This is by far not the most interesting production by the Cohens, but it is worth watching on a variety of levels. First, there is the pleasure of seeing a bunch of good actors working together with great chemistry, some of them (like Pitt and Clooney) certainly not in their "traditional" roles. Second, the story is actually wacky enough to hold up in terms of internal logic, as strange as it may seem. As usual with the brothers, do expect some unexpected turns, of the violent variety. And yet, somehow, the movie retains the character of a light comedy. Pay particular attention to the very last words spoken in the film, they may be the best summary of the whole thing I've heard so far.
716 Reviews
A Bright American Farce
katiemeyer197913 September 2008
Nobody is quite there in this new bright farce by the Coen brothers. The plot is a smart excuse for a movie about nothing but appearing to be about a lot of things. Going backwards and forwards at the same time. Talk about "The Russians?" or planning to write a memoir. Brad Pitt is priceless and the innocence of his character is so believable that I wondered how many more surprises this actor has up his sleeve. He is a joy. George Clooney is also terrific and the Coens move through their crossed purposes with speed and elegance. I was totally immerse in their universe even if I didn't quite care what was going on. John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, Richard Jenkins and the unnerving Tilda Swinton complete the package of this movie that feels as if it was made for the sheer pleasure of it.
Not what I expected: dark, over-the-top, hilarious but surprisingly poignant
Monotreme0218 October 2008
The Coen Brothers are an interesting pair, there's no doubt about that. Just as they did back in the 1980's with their debut and sophomore films, the Coens chose to follow up their most heavy-handed and serious film since Blood Simple, No Country for Old Men, with a nutty, over-the-top screwball black comedy. But unlike their second film, Raising Arizona, the Coens deliver Burn After Reading with a kind of newfound cynicism attached to it; it's funny, but it's also surprisingly dark and sad, and even poignant to some extent.
Based on the Coen's first wholly original screenplay since 2001's The Man Who Wasn't There, Burn After Reading features a plethora of classic Coen staples: repetitive (and brilliant) dialogue employing a strange and almost poetic use of curse words, a multifaceted plot featuring slightly dim-witted characters in way over their heads, blacker-than-the-night comedy, over-the-top performances from a pool of actors featuring recurring collaborators and newcomers to the Coen clan alike, and to tie it all off, a lesson-learning conclusion in which nothing ends up being learned at all. It's wonderful how the Coens complicate the plot so much only to round it all off perfectly in the end. Like all of their films, Burn After Reading is a carefully calculated dance in which every pause, every stutter and every camera move is planned in advance.
What I loved most about the movie is trying to get into the Coen's heads and see what they think is funny. What's for sure is that the brothers have the most unique sense of humour in Hollywood; superficially, it seems as if most of the film's comedy derives from over-the-top slapstick/screwball antics and bleak, black comedic situations and visual gags, but in reality Burn After Reading's comedy is a lot subtler than that. As I already mentioned, this is a film in which every twitch and stutter is calculated; fittingly, this is the real source of the film's hilarity, in the actors' facial expressions, subtleties, and delivery of the lines. It's great to think, for instance, that the Coens probably thought that applying a booming, ominous drum-dominated "epic"-type musical score to the movie in the style of a Tony Scott action-thriller would be absolutely hilarious, and that's just one example of the many jokes in the movie that just soar right over your head. In addition, I think that the Coen Brothers are probably the most talented employers of curse words in Hollywood. Many directors are familiar with the colourful phrases, some more than others, but only the Coens know how to make various S- and F- words utterly sidesplitting.
Blessed with one of the more impressive ensemble casts of any film this year, Burn After Reading inevitably features a plethora of good acting. Surprisingly good acting, actually, proving I suppose that the Coen's didn't really mean for this to be a total farce but do reach out for a little something more. Frances McDormand, George Clooney and John Malkovich all deliver fantastically colourful, over-the-top performances, but each of their characters also has an added level of sadness and poignancy to them that adds a little something more than physical comedy to the actors' performances: McDormand with her almost tragic loneliness and obsession with cosmetic surgery, along with her equally tragic ignorance of those around her that do appreciate her for what she is; Clooney with an equal amount of loneliness and desperation, and an undeniable air of incompetence abound him, suggesting that his mediocre job is probably the best he can get; and Malkovich, with his alcoholism and acute superiority complex. Tilda Swinton and the ever-great Richard Jenkins are a lot subtler than their higher-billed co-stars, and Brad Pitt delivers the only truly one-hundred percent cartoon performance in the film; thought despite its emptiness it's also the most enjoyable and completely hilarious.
J.K. Simmons I reserve for last; he only appears in two scenes in the film, but they are undoubtedly and by far the funniest and most successful scenes of the film. Props to him for admirably succeeding in carrying the Coen's hilarity to another level of deadpan comedy.
The Coen Brothers have an interesting sense of humour, and it is present up front and center in their latest film. Just the concept of following up a serious drama-thriller like No Country for Old Men with an over-the-top screwball black comedy probably seemed hilarious to them. Featuring great, uproarious performances from a stellar ensemble cast, the Coens really give it their all with their offbeat, so-subtle-half-the-jokes-soar-over-your-head comedy. And yet, the film occasionally does manage to reach out a little further from its apparent genre limitations and provides us with something more poignant and truthfully sad. It's even somewhat startling just how dark the movie gets and how cruel the Coens are to their characters. It wasn't quite what I expected, but then again, that's the Coen Brothers for you.
Based on the Coen's first wholly original screenplay since 2001's The Man Who Wasn't There, Burn After Reading features a plethora of classic Coen staples: repetitive (and brilliant) dialogue employing a strange and almost poetic use of curse words, a multifaceted plot featuring slightly dim-witted characters in way over their heads, blacker-than-the-night comedy, over-the-top performances from a pool of actors featuring recurring collaborators and newcomers to the Coen clan alike, and to tie it all off, a lesson-learning conclusion in which nothing ends up being learned at all. It's wonderful how the Coens complicate the plot so much only to round it all off perfectly in the end. Like all of their films, Burn After Reading is a carefully calculated dance in which every pause, every stutter and every camera move is planned in advance.
