Burn After Reading

[Bourne101]

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/focus_features/burn_after_reading/burnafterreading_galleryposter2.jpg

Directed by The Coen Brothers

Written by The Coen Brothers

Genre: Crime/Comedy

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/focus_features/burn_after_reading/brad_pitt/burn.jpg

Tagline: Intelligence is relative.

Plot Outline: A tale about an ousted CIA official whose memoir accidentally falls into the hands of two unwise D.C. gym employees intent on exploiting their find.

http://l.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/focus_features/burn_after_reading/john_malkovich/burn2.jpg

Starring: George Clooney, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, Brad Pitt

Rated R for pervasive language, some sexual content and violence.

Runtime: 96 Minutes

One of my most anticipated films of the year. CAN'T FUCKING WAIT!

[blankpage]

Yup. FAN-FUCKING-TASTIC cast, plus we've got the Coens post-No Country for Old Men, so I have high hopes and am egagerly anticipating this bad boy.

[SpikeDurden]

I'm extremely excited for this romp. Great cast, great directors, hilarious premise, short and brisk runtime. Looks awesome.

[ilovemovies]

It looks pretty good but man it also looks awfully silly.

[Tweek]

I'm watching it next Saturday. :D

That runtime is very brisk, I'll agree.

[Strider]

"You're part of a league of morons."

I really like that line -- it makes me laugh every time.

Seeing as I'm a huge fan of The Coen Brothers, Burn After Reading is easily one of my most anticipated films of the Fall/Winter film season. I am so there.

Strider

[sbunn10]

only one week left! I've seen the trailers and tv spots millions of times, and I still laugh every time John Malkovich punches Brad Pitt.

[Natty]

Can't wait for this, the cast is just awesome and it should be great.

[Sad man]

Can't wait.

[Moviefan1234]

BURN AFTER READING looks excellent, I can't wait to see it.

[xseanymacx]

Can't say anything that hasn't all ready been said. Pumped for this!

[Bourne101]

That runtime is very brisk, I'll agree.

Let's not forget that Fargo was nearly the exact same length, and that movie was perfectly paced. I don't see the runtime as a problem at all.

[bigred760]

I think it's going to be a riot; those directors, that cast, and that story . . . I'm there.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Can't wait.

[xseanymacx]

"Where's the money?"
(whining) "He wouldn't give it to me!"

Hahaha:D

[JohnLocke2342]

I'm pretty pumped to see this flick.. it looks a lot more Fargo then No Country, and that's good for me. I dug No Country but I missed the lighter twisted side of the Coen Brothers.

I'm not gonna lie tho, I'm not really looking forward to this movie hitting the public. All of those "bandwagon" No Country for Old Men fans that never saw a Coen brothers movie and didn't even understand No Country but raved about how incredible it was because of Javier Bardem are gonna HATE this flick. They're gonna bash it and not understand it and think it's completely different. It's so obvious the kind of bashing this movie is going to recieve from that slightly less intelligent crowd. Especially the way they're promoting the shit out of this movie being the follow up to No Country for Old Men. Oh well.

Looks fantastic.

[sbunn10]

I'm pretty pumped to see this flick.. it looks a lot more Fargo then No Country, and that's good for me. I dug No Country but I missed the lighter twisted side of the Coen Brothers.

I'm not gonna lie tho, I'm not really looking forward to this movie hitting the public. All of those "bandwagon" No Country for Old Men fans that never saw a Coen brothers movie and didn't even understand No Country but raved about how incredible it was because of Javier Bardem are gonna HATE this flick. They're gonna bash it and not understand it and think it's completely different. It's so obvious the kind of bashing this movie is going to recieve from that slightly less intelligent crowd. Especially the way they're promoting the shit out of this movie being the follow up to No Country for Old Men. Oh well.

Looks fantastic.


I dunno.. No Country's ending prevented the "less-intelligent" crowd from jumping on the bandwagon, I think. It was a unique ending that turned a lot of people off. Most people that I know that appreciated it a lot were fans of previous Coen films. A lot of my other friends, who are inclined to the Shoot em up and happy ending films of the same ol same ol, said it sucked because of the ending. But I agree that this marketing campaign has been fueled by the success of No Country, and this film is a whole different animal.


and yes.. it does indeed look fantastic :)

[SpikeDurden]

Let's not forget that Fargo was nearly the exact same length, and that movie was perfectly paced. I don't see the runtime as a problem at all.

