BURN AFTER READING (2008) – ***1/2 out of 5
Reader Review by RRA
Remember ten years ago how after getting major Oscar nominations for FARGO, the critics either hated or simply dismissed THE BIG LEBOWSKI? Yeah now everyone and their mothers claim to love that one, but it got trashed in theatres like The Dude’s carpet. Now I’m not accusing some of you of lying about always being there for it from the beginning, but my fuzzy math calculations here just don’t add up.
Well fast-forward to now, and while the reviews in general seem to be overall positive, you still have a few folks using some rather silly logic in deriding BURN AFTER READING. There are those who whine about how the Coen Brothers have strayed from the “serious drama” path of last year’s NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, or how READING isn’t dramatic enough, or whatever the hell. I guess if you win an Oscar, people have their bitch-sniper laser-sights on you and will execute over the most trivial stuff. And you thought Dubya could be trigger-happy. Then again, maybe some of them are disgruntled Oscar poolers who were foolish enough to bet some hard cash early on BURN as an awards contender, I just don’t know.
Speaking for the majority, I hate to break it to some of you, but BURN AFTER READING is a typical Coen Brothers effort. I mean for John Ford, it was cowboys. For Kurosawa, it was samurai. For Scorsese, mobsters, and so forth. With Joel and Ethan Coen, this is once again about foolish misfits being involved in something, usually a criminal enterprise, completely way over their heads, and for a few of them, they are absolutely screwed.
So for the very complicated plot, if you want to argue that there was one, is that John Malkovich, not seen by my eyes since the cinematic war crime ERAGON, is a CIA agent who gets demoted because he’s an alcoholic. He gives us a great Coen-esque line to his Mormon co-worker (“Compared to you, everyone has a drinking problem!”) and promptly quits to write his memoirs. His wife in Tilda Swinton plans to divorce him, so he transfers all his computer files onto a disc, which promptly is dropped at a gym by the law firm secretary, and found by fitness trainers Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand. That shallow numbskull champion tag team tries to blackmail Malkovich, which I would think would be a mistake but that’s only because I’ve seen IN THE LINE OF FIRE. Meanwhile, McDormand is internet dating Treasury agent Clooney, who himself is also banging Swinton on the side. Why he’s having an affair with his enemy from MICHAEL CLAYTON who tried to car bomb him, I have no idea. I do know that their make-up sex must have been awesome.
Still with me?
As I expected, the cast was terrific and everyone has the right timing and chemistry with each other, from poor Malkovich as the Ivy League professional with a mediocre career duller than dishwater to McDormand as the sweet but purely unpractical walking mid-life crisis, everyone seems to have genuine fun with their parts. Swinton is pretty good as the authoritative stern bitch, which makes a scene revealing her profession even more hilarious, but I fear she may unfortunately get herself typecast by Hollywood into more such roles, especially since she won an Oscar for acting such a similar character in MICHAEL CLAYTON. Still, there is something subtly sexy for me about her wearing a jewel necklace while nude in the bed with Clooney.
Clooney is of course terrific, as the charming manwhore, to which he’s so good at one, I wonder if he at times is pretty much playing his tabloid reputation. I know he’s good buddies with the Coens and all, but with him flirting with McDormand in front of the camera, I wonder if her husband in Joel didn’t keep a gun around just in case. I mean you gotta defend your territory sometimes, even from a friendly veteran explorer of the female body like Batman.
Anyway, the word on the Internet is right, Brad Pitt does steal the movie. I’ve whined before of how Pitt can be a great actor when he wasn’t coasting with disinterest like in SPY GAME or THE MEXICAN and so on, as if he is still trying to beat out Will Smith in taking over the fallen Tom Cruise’s throne as King-Star of Hollywood. But here he’s special as that guy we all know, the best friend you could ever have, but you wouldn’t want to trust your life in his hands. When he meets Malkovich, I thought it was strange. Consider that Pitt once was the legendary badass Tyler Durden, he tries as this clueless dipshit to act tough here by trying to mimic Clint Eastwood as if he saw a DIRTY HARRY movie the night before, and I laugh as he tremendously fails.
Hey Brad, I forgive you finally for MR. & MRS. SMITH. I still have MEET JOE BLACK as a strike on my books, but you’re doing fine so far so don’t worry about. Keep up the good work mate, don’t let those Paparazzi assholes get you down. Who knows, if he had just a few more sequences, he could have been a serious candidate for a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Oh well, someone else will get the lucky honor of losing to Heath Ledger.