What I loved most about the movie is trying to get into the Coen's heads and see what they think is funny. What's for sure is that the brothers have the most unique sense of humour in Hollywood; superficially, it seems as if most of the film's comedy derives from over-the-top slapstick/screwball antics and bleak, black comedic situations and visual gags, but in reality Burn After Reading's comedy is a lot subtler than that. As I already mentioned, this is a film in which every twitch and stutter is calculated; fittingly, this is the real source of the film's hilarity, in the actors' facial expressions, subtleties, and delivery of the lines. It's great to think, for instance, that the Coens probably thought that applying a booming, ominous drum-dominated "epic"-type musical score to the movie in the style of a Tony Scott action-thriller would be absolutely hilarious, and that's just one example of the many jokes in the movie that just soar right over your head. In addition, I think that the Coen Brothers are probably the most talented employers of curse words in Hollywood. Many directors are familiar with the colourful phrases, some more than others, but only the Coens know how to make various S- and F- words utterly sidesplitting.
Blessed with one of the more impressive ensemble casts of any film this year, Burn After Reading inevitably features a plethora of good acting. Surprisingly good acting, actually, proving I suppose that the Coen's didn't really mean for this to be a total farce but do reach out for a little something more. Frances McDormand, George Clooney and John Malkovich all deliver fantastically colourful, over-the-top performances, but each of their characters also has an added level of sadness and poignancy to them that adds a little something more than physical comedy to the actors' performances: McDormand with her almost tragic loneliness and obsession with cosmetic surgery, along with her equally tragic ignorance of those around her that do appreciate her for what she is; Clooney with an equal amount of loneliness and desperation, and an undeniable air of incompetence abound him, suggesting that his mediocre job is probably the best he can get; and Malkovich, with his alcoholism and acute superiority complex. Tilda Swinton and the ever-great Richard Jenkins are a lot subtler than their higher-billed co-stars, and Brad Pitt delivers the only truly one-hundred percent cartoon performance in the film; thought despite its emptiness it's also the most enjoyable and completely hilarious.
J.K. Simmons I reserve for last; he only appears in two scenes in the film, but they are undoubtedly and by far the funniest and most successful scenes of the film. Props to him for admirably succeeding in carrying the Coen's hilarity to another level of deadpan comedy.
The Coen Brothers have an interesting sense of humour, and it is present up front and center in their latest film. Just the concept of following up a serious drama-thriller like No Country for Old Men with an over-the-top screwball black comedy probably seemed hilarious to them. Featuring great, uproarious performances from a stellar ensemble cast, the Coens really give it their all with their offbeat, so-subtle-half-the-jokes-soar-over-your-head comedy. And yet, the film occasionally does manage to reach out a little further from its apparent genre limitations and provides us with something more poignant and truthfully sad. It's even somewhat startling just how dark the movie gets and how cruel the Coens are to their characters. It wasn't quite what I expected, but then again, that's the Coen Brothers for you.
The Coens' funniest film since "The Big Lebowski"
ametaphysicalshark12 September 2008
I'm not the only one to notice the pattern in the Coens' filmography: "Blood Simple." was followed by "Raising Arizona", "Fargo" by "The Big Lebowski", and "No Country for Old Men" by "Burn After Reading". The main concern one had about this film is whether it would be an "Intolerable Cruelty" or a "Big Lebowski" for the Coens. Let's put it this way: the reviews have been mixed, especially from major mainstream media critics. Guess what other Coen comedy received mixed reviews and was accused of being a somewhat tired mess? Yep, "The Big Lebowski".
The Coens' sense of humor is very distinctive, and I'm not talking about stuff like "Intolerable Cruelty" (this one the mainstream media liked, go figure) and "The Ladykillers", which featured numerous commercial concessions. I'm talking about the vicious, cruel, misanthropic farce that gets self-important critics' knickers in a twist. Describing "Burn After Reading" as a screwball spy farce makes it sound much more "Austin Powers" than it is. There is a lot of silliness, but the sort of silliness one finds in a Howard Hawks comedy, not in most comedies that have been made recently. It's a screwball comedy but a pretty dark one.
This is most certainly an acquired taste. It is not going to go down well with people who can't laugh at murder, things going terribly wrong for innocent people, or the Cones' trademark dialogue that pops up even in 'serious' movies like "Fargo" and "No Country for Old Men". However, "Burn After Reading" was seemingly tailor-made for my cruel sense of humor, as I found it to be easily the most inspired comedy script in a long time. It's a conspiracy espionage thriller with no stakes, nothing to fight over, a bunch of complete fools and idiots caught in the middle of it ("a league of morons" if you listen to John Malkovich's character), and disastrous consequences for just about everyone. Take out the jokes and you could have a tragedy but as it stands this is the funniest movie the Coens have made since "The Big Lebowski", if not the best, and that includes "O Brother, Where Art Thou?".
One really shouldn't know anything about the plot or how it unfolds prior to seeing it, as this is a film which is far more intricately-plotted than most critics are giving it credit for. The basic concept is that Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt's characters come across a disc they think contains top secret intelligence. What follows is, as described above, a thriller with no stakes and a bunch of idiots. It's one of those movies where you really shouldn't be laughing (for ethical reasons) but are, and it will have you laughing through your disapproval for basically the entirety of the film after the opening fifteen minutes or so, which are rough in comparison to the rest of the film, and to be honest the only thing that keeps this film from being absolutely brilliant and the Coens' best movie since "Lebowski". Just don't go in expecting a movie that looks as beautiful as many of their movies do- Lubezki is no Deakins, at least not based on his work here, and the Coens are very clearly attempting to emulate in many ways the look of the sort of thriller they're basing this on. It's functional, well-shot, and well-directed, but the writing and acting are the main attractions here.
Of course, "Burn After Reading" will be dismissed as having little worth and for being a disposable farce by many. Well, if only they knew how hard it is to do comedy well. I'd reckon this was harder to write than the (admittedly tremendous) "No Country for Old Men", which was adapted from a novel that might as well have been a screenplay if formatted correctly. The movie may not start brilliantly (not that it isn't good even early on), but once the Coens start firing on all cylinders they never stop, and the dream cast certainly doesn't either (Brad Pitt has a smaller role than most cast members here, but he is absolutely brilliant in the role), showing tremendous comic skill that few would have guessed most of them had. The final scene may very well be one of the best I have seen in a long, long time.
"What a clusterf-ck!", indeed.
9/10
The Coens' sense of humor is very distinctive, and I'm not talking about stuff like "Intolerable Cruelty" (this one the mainstream media liked, go figure) and "The Ladykillers", which featured numerous commercial concessions. I'm talking about the vicious, cruel, misanthropic farce that gets self-important critics' knickers in a twist. Describing "Burn After Reading" as a screwball spy farce makes it sound much more "Austin Powers" than it is. There is a lot of silliness, but the sort of silliness one finds in a Howard Hawks comedy, not in most comedies that have been made recently. It's a screwball comedy but a pretty dark one.
