Burn After Reading

The Coens again! Every time these famous brothers make a comedy, you can bet you won’t easily forget it. Burn After Reading is a typical example. A crazy script full of crazy characters whose actions are so unbelievable that they become pleasantly funny and parodic, but also full of logical missteps and underdeveloped motives. What is made enjoyable by the superb actors is in turn somewhat marred by an attempt at distinctive and wacky humour, the effects of which are sometimes quite clumsy in the Coens' delivery. But here it surprisingly works quite well, especially the first half, thanks to the wacky Pitt and the irresistibly scene-chewing Malkovich; I was incredibly entertained and I wondered whether they would finally get it right. Well, after Pitt's departure, it went downhill and by the end it was confirmed that the Coens had bitten more than they could chew with the script. That said, I can't criticize much this time because it's really well made, there's no part where the humour stagnates, and sometimes it's nice to see a comedy with a slightly more complex and unravelled story in the style of Guy Ritchie. I’m giving it 3*, but I’ve never felt so much like adding a fourth star. (01/01/2013)

The Coen’s announce a return to cynical waters. That definitely is good news. But the bad news is, that they are returning to waters that they have already peed into countless times. And this time with an almost non-existent screenplay. But in terms of acting, this is right up my street. And paradoxically it makes it better, because everybody is acting their life out, even though they have nothing really to act. Bizarre. (11/02/2008)

An author once described how he wrote a short story that he needed to quickly deliver to the publisher, but he didn't know how to end it. So he turned to his friends for advice and they told him to just cut it up and go to the pub with them. Because he really wanted to go to the pub, he allowed his characters to be cut up and hurried to the pub. I don't know where the Coen brothers were headed, but I get the feeling that this film was sewn with a needle that was too hot. The concept is attractive and they came up with several interesting characters, but they couldn't utilize their potential anywhere near as much as they deserved. It's unfinished and unbalanced, although it should be emphasized that it's not a bad film at its core. The film has charming moments, like when Frances McDormand bitterly says that she wouldn't be able to make a living as an actress with her body and face, and in Hollywood, they would make fun of her. Also, whenever George Clooney or Brad Pitt appear on screen, it's clear that they see their characters as parodies of their own acting styles and their usual protagonists who made them famous. But what good is all of that when many scenes end unremarkably and the film completely lacks the complexity and precision that made the Coen brothers famous? It's simply not a film in the style of The Man Who Wasn't There, Fargo, or, if we're talking about their comedies, O Brother, Where Art Thou? Overall impression: 60%. (03/01/2009)

It’s the typical Coen absurdity - an ordinary man thrown into insanely escalated situations - and it brings to mind the best of what the brothers have done to earn their reputation. It’s got a thoughtful plot, clever twists, excellent actors, great direction, and references so apt that Hitchcock is surely smiling in his grave. It's not good enough for the Oscars like last year, but I like this position much better. (01/14/2009)

The Coen Brothers on cocaine, or rather this is what happens when filmmakers who revel in the bizarre and absurd take their creative visions to the extreme. It's not that I didn't laugh (Malkovich is absolutely amazing and probably never said fuck more than once in a row like he did in this film), but outside of the few good gags and parodying performances, the whole thing is pretty much treading water. Take away the cast and all the funny lines and you're left with... well, nothing. As a one-off, it's quite fine, but you'll enjoy it much more as a festival of maximally infantile roles for the stars than as an honest Coen film. [60%] (11/29/2020)