But I must give mention to Richard Jenkins. Seemingly the only major player of this farce to not get top billing on the memorable retro-fluffy poster, he’s probably the only sane logical realistic person stuck in this mess over the MacGuffin disc. Yeah some will say that he didn’t have as much material to work with as the others, but he deserves some worthy attention, of which I’ve found lacking so far.
I believe it was filmmaker William Friedkin on his commentary track for TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. who complained about redundancy in movies in terms of excessive coverage of the plot. What that means is, take for example when in READING, Pitt explains to McDormand how he found out Malkovich’s identity because of some throwaway dialogue junk of knowing a computer hacker. Every other picture would have some useless scene, usually in action cinema, showing us this encounter, but the Coens don’t bother, and Thank God. I would apply this as well to the ending, which some have criticized as being too abrupt and anticlimactic. I argue instead that it’s a perfect sterile and very calm bookend to a lively chaotic storyline.
I would also add how READING could be seen as commentary on how a brood get into so much trouble over something irrelevant, which in itself is an allegory for us invading Iraq over those WMDs, which disappeared magically this side of Amelia Earhart and the government then claimed overnight that we were there to spread freedom like butter and herpes, but I’m tired of pompous critics who randomly inject politics into their reviews so thankfully I dodged that bullet. Plus, notice how the sexes fare ultimately in BURN. The women here haven’t gotten the better end of their male mates since they dragged them to watch that SEX AND THE CITY movie earlier this year.
All I’m trying to say is that BURN AFTER READING isn’t as good as say other Coen comedies like THE BIG LEBOWSKI or RAISING ARIZONA or O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU?, but its still an utterly satisfying popcorn package that is smarter, wittier, and more memorable exercise than most genre efforts we get these days. Oh and it’s cool that unlike American horror, the Coens know how to weave superb gore into their narrative, and none of that CGI headshot goofiness. Unfortunately to a few, that’s not enough itself considering they came off a contemporary classic masterpiece like NO COUNTRY.
Well fuck them and let me end this review by briefly talking about the audience at my screening. They hollered, they giggled, and totally dug the shit out of Pitt. They were horribly shocked in a good way when Clooney’s device is revealed and in a bad way when the unexpected plot twist occurs. Unlike years ago with INTOLERABLE CRUELTY and THE LADYKILLERS, afterwards I felt a good buzz from the exiting crowd, and this may in fact probably end up as the #1 movie this weekend.
16 Responses for "Burn After Reading"
A bit of constructive criticism:
-Don’t write a review like you were sitting on a couch talking to your buddies.
-Never say “as I expected”
-Avoid sounding like an angry rant
-Avoid rambling nonsense and try to keep your point concise
Because all you’ll get is dead-eyed stares and no one will care what you’re talking about.
Some of us like the feeling of sitting on a couch with RRA (not in a gay way) instead of having someone speechify to us from behind a podium (like Kevin Thomas) or preach to us from a pulpit (like Michael Medved).
Opinions without an occasional “angry rant” would be more bland than Frances Farmer’s diary — after the lobotomy. It’s a blog, not not a blagh.
I don’t find RRA’s tangents to be rambling at all. I enjoy wandering off track, especially if the same path has been beaten dry by four dozen other “professional” critics who cover the same trail like pack mules.
Homogenized formulaic reviews give me a dead-eye stare. When I want to go into a trance listening to a critic who follows “rules” I’ll tune into Lyons, Maltin or Shalit.
RRA writes rings around those guys, but I don’t know how his ’stache compares.
This might be one of the worst “reviews” I have ever read. No offence to this RRA person who penned this meandering rant, but that was a really rough read. And my reaction has nothing to do with the fact that I completely disagree with you. I personally hated Burn After Reading (and will have a review of it on my own site very soon), but I don’t have any problems with people that liked it.
If you’re a fan, then try to write a review that celebrates what works about the movie and specifically why it affected you in such a positive way. You mention that it made you laugh and that the actors offered up good performances, but other than that, you go off on a defensive tirade, saying “fuck them” to readers that disagree with you.