This is most certainly an acquired taste. It is not going to go down well with people who can't laugh at murder, things going terribly wrong for innocent people, or the Cones' trademark dialogue that pops up even in 'serious' movies like "Fargo" and "No Country for Old Men". However, "Burn After Reading" was seemingly tailor-made for my cruel sense of humor, as I found it to be easily the most inspired comedy script in a long time. It's a conspiracy espionage thriller with no stakes, nothing to fight over, a bunch of complete fools and idiots caught in the middle of it ("a league of morons" if you listen to John Malkovich's character), and disastrous consequences for just about everyone. Take out the jokes and you could have a tragedy but as it stands this is the funniest movie the Coens have made since "The Big Lebowski", if not the best, and that includes "O Brother, Where Art Thou?".
One really shouldn't know anything about the plot or how it unfolds prior to seeing it, as this is a film which is far more intricately-plotted than most critics are giving it credit for. The basic concept is that Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt's characters come across a disc they think contains top secret intelligence. What follows is, as described above, a thriller with no stakes and a bunch of idiots. It's one of those movies where you really shouldn't be laughing (for ethical reasons) but are, and it will have you laughing through your disapproval for basically the entirety of the film after the opening fifteen minutes or so, which are rough in comparison to the rest of the film, and to be honest the only thing that keeps this film from being absolutely brilliant and the Coens' best movie since "Lebowski". Just don't go in expecting a movie that looks as beautiful as many of their movies do- Lubezki is no Deakins, at least not based on his work here, and the Coens are very clearly attempting to emulate in many ways the look of the sort of thriller they're basing this on. It's functional, well-shot, and well-directed, but the writing and acting are the main attractions here.
Of course, "Burn After Reading" will be dismissed as having little worth and for being a disposable farce by many. Well, if only they knew how hard it is to do comedy well. I'd reckon this was harder to write than the (admittedly tremendous) "No Country for Old Men", which was adapted from a novel that might as well have been a screenplay if formatted correctly. The movie may not start brilliantly (not that it isn't good even early on), but once the Coens start firing on all cylinders they never stop, and the dream cast certainly doesn't either (Brad Pitt has a smaller role than most cast members here, but he is absolutely brilliant in the role), showing tremendous comic skill that few would have guessed most of them had. The final scene may very well be one of the best I have seen in a long, long time.
"What a clusterf-ck!", indeed.
9/10
Major Disappointment
wyattej200015 November 2008
Wow, I can't believe this movie is still carrying 7.5 stars. First off I am a huge Coen Bros. fan, and I had the opportunity to watch Burn After Reading at my own home, at my own leisure. I really wanted to see this movie, and I was really disappointed. The actual "movie" itself was not bad, I think that my problems stem from the fact that I hated all of the characters. There was not one character that I liked or could in any way shape or form relate to at all. That for me is a first when watching a Coen Bros. film. Maybe if they had a little for development rather than just being thrown at us, I don't know. Like I said the film itself is well shot (they picked an awful lot of dreary overcast weather though), sounds good, and actually is paced well, and the way the characters are all intermingled with one another without knowing was pretty cool. Clooney's wifes character seemed kind of shoved out of the loop until we see her on her book tour in Seattle but whatever, that could have been another story in itself. Overall this movie was okay... Just not what I was expecting after NCFOM.
Burn After Reading — What if you believed you were in a spy movie?
AvidClimber2 June 2013
Burn After Reading is a weird movie. It takes everything that makes a good spy flick and turn it on its head. You can't help but incredulously laugh at what happens. This is all about oddballs.
The good. Excellent acting. Totally off the wall characters, actions and situations, yet completely logical. Story with twists within twists. Well paced scenario. Solid dialogs. Nice action.
The actors. George Clooney, Frances McDormand, Brad Pitt, and John Malkovich play disturbingly crazy roles stuffed with delusion and heavily dosed with stupidity. While Richard Jenkins, David Rasche, and J.K. Simmons seem almost out of place as the standard bearers of reason.
The bad. Since it's so bizarre, it won't please everyone.
The ugly. Nothing.
The result. Offbeat and cooky comedy. Don't think you'll see your run of the mill kind of film and you'll have fun.
The good. Excellent acting. Totally off the wall characters, actions and situations, yet completely logical. Story with twists within twists. Well paced scenario. Solid dialogs. Nice action.
The actors. George Clooney, Frances McDormand, Brad Pitt, and John Malkovich play disturbingly crazy roles stuffed with delusion and heavily dosed with stupidity. While Richard Jenkins, David Rasche, and J.K. Simmons seem almost out of place as the standard bearers of reason.
The bad. Since it's so bizarre, it won't please everyone.
The ugly. Nothing.
The result. Offbeat and cooky comedy. Don't think you'll see your run of the mill kind of film and you'll have fun.
Another Coen private joke
neil-47630 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I have had mixed feelings about the Coen brothers for some time. For me, their movies fall into two distinct categories. There are those which I have enjoyed - Fargo, Lebowski. And there are those where I have felt that a good idea has become inaccessible to the audience (ie. me) because it is excessively dressed up in the brothers' private sense of humour (Hudsucker, O Brother).
Burn After Reading joins the latter group.
The idea - assorted misadventures concerning a revealing autobiography written by a disgruntled ex-CIA operative - is great, and would work as either a screwball black comedy or a thriller. Burn After Reading is clearly intended to be a comedy, but the comedy (as is so often the case with the Coens) remains somewhat inscrutable. It's like the couple of kids in your class at school who would laugh uproariously at some private joke which completely passed by everybody else.
It's a shame this is so, because at least two of the performances are screamingly funny - JK Simmonds as a befuddled CIA executive and, especially, Brad Pitt as a terminally dim personal trainer. Richard Jenkins delivers a touching portrayal of a man who desperately loves Frances McDormand's character but is completely at a loss as to what to do about it, and Tilda Swinton gives us an ice queen. These performances belong in two other films - both are excellent, but neither is even slightly funny. Nor, for that matter, are the two savage on-screen killings, although I distinctly got the feeling that both are meant to be hilarious. Malkovich chews the scenery and looks like a cartoon.
Which brings us to Frances McDormand. She is the central character, playing a shallow woman with tunnel vision as far as raising the money for cosmetic surgery is concerned. I like Frances McDormand, and I think she is an excellent actress, but I strongly feel that she was miscast in this movie. A fading bimbo is what was needed, and Miss McDormand is not a fading bimbo. Her marriage to Joel Coen may have had a bearing on her casting.
