: *****

BOOK VS MOVIE: No Country for Old Men

For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. This is something taught in physics, but it can be applied to life in general. This is something shown every now and again in fiction.

One such work is No Country for Old Men. The story begins when the money of a drug deal gone bad gets stolen by an outsider. His actions get him noticed not just by the police but also by a very violent hitman. (There are some things you should always leave alone. One of them is a suitcase full of money.)

Cormac McCarthy, as I learned from The Road, isn't into stories that are the slightest bit uplifting. No Country for Old Men only confirms that fact. Thanks to its bleak dialogue and even bleaker descriptions, the novel shows that all hope is lost. (Fortunately, it's not as depressingly bleak as The Road, but it's twice as violent.)

Joel and Ethan Coen's film keeps the bloody nature of McCarthy's novel very much alive. (Hey, they are the guys who made Fargo after all.) The performances from Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem and Tommy Lee Jones certainly add to it as well. (Kelly Macdonald also deserves a mention.) And, of course, Roger Deakins' cinematography is gorgeous.

Both the novel and the film have their fair share of grisly violence. But the distinctions between the styles are very noticeable. (McCarthy is more straightforward whereas the Coens linger over the gory details.) And it's the difference in styles that made me choose the victor of the two.

What's worth checking out?: The book.

BOOK VS MOVIE: True Grit

I'm not much for westerns. I think it's mostly because of all the bloodshed, both justified and senseless. I like the older westerns if strictly because they don't show said blood on screen. (That, and the themes and motifs.) Still, I'd be willing to watch them.

Such is the case with True Grit. Told from the perspective of Mattie Ross as she recalls events from her youth, the story chronicles a tale of action, adventure and revenge. (Fittingly the very things that can make for any story that sells.)

Charles Portis' novel depicts a world of rough dealings and tough people told through the eyes of a young girl. She understands the many things going on around her but she also sees things with an air of curiosity. She's told constantly to stay away but does she obey? Nope. (That's the kind of character I like.)

Joel and Ethan Coen's film keeps the spirit of Portis' novel very much alive and then some. Their casting choices are perfect, especially Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross. She displays Mattie's feisty behavior without any problem. Throw in Roger Deakins' cinematography and Carter Burwell's score, and you've got the ideal western.

It's pretty clear as to which of the two I favor the most. Granted, both are excellent works but one of them tells the story of Mattie Ross better than the other. It makes the story become more alive. Though the other work is very much worth a look too.)

What's worth checking out?: The movie.

A Serious Man

It's amazing that Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) doesn't go mad at some point in Joel and Ethan Coen's A Serious Man. I mean, with all of the immense stress he undergoes, it's almost impossible not to completely snap under pressure.

What are some of the things Larry goes through? Let's see...his wife wants a divorce, his brother won't leave (or do anything productive), his kids are driving him crazy, and a student is blackmailing him. (Believe me, I'm trying to make it sound less hectic than it actually is.)

The Coens based A Serious Man partly on their upbringing. (It makes me wonder what the hell happened in their early life that inspired their films.) It shows that suburbia in the 1960s wasn't ideal as most films from that very era depicted. Ah, hell in the form of reality. Gotta love it.

I also have to talk about Roger Deakins' cinematography. (Again, how has he not won an Oscar or three by now?) He captures the harshness of home life pretty much effortlessly. (Then again, he did shoot Revolutionary Road as well.)

A Serious Man is quite good though I can't bring myself to say that I loved it. It's not exactly my favorite film of the Coens either. (That goes to O Brother, Where Art Thou?) Still, I can understand why many liked it so much. (Personally, it's just another film off my list.)

My Rating: ****1/2

The Man Who Wasn't There

The neo-noir. It's a favorite genre of mine. (Hell, I just like crime films in general.) Anyone who can depict a good criminal case can get my interest.

Joel Coen's The Man Who Wasn't There is one film. However, it isn't just about a little felony like murder. It's more about the mundane life of small town suburbia. (Well, what else do you expect from the Coen brothers?)

It's interesting seeing our protagonist Ed Crane (Billy Bob Thornton) doing something most experienced criminals treat as a skill: getting away with a crime. Here is someone with the plainest of jobs (a barber), and he is somehow able to get away with the most serious of crimes. But that's the Coen brothers' quirk for you.

The cast is quite good. Along with Thornton, the names include Frances McDormand, James Gandolfini and Scarlett Johansson. They're all great, but Thornton who reigns supreme among them.

The Man Who Wasn't There is quite good though it's probably not among the top three of the Coen brothers' films. (It's still entertaining though.) That cinematography by Roger Deakins is basically a film junkie's wet dream. (How the fuck does he not have an Oscar yet?) Still, it's worth a look.