Obviously, we are all entitled to our own opinions and that’s that. For example, if you love Norbit, then you are entitled to call me a know-nothing idiot because I think it’s a piece of shit. But if you want to encourage healthy, mature discussion of cinema, then you have to drop the juvenile attitude and tell us why the movie worked or didn’t work for you.
I’m not trying to start some shit-flinging argument here, but I am a little frustrated that I just gave my time and attention to a “critic” who is handing me a “fuck you” because I didn’t laugh at this movie.
“BURN AFTER READING isn’t as good as say other Coen comedies like THE BIG LEBOWSKI or RAISING ARIZONA or O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU?, but its still an utterly satisfying popcorn package that is smarter, wittier, and more memorable exercise than most genre efforts we get these days.”
Thank you!
I was in fact one of the defenders of THE BIG LEBOWSKI when it came out, as evidenced by my comments on IMdB, though I certainly had no idea it would become a cult classic. RRA is entitled to his opinion, but I just didn’t think BURN AFTER READING was funny enough to compare to LEBOWSKI or RAISING ARIZONA. And as I’ve said before, as much as I enjoy the Coens, and as much as I enjoy Clooney, I don’t think they’re a good fit.
RYAN – and yet you paid attention to me. I’m honored. If you want more bad reviews from me, my INCREDIBLE HULK and I WANT TO BELIEVE* reviews are in the AD archive. I’m on my way to becoming the Ed Wood or Uwe Boll of critics!
You know what I hate with professional critics? Many of them use the deconstructive process where any movie that has a flaw in it, it’s an automatic failure or you know, they diss it in general, like they’re above it. I also despise them when they use bullshit lines like “it’s too ambitious” or “tries too hard to please.”
What the fuck does either line mean anyway? I’ll take your advice, but You tell me what those two cliche-criticisms mean anyway.
RYAN ADAMS – I’ve been trying to grow a porn moustache, but alas no luck so far. Anyway, Maltin is king of critics in terms of a “serious” stache, and dethroning him in that category is like stepping on Superman’s cape and hoping he won’t kill you.
AARON – Read my review again, and notice that I said “Fuck’Em” to those who whined directly or not in their reviews, bitching at the Coens going back to well-explored genre territory instead of “expanding,” like how nerds on the Net whined at Kevin Smith to do the same until they saw JERSEY GIRL.
Now if you didn’t care for BAR…eh, oh well. I mean what’s funny to one guy is not to another, the same concept goes with action cinema or drama or whatever. I thought THE FOUNTAIN was one of the best movies of 2006, an ambitious little shit’s little triumph….and most other people fucking goddamn hated it.
So understand, I was overall shitting on folks who use bullshit logic in trashing the film, not because BAR fizzled for them.
Look at politics recently. I would love to believe that fiscal conservatism is a legit ideology, and I’m for it, but when the assholes waving that flag in the Republican Party are the ones who have done a shoddy job at it, fuck em! But notice that I don’t shit on fiscal conservatism itself.
My point is, sorry if I came off as saying any dissenters should fuck off. I apologize, and must note that I would only tell Michael Bay fans to fuck off in general.
SEANKGALLAGHER – BAR isn’t as good as those other Coen comedies, but I look at it this way like I do with Martin Scorsese. Is THE DEPARTED as good as GOODFELLAS? No. Is DEPARTED as good as CASINO? No. Is DEPARTED as good as MEAN STREETS or RAGING BULL? Fuck No.
But DEPARTED was still pretty good.
Oh and that’s cool of you to have recognized LEBOWSKI back in the day. I saw part of it when I was off with a friend seeing something else, can’t remember, and we basically sneaked into a screening. Afterwards, we didn’t know what the fuck to think of it, and that was that.
But I kept thinking about it, like an itch on your balls that you can’t scratch no matter what, and maybe I guess a year or two so later I checked it out again and BAM I was converted. So technically, I’m one of those very folks I trashed in my review.
*=And last I checked, me, Roger Ebert, and the webmaster at digitalbits website are the only on-line “reviewers” that I know of who liked it. I guess I’m an asshole.
RRA – Thank you for your honest and respectful response. It always helps to be able to peer further into the mind of a critic, as things are usually more complex than they may seem. My post was really calling for mature movie discussion and your detailed response above pushes this conversation closer to that.
Also, interestingly enough, I too am a huge fan of Aronofsky’s The Fountain. It’s always nice to find someone else who loves that movie. For me, it’s a real gem, thoughtfully constructed and powerfully executed.