I wish I shared the Coens' sense of humour - I would have enjoyed this more.
Burn After Reading joins the latter group.
The idea - assorted misadventures concerning a revealing autobiography written by a disgruntled ex-CIA operative - is great, and would work as either a screwball black comedy or a thriller. Burn After Reading is clearly intended to be a comedy, but the comedy (as is so often the case with the Coens) remains somewhat inscrutable. It's like the couple of kids in your class at school who would laugh uproariously at some private joke which completely passed by everybody else.
It's a shame this is so, because at least two of the performances are screamingly funny - JK Simmonds as a befuddled CIA executive and, especially, Brad Pitt as a terminally dim personal trainer. Richard Jenkins delivers a touching portrayal of a man who desperately loves Frances McDormand's character but is completely at a loss as to what to do about it, and Tilda Swinton gives us an ice queen. These performances belong in two other films - both are excellent, but neither is even slightly funny. Nor, for that matter, are the two savage on-screen killings, although I distinctly got the feeling that both are meant to be hilarious. Malkovich chews the scenery and looks like a cartoon.
Which brings us to Frances McDormand. She is the central character, playing a shallow woman with tunnel vision as far as raising the money for cosmetic surgery is concerned. I like Frances McDormand, and I think she is an excellent actress, but I strongly feel that she was miscast in this movie. A fading bimbo is what was needed, and Miss McDormand is not a fading bimbo. Her marriage to Joel Coen may have had a bearing on her casting.
I wish I shared the Coens' sense of humour - I would have enjoyed this more.
John Malkovich is the best thing about this!
UniqueParticle21 August 2019
This is one of the best dark comedies ever made! There is only one thing that rubs me the wrong way and I won't spoil that otherwise I love this Coen brothers quirky masterpiece. I originally saw this in the theater, that was fun, I still can't believe it's been 11 years now since 08. So beyond well written and very cool camera shots; Burn After Reading makes me feel so damn good! Also I absolutely love the music and excessive use of profanity!
One of the funniest movies ever made
millerian-558 April 2022
The Coen Brothers seem to have a catalog of movies that are both beloved and highly underrated. And no better example of the latter than Burn After Reading.
Despite the solid 7.0 Rating and the 63 on Metascore, which are all positive, especially for a mainstream US movie. I think this movie is highly underrated by both film critics and audiences. This film works under a very particular type of weird, deadpan comedy that seems to be unloved by a majority of general audiences. But I personally consider this movie to be not only one of my all-time favorites but a tremendously hilarious film filled with wonderful writing and performances.
While Brad Pitt is obviously the standout in this film, I think this film is helped a lot by the casting of the supporting actors. Richard Jenkins is my favorite of the supporting actors, and he again shows how underrated of an actor he is. He steals the show in a very nervous and insecure performance that works very well for the character.
The writing is truly exceptional, and the way every single subplot works to connect with the main story is beautifully done and is brought together wonderfully for a hilarious, but poignant ending.
If you like deadpan, awkward humor this will work very well for you. But even if you don't find the humor all that funny, this is still a very well-acted and written, and most importantly, entertaining.
Despite the solid 7.0 Rating and the 63 on Metascore, which are all positive, especially for a mainstream US movie. I think this movie is highly underrated by both film critics and audiences. This film works under a very particular type of weird, deadpan comedy that seems to be unloved by a majority of general audiences. But I personally consider this movie to be not only one of my all-time favorites but a tremendously hilarious film filled with wonderful writing and performances.
While Brad Pitt is obviously the standout in this film, I think this film is helped a lot by the casting of the supporting actors. Richard Jenkins is my favorite of the supporting actors, and he again shows how underrated of an actor he is. He steals the show in a very nervous and insecure performance that works very well for the character.
The writing is truly exceptional, and the way every single subplot works to connect with the main story is beautifully done and is brought together wonderfully for a hilarious, but poignant ending.
If you like deadpan, awkward humor this will work very well for you. But even if you don't find the humor all that funny, this is still a very well-acted and written, and most importantly, entertaining.
Very funny adult comedy
tomrito14 September 2008
The point here is that this movie is for adults, with adult themes and adult situations. As with all Coen brother movies, there are going to be people who love it and people that hate it. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground. I loved this movie. It was entertaining, dark and very funny. I really liked "No Country for Old Men" but I have to say, "Burn After Reading" was a more enjoyable film for me. Some of the reviews here have said that the film rambles around pointlessly, without any clear direction; well I have to disagree, if you are paying attention and you are an adult, you should have no problem understanding what is going on. The best part of the movie is watching this great cast perform brilliantly with the odd-ball material they are given. They are all straight men for the Coen brother's antics. There is violence, bad language, and everyone is sleeping with everyone else, especially George Clooney. But the movie is very funny and while the rest of Hollywood seems to have lost there way, the Coen brothers continue to put out intelligent, entertaining and thought provoking material.
Okay After Viewing
lemasque22 July 2009
Burn has a lot going for it. As with most Coen Brothers' movies, this spy spoof has a brilliantly quirky story that is full of interestingly flawed characters. The plot moves along with enough action never to be boring.
The performances and direction make the movie well worth your time. Unfortunately, there's a missed opportunity here. Nothing ever really takes off like you would expect or want.
This movie is not near as bad, nor near as good as some reviewers contend. Maybe it's because people have certain expectations of any Coen Brothers movie. As for me, some of their movies I love, and others I hate. Then there are a few, like Burn, that are just okay. Burn delivers light entertainment, with an occasional flash of great dialog and dark humor. If that's okay with you, you won't be disappointed.
The performances and direction make the movie well worth your time. Unfortunately, there's a missed opportunity here. Nothing ever really takes off like you would expect or want.
This movie is not near as bad, nor near as good as some reviewers contend. Maybe it's because people have certain expectations of any Coen Brothers movie. As for me, some of their movies I love, and others I hate. Then there are a few, like Burn, that are just okay. Burn delivers light entertainment, with an occasional flash of great dialog and dark humor. If that's okay with you, you won't be disappointed.