I personally was mentioning the runtime as a good thing. There can be a lot to be said about a film with a short and well paced runtime. The trend nowadays is to have films really bloated and long, which sometimes is great, but it's also nice to see filmmakers who aren't afraid to say what they want in a round 90 minutes.

[Cunning Visions]

I read the review over at AICN. All I can say is...people are either going to love this film or absolutely despise it, there will be no in between (as is the case with most Coen Bros. films). It mixes comedy with brutal violence in ways that will confuse the hell out of people. Do NOT read the review if you want to be surprised, it's extremely spoiler heavy.

[DareDevil]

I’m going to check out most likely while it's in theaters, but I have never been a big fan of the Coen Brothers, and I thought No Country for Old Men was sooooo overrated... but this movie does have an impressive cast and can't go wrong with Clooney and Pitt so yah I'm there... with low expectations.

[Monotreme]

Totally stoked for this. Classic Coen Brothers to follow up a heavy movie like No Country with an off-the-walls black comedy. I love their classic comedies like Raising Arizona, The Hudsucker Proxy, and of course The Big Lebowski, to the point that I think it's safe to say that the Coens are some of the best comedic filmmakers around. Their comedic style is so unique - the comedy is derived from over-the-top characters and situations, and NOT from flat-out jokes or whatever. The whole ATMOSPHERE of their comedies is funny. And I get the same feeling from the trailer of Burn After Reading. Amazing cast, Coens doing an original comedy again... no reason not to be excited as hell for this!

[gyro_44]

I've seen everything in the Coen brothers' canon. I'm not about to miss one.

[Le_Big_Mac]

I'm pretty pumped to see this flick.. it looks a lot more Fargo then No Country, and that's good for me. I dug No Country but I missed the lighter twisted side of the Coen Brothers.

I'm not gonna lie tho, I'm not really looking forward to this movie hitting the public. All of those "bandwagon" No Country for Old Men fans that never saw a Coen brothers movie and didn't even understand No Country but raved about how incredible it was because of Javier Bardem are gonna HATE this flick. They're gonna bash it and not understand it and think it's completely different. It's so obvious the kind of bashing this movie is going to recieve from that slightly less intelligent crowd. Especially the way they're promoting the shit out of this movie being the follow up to No Country for Old Men. Oh well.

Looks fantastic.

Judging by the bashing given to The Big Lebowski and O, Brother Where Art Thou?, the critics are more likely to respond that way than the audience.

[Sigur509]

I will fo sho check this out this weekend.


I dont know why I thought with was adapted.

[Bourne101]

Judging by the bashing given to The Big Lebowski and O, Brother Where Art Thou?, the critics are more likely to respond that way than the audience.

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but The Big Lebowski and O Brother, Where Art Thou? did very well critically.

[Mr.HyDe807]

I didn't realize that it was coming out this Friday....nice!

It looks great and i can't wait to see it!

(EDIT- the review on chud.com got me even more excited. I'm definitely checking this out after my class on Friday!)

[chinton]

I remember when one of the EW critics named O Brother the worst film of the year. Never got that.

[Cop No. 633]

This should be a treat. Me and the lady friend will be catching this on the weekend hopefully.

[Robot]

I laugh everytime I see an ad for this movie on TV. It looks fun & quirky, which is exactly what I'm looking for this weekend from a film.

[Powerslave]

I can't wait to see this. It looks like it'll be the Coens' next great, classic comedy.

It's crazy though, the movie seems to be splitting critics pretty intensely. Looking at the RT page:

"Joel and Ethan Coen’s Burn After Reading, from their own screenplay, strikes me as one of the most willfully awful movies I’ve ever seen."
-Andrew Sarris, New York Observer

"Burn After Reading is a movie about stupidity that left me feeling stupid."
-Richard Corliss, TIME Magazine

As opposed to...

"Burn After Reading is the new Coen Bros classic that you'll be quoting ad nauseum for the next decade."
-Devin Faraci, CHUD

"A characteristically supercilious and crisply shot clown show filled with cartoon perfs and predicated on extravagant stupidity."
-J. Hoberman, Village Voice

"Lesser artists would have followed a critical smash like No Country with another noir, courting audience favor through familiarity. But Burn After Reading, though shocking, is simply the flipside of the Coens’ existential dread."
-Armond White, New York Press
--------------

Sounds like the type of thing alot of people will inevitably hate. It also sounds like the exact type of thing I would absolutely love (the J. Hoberman quote actually instantly made me think of A Confederacy of Dunces, which I recently read and instantly became one of my all-time favorite books). And I love what Armond White said about it.

But still, those are some startlingly diametrically opposed opinions. Still, it's at 76% with 34 reviews, so the majority seemed to like it nonetheless.