Aaron, I appreciate that response mate.
As for the FOUNTAIN, I just don’t get the hate at it. I mean can understand for something like THE BLACK DAHLIA, which I liked, but FOUNTAIN…when people say that it’s too pretentious or self-indulgent or whatever, I react like I would to a foreign tongue that’s alien to me.
I mean, its a metaphysical trip, an impressive little genre triumph like George Lucas’ THX 1138 was for its time, which itself was left to collect dust in obscurity, and as a mere but of IMDB trivia. More than anything else, it tackled dramatically about a man having to accept death.
What’s so pretentious about that? Perhaps so if the movie had failed, but I don’t know of any other recent American film outside of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN that convinced me that there comes a point in our lives when we must understand and grasp the finity of our lives.
Also, what other recent movie had semen pour out of a tree?
Q:”Also, what other recent movie had semen pour out of a tree?”
A: High School Musical 2
(btw, I liked your review though I would up your rating by 1/2 to 1 star).
I enjoyed your review, RRA, and get a kick from your writing style. To address those who don’t share my view, I’ll say this:
Ryan — Your “constructive criticism” is no more that than the comments of Miss Peabody, my gray-haired English teacher who apparently hadn’t been laid in years as evidenced by her preoccupation with dangling participles and acceptable formulae. If you don’t care for someone’s style, just say so rather than adopt a tone of condescension.
Aaron — Although your comments have more insight and depth than those of Ryan, what you seem to be complaining about — more than anything else — is that RRA isn’t more like you. In the process, I think you may have missed the many substantive points that RRA brought up in his “meandering rant,” not to mention his distinctive humor.
Sean K. Gallagher — If you don’t think BAR is funny enough to compare to Lebowski or Raising Arizona, then what’s your point in making a comparison? While I understand that other critics will be taking what I consider to be the same misstep, my feeling is that we’d be better served through evaluating BAR as a film — not as a comedy. Any assessment of a film will be as narrow as the perspective used — that’s why, for example, Lebowski is now considered a better film than it was at the time of its release.
I was going to enumerate some of what I like about this “not-so-serious,” “not dramatic enough,” “trivia-filled” review, but the list is too long. One would be better served to simply read RRA’s review again or see the film a second time.
I loathed this movie. I laughed maybe once and I don’t think the screenplay had any real clear point to make. The characters were so underdeveloped it was laughable. I’ve enjoyed other Coen Brothers comedies but not this one.
Pierre – You can’t force someone to like a movie. Either the film works or just doesn’t work for them.
For example, remember how last summer, alot of Internet nerds wouldn’t shut up of how fun and popcorn TRANSFORMERS was? Yet when I saw it, I instead got raped in the brain by Michael Bay.
Getting jumped wasn’t fun in DEATH WISH nor THE ACCUSED nor I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, and well I was bored, insulted, and outright angry with TRANSFORMERS.
Yet I tried to criticize it, people told me to fuck off, saying the simple defense that it was “popcorn,” and refuse to admit the numerous bullshit problems in it. Oddly enough, alot of those same people later trashed INDY IV earlier this year for the same nonsense I hated in TRANSFORMERS. Coincidence?
I don’t think Seankgallagher hated BAR, but I guess from his words, I think he didn’t think it was good as RAISING ARIZONA or BIG LEBOWSKI or whatever…and that’s his valid opinion, and I respect that.
RRA Got Burned — My comments weren’t intended to address whether or not someone likes the film. My concerns involved reactions to your review, as well as the apparent temptation to try and squeeze BAR into the “comedy film” mold, which seems to me like putting the cart before the horse. Using a predetermined label (comedy) is a prejudicial act that’s not just unnecessary but also limiting. How can one judge the quality of a piece of art if you’re eliminating some of the criteria before you begin?
Continuing on from my previous comment, if the Coens were solely intent on making this film for laughs, I suspect they’d have used a different musical score.
Pierre – Well, that’s a good point…though can’t one argue that for BAR, the dominant genre exhibited is that of comedy?
RRA, placing labels on BAR one way or the other isn’t a priority for me. Labels may be convenient at times, but they’re artificial. Thinking of BAR as a comedy — even a so-called black one — presupposes expectations and imposes limits. That’s not what I want from my film experience.
Leave a reply