Great Movie, Full of Originality and Dark Humor
sgtcupcake22 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I felt like I needed to review this movie because it has been largely misunderstood by many of the reviewers on this site. First off, this is not a movie that is going to show you everything and baby step you through the plot. (Children please leave now, this is an adult movie)
Part of the reason why I enjoyed this movie so much is because it engages you as the viewer by forcing you to consider all the event that are happening. Trying to piece all the randomness together and make sense of all the events unfolding in front of you is one of the best aspects of the movie. (shocking as it may be we are forced to use our brains!). Even though the majority of the characters appear to have nothing in common and no real relationship with each other, their true connections lie in their actions. George Clooney's invisible threads for instance touch pretty much every single character in the movie even if there is no real interaction between them. There is a deep underlying theme of betrayal and a "big brother" complex which many of the characters develop or exhibit throughout the movie.
As far as the acting goes each actor plays their role very well and I think that some viewers were disappointed because they were expecting a more developed Brad Pitt / George Clooney relationship as is the case with most of their movies. As for the humor, it lies in a darker corner underneath the character dialogue. This film makes best use of what I would like to call "situational comedy". (Like taking the "classified information" to the Russians (The embassy!) so that they could collect some sort of reward). The brief scenes with the CIA are quite amusing as they mostly sit on the sidelines throughout the movie and clean up after the mess which is left behind after the seemingly simple firing of one Mr. Cox.
I am always pleasantly surprised by how original this movie was and how it almost makes fun of all the stereotypical Hollywood bull**** that is filled with most movies today. One of the ways you can tell a movie is good is if you watch it multiple times and still find something new or amusing in the story each time.
Bottom-line: If you are looking for a story that is more than skin deep (which the Coen brother are notorious for) then you have come to the right place. For everyone else where thinking hurts your head, go watch the new Transformers Movie.
** On a side note** To the one reviewer who thinks Clooney shoots Brad out of no where, if you had actually bothered to pay attention during the movie you could see that when Clooney opens the closet the first thing he grabs for is his gun hanging on the wall. Then because of his yeeaars of service as an air marshal his training kicks in and out of instinct he shoots before he thinks. (This may be also partly due to his paranoia of being followed by spooks)
Part of the reason why I enjoyed this movie so much is because it engages you as the viewer by forcing you to consider all the event that are happening. Trying to piece all the randomness together and make sense of all the events unfolding in front of you is one of the best aspects of the movie. (shocking as it may be we are forced to use our brains!). Even though the majority of the characters appear to have nothing in common and no real relationship with each other, their true connections lie in their actions. George Clooney's invisible threads for instance touch pretty much every single character in the movie even if there is no real interaction between them. There is a deep underlying theme of betrayal and a "big brother" complex which many of the characters develop or exhibit throughout the movie.
As far as the acting goes each actor plays their role very well and I think that some viewers were disappointed because they were expecting a more developed Brad Pitt / George Clooney relationship as is the case with most of their movies. As for the humor, it lies in a darker corner underneath the character dialogue. This film makes best use of what I would like to call "situational comedy". (Like taking the "classified information" to the Russians (The embassy!) so that they could collect some sort of reward). The brief scenes with the CIA are quite amusing as they mostly sit on the sidelines throughout the movie and clean up after the mess which is left behind after the seemingly simple firing of one Mr. Cox.
I am always pleasantly surprised by how original this movie was and how it almost makes fun of all the stereotypical Hollywood bull**** that is filled with most movies today. One of the ways you can tell a movie is good is if you watch it multiple times and still find something new or amusing in the story each time.
Bottom-line: If you are looking for a story that is more than skin deep (which the Coen brother are notorious for) then you have come to the right place. For everyone else where thinking hurts your head, go watch the new Transformers Movie.
** On a side note** To the one reviewer who thinks Clooney shoots Brad out of no where, if you had actually bothered to pay attention during the movie you could see that when Clooney opens the closet the first thing he grabs for is his gun hanging on the wall. Then because of his yeeaars of service as an air marshal his training kicks in and out of instinct he shoots before he thinks. (This may be also partly due to his paranoia of being followed by spooks)
big deal of.. nothing
sword_stelios26 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This bright comedy is suggested for anyone who got tired of all the classic usual stupid-funny movies and would love to enjoy themselves with smart, strange, confusing and some-kind extreme circumstances involving crime and paranoia. The last term might be misunderstood but all this will get clear soon enough. SPOILERS: The story is about some people who are all connected through deception, political discrimination, husband/wife cheating, blackmailing, exploitement while the following words: CIA, love via Internet and lawyers complete the entangled background. You get many messages through funny scenes and stupid behaviors. For start we are presented in a word of deception concerning the marriage where lawyers thrive consulting their clients to use a divorce in order to exploit their companion.Internet meetings and plastic surgeries take place too while a fuzzy filled in conspiracy climate(issue: obsession of being watched) leads each protagonist to follow a dangerous path with no return. It also raises the point about the common American fears stuck to the past (the Russian enemy). The observer to all this seems to be the CIA who discover that they can barely control the situation while they don't really understand what is going on! BIG SPOILER: In the last scene we see the director of the CIA wondering where they were wrong... my guess is that it all started because of the lawyer of Katie Cox who advised her to spy her husband!So what's the main message of the movie? DON'T FOLLOW YOUR LAWYER'S ADVICES ABOUT LEAVING/DECEIVING YOUR HUSBAND! Anyway,I think all this mess was a bit too much that's why the 7 for vote.
Burn before watching
pawanpunjabithewriter15 February 2021
This movie is gloomy. It is suspenseful, but it is so sad it will always make you feel dark and gloomy. It doesn't have much sense too. It is such a horrible dark thriller that it is not for good, but only pain. So why to watch and spoil the mood and time. Burn it. Don't read it. Don't watch it.
More "Big Lebowski" Than "Intolerable Cruelty" -- thankfully
erica-22410 September 2008
BURN AFTER READING is laugh-out-loud funny. It's more "Big Lebowski" than "Intolerable Cruelty," though there are wisps of both, but "Burn" is not quite up to Lebowski's genius. Still, it is very, very funny and loads of fun.
From the opening moments, the Coens' latest movie -- a spy-thriller spoof -- hurls the viewer on a hilarious romp through Absurd-land. What better place to set such a story than Washington, DC?
The story involves a demoted government worker (John Malkovich) who finds himself the target of an extortion scheme by two gym workers, riotously played by Frances McDormand (a would-be gym bunny if only she could afford some plastic surgery) and Brad Pitt (a high-energy, arm-thrusting, hip-shaking fitness trainer-cum-"good Samaritan" who lands himself way in over his head). The romp soon turns dark.
