Should Have Been Better


As most of the board comments have already covered the issues with this film (too may characters, no plot, boring pace, etc), I won't rehash it.

Josh Brolin plays Eddie Mannix, a "fixer" for a major movie studio in the 1950s whose job seems to be keeping his immature actors out of trouble or covering up the trouble they do get into. His biggest problem is that the star of his big budget, Ben-Hur-ish movie has disappeared. He also has to deal with the unwanted pregnancy of his starlet as well as trying to chaperone along his western star who is going to be in an upscale musical and can't get along with the priggish director. Also, there are twin gossip columnists, played smartly by Tilda Swinton, who keep threatening to break a big story And just to add to the mayhem, a group of Marxist followers have established a Communist think thank nearby.

This movie wasted a ton of potential. I'm assuming the cost to assemble all this talent left no budget for computers to write the script. The characters played by George Clooney, Scarlett Johansson and Channing Tatum could have been left out. Its a mish mash of scenes that have less to do with each other than an episode of SNL.

However, there is some really smart filmmaking going on. The high points of this movie are the actual making of the films-within-the-film: the Roman movie from which the movie derives its title, the sailor musical that is reminiscent of Gene Kelly/Frank Sinatra films, and the witty banter between Ralph Fienne's snooty director and Aldren Ehrenreich's former wild west star. I think if they had stuck to the movie-making tidbits, the constant fires Mannix needed to put out, and the Communist think thank, they could have made a smart, snappy, movie about the movie studios of the 1950s. It was a case of too many chefs spoiling the soup.


My memory foam pillow says it can't remember my face. I can tell its lying.

reply

Try it again. It might grow on you. Yes, some scenes were overly long, but I liked the inside jokes about Hollywood. And what's not to like about a film that slams the ultra-rich Hollywood-types playing at being commies while clinging to their capitalist perks? Especially when ultra-lib George Clooney gets pimp-slapped for buying into it as he has in real life?

I must say, Clooney was good-humored enough about the irony....

When evil is viewed as good, righteousness is viewed as evil.

reply

Very good points.

reply

No, Eric is right, this film was a massive missed opportunity. Yes, the parodies of studio films were wonderful, especially the homoerotic sailors' dance, but the film as a whole is a huge failure.

The thing is, they could have made a wonder dark comedy about a film studio fixer, but instead of making a witty film about an interesting person they made a randomized mess about a humorless bore who sucks the fun out of the film and holds religious debates in meetings! A fun supporting cast and some hilarious parody scenes can't change the fact that 1) the Mannix of the film is a dead weight who sinks the whole thing, and 2) the non-Mannix scenes are almost completely incoherent.

Really, this film is best appreciated in five-minute clips on youtube.

reply

Just watched this last night.

Admittedly it is quite light in the plot department and the pace is certainly not for everyone. But it's well acted with great dialogue and I loved the set pieces. Love letter to old Hollywood indeed.

Ultimately nowhere near their best films but it still left me with a big smile on my face. I'd give it a solid 7/10.

reply

[deleted]

Clooney's best film IMHO is Intolerable Cruelty. A criminally underrated and absolutely hilarious film. He does his best work in Coen-brothers films.

reply

He and Billy Bob Thornton (who plays a great idiot in that one) play well off one another. Not many scenes together, but the way Clooney looks at him, at times... good stuff.

reply

[deleted]