Hail! Caesar

Jay Young · February 10, 2016

Utterly Fantastic.

Whatever Roger Deakins quams with film were, the lighting was very interesting, set design was amazing, and the entire production (or multiple thereof) was entirely enjoyable!

I've been waiting to see a film with a decent story, no matter how thin for a long time, and this one delivers.

My favorite moments were the night scenes lit with a single source on screen, and perhaps more behind the camera - but that didn't matter as they still looked fantastic.

Old Hollywood, good film.

That is to say, it may not be for everyone because nothing explodes. And perhaps if you haven't seen a nice drama picture from before 1970 lately, one might not be able to relate.

Go see it.

cole t parzenn · February 10, 2016

I just saw it. (2K, 2.39 screen, bad blacks, blah blah blah) Underwhelmed by the writing but the visuals were batting 300.

Edited February 10, 2016 by cole t parzenn

Tyler Purcell · February 10, 2016

Can't wait to see it! Been struggling to find time! :(

David Mullen ASC · February 10, 2016

2.39???

It should have shown in 1.85 with some scenes in 1.33.

cole t parzenn · February 10, 2016

Pillarboxed 1.85, I mean. I don't mind pillarboxes on a tv but the not-quite-black lines on the sides of the image in a theater (with 1.89 digital projection) can be distracting. And having so much space on either side can make the framing feel off, to me.

David Mullen ASC · February 10, 2016

I recently saw "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" where the screen is 1.85 and 2.40 movies are shown letterboxed on it.

Personally I'd rather have it the other way, a 2.40 screen and 1.85 movies are pillorboxed, because a scope movie should be WIDER not shorter than a 1.85 movie.

But ideally there would be black curtains to come in on the sides for 1.85 movies.

Mark Dunn · February 10, 2016

Gone are the days of the masks opening out for a 'Scope feature after the flat trailers, then?

I wouldn't know, I haven't been to the pictures for 8 years.

Jay Young · February 10, 2016

2.39???

It should have shown in 1.85 with some scenes in 1.33.

What I found interesting were the trailers. They were all different. Sometimes they seemed like they were 1.79 with thin bars top and bottom on the 1.85 screen.

The 2.40 was letterbox obviously as this screen was at most 1.85 physically. But then some trailers would be what I might call 1.66, a little pillarboxing.

Then when the film started, it filled the whole screen, with some scenes in 1.33. I agree that the physical screen should be at a minimum 2.40.

But I also think screens should have curtains.

Manu Delpech · February 10, 2016

I personally like seeing 2:35 on a 1:85 screen, I'm really used to the black bars, although I also love seeing it on a proper 2:35, :40 screen, it's a different feel. 1:85 on a 2:35 screen is definitely not super pleasant, and I feel like (or it comes from the configuration of my movie theater) the blacks are way too polluted.

I hate that the trailers only occupy a small portion of the screen.

David Mullen ASC · February 10, 2016

When you know the history of widescreen, it's hard to accept that a 2.40 movie should be shorter and not wider on a theater screen than a 1.85 movie -- the movie that kicked off the widescreen revolution was "This is Cinerama" -- imagine if when the opening 1.33 b&w intro ended and Lowell Thomas says "This... is... CINERAMA!", instead of the curtains rolling wider and wider to fill a giant 2.66 : 1 screen, the curtains lowered to crop 1.33 to shorter 2.66 image!

Leon Liang · February 10, 2016

Well the curtains still exist in most major Australian cineplexes, and it's a really good feeling when you watch them slowly draw out to the side to show a 2.35 movie.....unless the movie is actually 1.85 and cropped to 2.35 for absolutely no f*cking reason, like "Spotlight" or "Boyhood". But in London I saw "2001" on an 1.85 screen with letterboxes for 2.2:1, which did feel rather odd.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Leon Liang