As usual, the Coens' dialog is a real treat. When a co-worker points to Malkovich's alcohol problems as a reason for his demotion, Malkovich retorts, "You're a Mormon. Next to you we all have a drinking problem." And as usual in Coen-land, there's a clash between high and low brow. Malkovich's pronunciations of "mem-wahhh" for "memoir" is a hoot, and his correction of Pitt's mistaken "report" for "rapport" propels a conflict between classes and types -- symbols of a society in trouble, whose priorities are askew.
As in the Coen brothers' 1987 box-office hit RAISING ARIZONA, obsessions fuel the plot, though this time it's body (not baby) obsession. McDormand is hellbent on getting expensive elective surgery to "reinvent" herself. Pitt is a workout addict, who can barely stop moving long enough to think straight. And George Clooney, who can only stop talking when it's time to go running or jump into bed with someone, plays a G-man fixated on sex. Notions of "intelligence" and all that the word connotes (along with its antonyms) mix into the film's dark comedic brew of unintended consequences.
Where does it go? I don't want to give away any of the twists to answer that question in depth. But I would disagree with the critics who claim it doesn't go anywhere. The movie and its over-the-top, needless violence show how secretive missions even by bumbling know-nothings (whose only knowledge of undercover ops seems to come from spy flicks) can have disastrous outcomes. Secrets in Washington? Sure sounds like a topic we should all be better versed in.
From the opening moments, the Coens' latest movie -- a spy-thriller spoof -- hurls the viewer on a hilarious romp through Absurd-land. What better place to set such a story than Washington, DC?
The story involves a demoted government worker (John Malkovich) who finds himself the target of an extortion scheme by two gym workers, riotously played by Frances McDormand (a would-be gym bunny if only she could afford some plastic surgery) and Brad Pitt (a high-energy, arm-thrusting, hip-shaking fitness trainer-cum-"good Samaritan" who lands himself way in over his head). The romp soon turns dark.
As usual, the Coens' dialog is a real treat. When a co-worker points to Malkovich's alcohol problems as a reason for his demotion, Malkovich retorts, "You're a Mormon. Next to you we all have a drinking problem." And as usual in Coen-land, there's a clash between high and low brow. Malkovich's pronunciations of "mem-wahhh" for "memoir" is a hoot, and his correction of Pitt's mistaken "report" for "rapport" propels a conflict between classes and types -- symbols of a society in trouble, whose priorities are askew.
As in the Coen brothers' 1987 box-office hit RAISING ARIZONA, obsessions fuel the plot, though this time it's body (not baby) obsession. McDormand is hellbent on getting expensive elective surgery to "reinvent" herself. Pitt is a workout addict, who can barely stop moving long enough to think straight. And George Clooney, who can only stop talking when it's time to go running or jump into bed with someone, plays a G-man fixated on sex. Notions of "intelligence" and all that the word connotes (along with its antonyms) mix into the film's dark comedic brew of unintended consequences.
Where does it go? I don't want to give away any of the twists to answer that question in depth. But I would disagree with the critics who claim it doesn't go anywhere. The movie and its over-the-top, needless violence show how secretive missions even by bumbling know-nothings (whose only knowledge of undercover ops seems to come from spy flicks) can have disastrous outcomes. Secrets in Washington? Sure sounds like a topic we should all be better versed in.
- Erica Rowell Author: The Brothers Grim: The Films of Ethan and Joel Coen http://www.amazon.com/Brothers-Grim-Films-Ethan-Joel/dp/0810858509
Not as good as expected.
ashwin-avasarala17 November 2008
The film has a good line up cast, but the script is not really that strong enough to utilize all the talent in the cast. There seemed to be some scope for Pitt's character but the act was too short. George Clooney's performance is pretty good. But again the script doesn't seem to have the substance required. I sat through the movie expecting the Coen Brothers to create magic as the plot proceeds (like they usually do) but that moment never seemed to come at all. The Coen brothers definitely were not successful at showing what they saw in the plot. I really don't understand the very high rating. Or it could be just me. Not a movie to watch if you expect a lot from the Coen brothers. You'd just get disappointed.
Do people not get the humor in this?
johnhudsonvc1530 August 2020
This is one of the funniest movies to date. It moves quickly, it's witty, and funny, and nothing is more entertaining than Brad Pitt acting like an adolescent egging on an ex CIA member. This goes up there with Big Lebowski and Fargo for me. Quirky excellence.
Some funny parts, but not great.
kookooketchu23 December 2008
I laughed out loud a few times during this movie. But from seeing the trailer, I was hoping for much more.
While it was amusing to see Brad Pitt acting stupid, he was overacting - and so it's just a "forced stupidity" that we see. However, the last expression he makes in the film is priceless.
Frances McDomrmand was great to watch, as always. George Clooney as a somewhat-geeky habitual internet dater was a fun turn. John Malkovich was annoying to listen to, as usual. Some rather innocent characters were harmed during the filming of the movie, (although it's not a surprise, coming from the Coen bros.) I give it a six.
While it was amusing to see Brad Pitt acting stupid, he was overacting - and so it's just a "forced stupidity" that we see. However, the last expression he makes in the film is priceless.
Frances McDomrmand was great to watch, as always. George Clooney as a somewhat-geeky habitual internet dater was a fun turn. John Malkovich was annoying to listen to, as usual. Some rather innocent characters were harmed during the filming of the movie, (although it's not a surprise, coming from the Coen bros.) I give it a six.
Wacky and wonderful gallows humor
jeffstonewords19 August 2021
Darkly irreverent and irresistible, these quirky characters range from the blissfully greedy to the incorrigibly irascible while blindly following their predilections to inevitably ruinous destinations but they do so in a remarkably indelible fashion. This film breaks the rules with extraordinary glee.
not their best but still very funny
Buddy-5113 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"Burn After Reading" shows what happens when a couple of bungling amateurs attempt to beat the big boys of the C.I.A. at their own game.
Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand are the D.C.-based health club workers who stumble across a computer disc that they believe contains top secret, classified information. In actuality, it's the property of Osbourne Cox, a C.I.A. analyst who has recently been let go from the agency, and who is composing his memoirs as an act of retaliation against his former bosses. Tilda Swinton plays Osbourne's harridan wife who's having an affair with a tic-plagued, exercise-obsessed married man embodied by George Clooney. The discovery of the disc leads to a roundelay of false assumptions and comical misunderstandings all wrapped up in an intricately plotted scenario dripping with situational ironies.