My Rating: ****1/2

The Big Lebowski

Most directors have a distinct trademark that makes them recognizable. John Waters has the camp factor. Alfred Hitchcock used suspense. Quentin Tarantino weaves profanity and violence into his scripts.

With Joel and Ethan Coen, many of their films focus on everyday life with a touch of reality's bizarreness. Seriously. Look at Fargo. Look at Raising Arizona. Look at Burn After Reading. And, most importantly, look at The Big Lebowski.

As bizarre as it may sound, you could do a triple feature of The Big Sleep, The Long Goodbye and The Big Lebowski, and you see the similarities among them. That's because Ethan based The Big Lebowski off the narrative style of Raymond Chandler, author of the previous two titles. All three have similarities, including the many characters introduced and the few plot holes amid the scripts. In fact, Jeffrey "the Dude" Lebowski could basically be Philip Marlowe had Chandler wrote Marlowe as a pothead slacker.

The cast is great. It ranges from Coen regulars John Goodman, Steve Buscemi and John Turturro (shouldn't he have been nominated by now?) to award favorites Philip Seymour Hoffman and Julianne Moore. The star of The Big Lebowski, without a doubt, is Jeff Bridges. After all, he's the Dude.

The Big Lebowski is very amusing though it does get surreal at times. Very quotable, that goes without saying. This basically is a movie for everyone except those easily offended by language and/or violence.

My Rating: ****1/2

Barton Fink

Joel and Ethan Coen are one of the most compelling duos in the film industry. Their movies are different from others'. I don't mean that in a bad sense; it shows their work is memorable.

Barton Fink depicts the life that was 1941 Los Angeles, which by all accounts wasn't as glamorous as it was cracked up to be. Around that time, established writers and playwrights were being commissioned by studios, and were disappointed by the Hollywood treatment. They thought they would be getting more out of what they were being paid.

John Turturro, a frequently underused actor, stars in the title role of the Clifford Odets doppelganger. Through his bouts of writers' block while cooped up in a Los Angeles hotel, he encounters a mysterious salesman (a villainous John Goodman).

Barton Fink conveys the many themes of the Coen brothers, however it's much darker than some of their other work. The performances by Turturro and Goodman are great. To those wanting a glimpse of Hell on earth, you'll find it in the form of Barton Fink.

My Rating: ****1/2

Miller's Crossing

The gangster movie was popular back in the 1930's when real gangsters were showing who's the boss. Bonnie and Clyde and The Godfather aside, the genre started to die out. But recently, the genre came back alive and kicking.

Now I have seen only a few movies made by the Coen brothers. (All I got are Raising Arizona, O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Fargo.) But I managed to get a sense on what Joel and Ethan were trying to accomplish in their movies. One of them was using violence gratuitously.

Anyway, Miller's Crossing I liked for its simplicity of things. The dialogue, the violence, everything. And this is from the duo responsible for the bloodfest that is Fargo.

Miller's Crossing is one of the more unconventional gangster movies I've seen. It doesn't rely on blood and bullets, just the conscience of the lead character. That, in my opinion, I like very much.

My Rating: ****1/2

Fargo

Joel and Ethan Coen are known for the dark humor in their movies. Some notable examples include The Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona and Fargo.

Jerry Lundegaard (William H. Macy) is having difficulty making ends meet, therefore he plots a staged kidnapping of his wife so he can split the ransom money with the kidnappers. Unfortunately for him, the kidnappers leave a bloody trail that captures the attention of pregnant police chief Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand).

I honestly wonder what went through the Coen brothers' minds as they wrote the screenplay, mainly the wood chipper scene. Probably stuff that shouldn't be mentioned in mixed company. I love McDormand's accent. exaggerated, yes, but freakin' awesome. I love her performance too, probably one of the few great female roles. I also love Macy's performance. He definitely captured his character's meekness. Despite a few scenes I turned away from (*cough* wood chipper *cough*), Fargo completely catches your attention. And, although bleak and messed-up, the humor throughout the movie just works.

My Rating: *****

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Joel and Ethan Coen are an (cough) "unique" pair of filmmakers. They managed to make movies that are different from other movies. Anyway, back to the review.

Mississippi, 1937. Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney), Delmar O'Donnell (Tim Blake Nelson) and Pete (John Turturro) escape from a jail chain gang intent on getting to the loot stashed away by Everett. As this is at his house soon to be flooded by a new dam, speed is of the essence. They find themselves fast-talking their way out of one jam after another, and along the way not only have to be wary of riverside sirens but even get to make a pretty good country record.

With this being only one of two Coen brothers movies I've seen (the other is Raising Arizona), I really didn't know what to expect from them. But it's soon obvious: violence which is glorified to the maxium level. But apart from that factor, O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a pretty good movie. Good soundtrack, too.

My Rating: ****1/2