[hoojib127]

Eh, the Coens have almost always polarized people -- especially their comedies. As for me, they haven't let me down yet...though they did come close with "Intolerable Cruelty" and "The Ladykillers."

[jbar1026]

just got back and im disappointed! it was no where near as good a thought it would be 6 or 6.5/10 from me i didnt find most of the movie funny. its saving grace is the actors all bring thier A games

[gamma626]

just got back and im disappointed! it was no where near as good a thought it would be 6 or 6.5/10 from me i didnt find most of the movie funny. its saving grace is the actors all bring thier A games

I thought Brad Pitt gave one heck of a performance... But the rest was VERY bland.

The "event" in the middle ruined the whole tone of the movie for me though.

[therealjohng]

spoilers

Movie is fucking funny. I hated the first hour but after Brad Pitt gets shot in the face the movie is great. It made me appreciate the first hour. Another winner from the Coens.

[BakeTheMooCow]

The beginning of the movie is oddly paced. It's slow to the point of methodical. The Coens are setting up characters and plot elements to be embellished upon later, but it feels disjointed for a good 20 minutes. When Brad Pitt arrives, things really get going. He is great here. His character is a moron, sure, but he's also extremely innocent and genuinely confused when things don't go as planned, so it makes him endearing. He comes dangerously close to overdoing it, but I think he walks the line.

Other than Brad's Chad, almost everyone is lonely and a lot of what goes on in this movie stems from the desperate actions to fight their loneliness. Everyone is sleeping with everyone. George Clooney plays a strange, clumsy, sleazy guy who is addicted to all kinds of exercise and is developing paranoia, not without cause. John Malkovich is very good as an alcoholic who is drowning in the stupidity of people around him. And David Rasche (Sledgehammer!) and J.K. Simmons are great as C.I.A. heads. I loved their conversations.

There are real moments of suspense and heartbreak and Carter Burwell's score is tongue-in-cheek, but is good enough for a serious spy movie. So it's not all goofy. But when it was over, I thought it was a solid effort, but I didn't have the immediate realization that I need to watch this again, like I did with earlier Coen films. They didn't really write the female characters as well as the male ones. And I couldn't shake the feeling of disjointedness that I had at the beginning.

6/10

[unspoken]

Loved it.

I thought the performances were exceptional all around. I really enjoyed the scenes between Clooney and Swinton, they certainly kept up the chemistry they had in Michael Clayton. Brad Pitt was awesome, and deserves an Oscar look, although probably won't get one due to the goofy nature of his character. Tons of laughs and the typical Coen Bros. trademarks were all included.

Tough to say, I'll need to see it again, but it's between this and In Bruges for my favorite movie of '08 so far.

[Potzer! 37]

Another great Coen film...perfect score from me...nothing negative to say about it. A great watch.

BUT......who else noticed the references to other films (including past Coen films?)

Shot for shot Iron Man reference: When Clooney (as Harry) is making his sex glider thing, the shots of him lifting the tourch mask and bending the parts are identical to the sequence where Downy Jr. (as Tony Stark) is making his suit, yes?

Shot reference: When Malcovich (as Osbourne) is about to kill Ted, the gym dude with the hatchet, that shot is straight out of Fargo...and then, where in Fargo it cuts before the ax hits Buscemi, in "Burn" we see the mayem for a few seconds.

Visual reference (shot as well?): Towards the end after Harry bails on Linda (McDormand) when she's in the car and the helecoptor shows up...Goodfellas. Right?

I know that "For Pete's sake" is a line from Fargo (feels very Marge Gunderson-y to me) and I think there was a Lebowski (maybe, "Where's the money?!" not sure on this) reference as well...

Anyway...who else picked up on this (these)? Am I crazy or what? Were there other's as well (the Iron Man and Fargo ones are the only 2 i feel positive about).

Anybody have thoughts?

[Potzer! 37]

Got another one: AGAIN SPOILERS!!!

When Brad Pitt's "Chad" gets shot in the face (the smile is still with me) I was immediately reminded of The Departed...

Lest anyone think I'm crazy here...I love the Coens...genius films since they started...and I know stealing from other films (or referenceing) is not like them (at least not as heavily as I'm implying)...however...with the tone of this film being so much about the crazy and the pointless and the silly (as if they're saying "everybody think's were great now that we have an Oscar or 2...lets fuck with them") I think this kind of thing fits perfectly.

Anyway, who else has some (or agrees/disagrees with this whole idea)

[ElderPredator]

A terrific comedy and yet another soon-to-be cult classic from the Coen Brothers.