"Burn After Reading" is Joel and Ethan Coen's darkly humorous follow-up to their Oscar-winning masterpiece, "No Country for Old Men," a grimly serious work that took little time out for comic relief (and earned them bucket loads of awards for doing so). This new film finds the boys back in the more familiar terrain of "Fargo" and "The Big Lebowski," where the laughs outnumber the gasps by a healthy margin. "Burn After Reading" certainly adheres to the customary Coen Brothers formula where a heightened quirkiness and a deliberately disjointed storyline are coupled with sudden flare-ups of violence and the unexpected deaths of major characters.
While the refusal to follow a predictable narrative path is one of the chief selling points of any Coen Brothers film, the fact of the matter is that, in the case of "Burn After Reading," the script probably could have used a few more revisions to bring the disparate elements more satisfactorily in line with one another. Too often it feels as if the movie itself is rambling around pointlessly, without any clear direction or purpose. For one thing, many of the scenes that might have served as the connecting tissue holding the various story lines together seem to have been - perhaps deliberately - left on the cutting-room floor. We're laughing along with the craziness all right, but we're also hoping against hope that the filmmakers will find a way to bring it all together in the end. Instead, what we get is a sit-down synopsis of events that is probably the least successful finale of that sort since the closing scene in "Psycho." For if viewers think they were frustrated by the truncated ending in "No Country," they ain't seen nuttin' yet.
The best thing about "Burn After Reading" is the delicious performances from a cast that any director would give his eyeteeth to work with. Malkovich, McDormand, Clooney, and Swinton all manage to define their characters through individualized quirks without ever going over the top and reducing their characters to caricatures. But it is Pitt who steals every scene he's in as the nerdy, hyper kinetic doofus who fancies himself a double-naught spy fit to stand alongside the James Bonds of the world. Pitt has rarely been this winning.
Now don't get me wrong. "Burn After Reading" is a frequently hilarious film that is vastly preferable to all those cookie-cutter comedies that can be found habitually ensconced in the neighborhood multiplexes. But it's not exactly prime Coen Brothers either, and, for that reason, I have to make this only a halfhearted recommendation. But, then again, even inferior Coen Brothers is better than no Coen Brothers at all.
Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand are the D.C.-based health club workers who stumble across a computer disc that they believe contains top secret, classified information. In actuality, it's the property of Osbourne Cox, a C.I.A. analyst who has recently been let go from the agency, and who is composing his memoirs as an act of retaliation against his former bosses. Tilda Swinton plays Osbourne's harridan wife who's having an affair with a tic-plagued, exercise-obsessed married man embodied by George Clooney. The discovery of the disc leads to a roundelay of false assumptions and comical misunderstandings all wrapped up in an intricately plotted scenario dripping with situational ironies.
"Burn After Reading" is Joel and Ethan Coen's darkly humorous follow-up to their Oscar-winning masterpiece, "No Country for Old Men," a grimly serious work that took little time out for comic relief (and earned them bucket loads of awards for doing so). This new film finds the boys back in the more familiar terrain of "Fargo" and "The Big Lebowski," where the laughs outnumber the gasps by a healthy margin. "Burn After Reading" certainly adheres to the customary Coen Brothers formula where a heightened quirkiness and a deliberately disjointed storyline are coupled with sudden flare-ups of violence and the unexpected deaths of major characters.
While the refusal to follow a predictable narrative path is one of the chief selling points of any Coen Brothers film, the fact of the matter is that, in the case of "Burn After Reading," the script probably could have used a few more revisions to bring the disparate elements more satisfactorily in line with one another. Too often it feels as if the movie itself is rambling around pointlessly, without any clear direction or purpose. For one thing, many of the scenes that might have served as the connecting tissue holding the various story lines together seem to have been - perhaps deliberately - left on the cutting-room floor. We're laughing along with the craziness all right, but we're also hoping against hope that the filmmakers will find a way to bring it all together in the end. Instead, what we get is a sit-down synopsis of events that is probably the least successful finale of that sort since the closing scene in "Psycho." For if viewers think they were frustrated by the truncated ending in "No Country," they ain't seen nuttin' yet.
The best thing about "Burn After Reading" is the delicious performances from a cast that any director would give his eyeteeth to work with. Malkovich, McDormand, Clooney, and Swinton all manage to define their characters through individualized quirks without ever going over the top and reducing their characters to caricatures. But it is Pitt who steals every scene he's in as the nerdy, hyper kinetic doofus who fancies himself a double-naught spy fit to stand alongside the James Bonds of the world. Pitt has rarely been this winning.
Now don't get me wrong. "Burn After Reading" is a frequently hilarious film that is vastly preferable to all those cookie-cutter comedies that can be found habitually ensconced in the neighborhood multiplexes. But it's not exactly prime Coen Brothers either, and, for that reason, I have to make this only a halfhearted recommendation. But, then again, even inferior Coen Brothers is better than no Coen Brothers at all.
An Intelligent. Quirky, Surreal Delight
gary-44417 October 2008
This film will not be to everyones taste, and I wholly understand the polarised responses.A star studded cast enjoy a knowing, wordy script, where dialogue counts, a Coen brothers trademark.However not very much happens, and the narrative is disjointed, so the pace of the story is very staccato.But once again the result is something very wide of the Hollywood mainstream and is all the more satisfying for it.
A 95 minute running time,, and several separate but interwoven plots, mean that screen time for individual actors is limited. Consequently each shines in their given roles, relishing the word play and eking the maximum out of each situation.No scene is dwelled upon, and the occasional bloody outburst of violence, or titillating appearance of a Sybian machine , is shown then moved on from before you have time to work out exactly what is going on.
The script is littered with double entendres, "running gags (pun intended)and lines aimed straight at the audience from the screen. No-one knows what is going on, or what has gone on, or what is going to happen, and is all the better for it.A mini-masterpiece.
A 95 minute running time,, and several separate but interwoven plots, mean that screen time for individual actors is limited. Consequently each shines in their given roles, relishing the word play and eking the maximum out of each situation.No scene is dwelled upon, and the occasional bloody outburst of violence, or titillating appearance of a Sybian machine , is shown then moved on from before you have time to work out exactly what is going on.
The script is littered with double entendres, "running gags (pun intended)and lines aimed straight at the audience from the screen. No-one knows what is going on, or what has gone on, or what is going to happen, and is all the better for it.A mini-masterpiece.
A Plot-less Movie Can Only Go So Far
alexkolokotronis31 December 2008
Burn After Reading in a strange way reminded me of 8 1/2 in that both movies are about nothing. But these kind of movies can only go so far and Burn After Reading pushed it to the limit. I would explain the plot to you but as I explained there is none.
The writing and directing was excellent by the Coen brothers. They took the storyline about as far as they could some how making their message believable showing that things never really go according to plan and they showed this in all aspects of life. The Coen brothers are show how they are quite a quirky duo when they make movies such as The Big Lebowski, Brother Where Art Thou and of course this. With their talent though they take movies like this further than almost anyone I can think of could.
The acting in here was very entertaining to watch. John Malkovich is always entertaining to watch, his anger and rage is just a pleasure to watch as ironic as that may sound. Brad Pitt's total embodiment of stupidity in here is probably his best role I have seen to date but then again that maybe shouldn't be too surprising. Francis McDormand was very funny with her need for artificial improvements all over her body. George Clooney, who seemed to be sleeping with everyone was very charming and probably the most interesting to watch behind John Malkovich. Tilda Swinton has began to impress me a lot and has only done so more with the her cold blooded performance. Lastly Richard Jenkins and JK Simmons were actually the most entertaining to watch despite having a superstar cast in front of them.
Despite this movie being so technically sound I still did not think it was an amazing or profound movie. It was a movie with an average story that was totally uplifted by its cast and directors.
My rating: 7.3/10
The writing and directing was excellent by the Coen brothers. They took the storyline about as far as they could some how making their message believable showing that things never really go according to plan and they showed this in all aspects of life. The Coen brothers are show how they are quite a quirky duo when they make movies such as The Big Lebowski, Brother Where Art Thou and of course this. With their talent though they take movies like this further than almost anyone I can think of could.
The acting in here was very entertaining to watch. John Malkovich is always entertaining to watch, his anger and rage is just a pleasure to watch as ironic as that may sound. Brad Pitt's total embodiment of stupidity in here is probably his best role I have seen to date but then again that maybe shouldn't be too surprising. Francis McDormand was very funny with her need for artificial improvements all over her body. George Clooney, who seemed to be sleeping with everyone was very charming and probably the most interesting to watch behind John Malkovich. Tilda Swinton has began to impress me a lot and has only done so more with the her cold blooded performance. Lastly Richard Jenkins and JK Simmons were actually the most entertaining to watch despite having a superstar cast in front of them.
Despite this movie being so technically sound I still did not think it was an amazing or profound movie. It was a movie with an average story that was totally uplifted by its cast and directors.
My rating: 7.3/10
Another Hit from the genius of the Coens.
swlabr4134 September 2008
There's a point in this movie that George Clooney's character, Harry Pfarrer shows Frances McDormand's character Linda Litzke something that we've seen him working on for about half the movie. It was so surprising when I first saw it, that at first, I didn't even know what it was.
Once again, the Coens have created wonderful characters, including Clooney, who is a womanizer and paranoid that people are following him, and McDormand, who just wants plastic surgery in order to look better. Also, there's John Malkovich as Osbourne Cox, who "doesn't have a drinking problem," and maybe the best in the movie, Brad Pitt as Chad, a clueless gym employee who is pushed along by McDormand.
The only character that isn't up to par with the rest is Tilda Swinton's character of Katie Cox, Osbourne's wife. She doesn't get as many laughs as the rest, and it seems like the Coens just needed her as a plot device rather than an actual character. However, she may not be funny, but she does play the character well.
The writing is brilliant and the Coens weave the story in such a way that it reminds me of their previous movie, The Big Lebowski. In the end, as J.K. Simmons character sums it up himself, nothing really happens, but while watching it all unfold, you can't help but laugh at the absurdity.
Once again, the Coens have created wonderful characters, including Clooney, who is a womanizer and paranoid that people are following him, and McDormand, who just wants plastic surgery in order to look better. Also, there's John Malkovich as Osbourne Cox, who "doesn't have a drinking problem," and maybe the best in the movie, Brad Pitt as Chad, a clueless gym employee who is pushed along by McDormand.
The only character that isn't up to par with the rest is Tilda Swinton's character of Katie Cox, Osbourne's wife. She doesn't get as many laughs as the rest, and it seems like the Coens just needed her as a plot device rather than an actual character. However, she may not be funny, but she does play the character well.
The writing is brilliant and the Coens weave the story in such a way that it reminds me of their previous movie, The Big Lebowski. In the end, as J.K. Simmons character sums it up himself, nothing really happens, but while watching it all unfold, you can't help but laugh at the absurdity.
Burn Before Viewing?
Jonny_Numb3 October 2008
You have to hand it to the Coen Brothers, the maverick satirists of American idiocy (and its resulting comedy-of-errors quirkiness): only they would dare to follow up their most critically-acclaimed, Oscar-winning films with offbeat comedies that are no less consequential when it comes to the bloody consequences of man's avarice. "Fargo" was followed by the cult classic "The Big Lebowski," and now the Best Picture-winning "No Country for Old Men" has "Burn After Reading," a jolting, surprising comedy that shows the film-making duo's mastery of cinematic form as a source of humor...and frustration. The plot (a gleeful jumble that recalls the tone and vulgarity of "Lebowski") concerns a discharged CIA agent's (John Malkovich) memoirs falling into the hands of two self-absorbed gym employees (Frances McDormand and an inspired Brad Pitt); meanwhile, a close-knit circle of Washington insiders (George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, et al) swap wives and find themselves entwined in what seems like a vast conspiracy (even the Russians are brought in to juxtapose Cold War paranoia against our post-9/11 era of fear) that is really just a string of misunderstandings inspired by the simplest of minds. While this is the Coens' umpteenth variation on the premise (after "Blood Simple," "Fargo," "Lebowski," and "No Country"), "Burn" shows them toying more with the mechanics of storytelling than before: there is a deliberate (yet also slow) buildup that holds back humor in favor of establishing character; and it is based on this knowledge that the film's last half often erupts in hilarity. And while the broad, artificial-feeling characters run the risk of throwing "Burn" into self-parody, the brilliant cast elevates what could have been throwaway caricatures. While a marginal effort in the Coens' unique filmography, "Burn" remains a distinct delicacy in a cinematically mundane year.
It didn't work for me
dbborroughs6 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Wacky Coen Brothers film that should on the page work, but in actuality falls flat. The story is about John Malkovich a disgruntled CIA agent who quit in order to write his memoirs. The disc is lost and it becomes a scramble between a bunch of twits in order to get their hands on the information contained with in. Well acted, well written the film falls flat because however the Coens put the film together it drains the humor out of the situations. I mean there were things that made me laugh in the trailer that just sort of washed over me with out a ripple in the film. I have no idea what happened. Its good after a fashion and better than the things like The Lady Killers, but its still not say Lebowski or one of their lesser films.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