9/10

[sbunn10]

One of my favorite films of the year... Pitt and Clooney were hilarious.. the Coen bros have delivered again

9/10

[Sigur509]

I didn't really get going to Pitt came on, but after that it was a blast.

8/10

I loved the last conversation.

[dman476]

**SPOILERS**



The film killed itself when it killed its most likeable character. Yeah.
Brad Pitt was excellent too.

[tbone]

Another great Coen film...perfect score from me...nothing negative to say about it. A great watch.

BUT......who else noticed the references to other films (including past Coen films?)

Shot for shot Iron Man reference: When Clooney (as Harry) is making his sex glider thing, the shots of him lifting the tourch mask and bending the parts are identical to the sequence where Downy Jr. (as Tony Stark) is making his suit, yes?

Shot reference: When Malcovich (as Osbourne) is about to kill Ted, the gym dude with the hatchet, that shot is straight out of Fargo...and then, where in Fargo it cuts before the ax hits Buscemi, in "Burn" we see the mayem for a few seconds.


How about the Blue Velvet refernce when Brad Pitt hides in the closet

anyway the movie was a blast -- certainly not the best one i expect to grow in popularity over the years
Visual reference (shot as well?): Towards the end after Harry bails on Linda (McDormand) when she's in the car and the helecoptor shows up...Goodfellas. Right?

I know that "For Pete's sake" is a line from Fargo (feels very Marge Gunderson-y to me) and I think there was a Lebowski (maybe, "Where's the money?!" not sure on this) reference as well...

Anyway...who else picked up on this (these)? Am I crazy or what? Were there other's as well (the Iron Man and Fargo ones are the only 2 i feel positive about).

Anybody have thoughts?

What about the Blue Velvet reference with Brad Pitt hiding in the closet

anyway the movie was a great deal of fun --- one im sure will grow in popularity in the next several years

[Potzer! 37]

I hadn't thought of that one...were the shots similar?

Oh and how the hell did you mange to get your post IN my post the you quoted...strange...

[outsyder]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS***************

A lot of fun which is at the same time a very tragic story. Leaves a weird taste in your mouth, particularily the nature of the ending, but the screenplay is expertly written and like all Coen characters, each provides a noticeable contribution to the film, as small as a given part may be.

Clooney and Pitt in particular were delightfully entertaining. Quite a few similarities to the Big Lebowski with respects to the plot, and it certainly is a biting addition to the Coen's "Idiots and Crime" plotlines, but the characters are not as sympathetic.

8/10

[anakinsrise]

One of the best things about the Coen Bros.films is that there is almost always a character with a relentless gene.Whether it's a slacker who wants his beloved rug replaced,or a hunter who wants to keep a brief case full of drug money.They all keep pursuing what they want despite being in over their heads,or how life threatening their pursuit becomes.
This brings us to Burn After Reading and Frances McDormand as Harbodies gym worker Linda Litzke.All she wants is several costly plastic surgeries.
Her pursuit leads to all types of mayhem,which includes her co-worker Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt,hilariously chipper and dim) Her philandering new lover
Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney his facial ticks alone made me laugh out loud)
an ex CIA analyst Osborne Cox (John Malkovich brilliantly intense),Katie Cox ( Tilda Swinton cold as ice but oddly attractive )the CIA,and the Russian embassy.BAR is definitely not as involving or intense as No Country for Old Men,but its still a lot of fun.I think i laughed straight through the last 25 minutes of the movie.
The scenes between David Rasche and J.K. Simmons is classic stuff
Scale of 1-10 an 8

[BakeTheMooCow]

The ending didn't sit well with me.

**********SPOILERS for Burn After Reading and Pineapple Express********



It was similar to the ending of Pineapple Express in that you had characters sitting around and talking in a self-aware manner about the movie. That annoys me. And David Rasche and J.K. Simmons are brilliant, but the ending was sort of "Well, we didn't learn anything. *shrug* THE END" It was kinda funny, but also a bit dismissive and abrupt.

END SPOILERS

[RockThunder]

uhhh, this movie wasnt very good... it was like totally random and really was not that interesting... only good part was brad pitt, he was hilarious as the dumb personal trainer

[FireCaptain4]

I went to the 2:00 showing yesterday afternoon, the very first one in my theater. It was raining all morning (and would continue to do so for the rest of the day) because of the leftovers from Hurricane Ike making its way in Northern Texas.

My family and I arrived thirty minutes early and managed to get good seats towards the top of theater, but soon it became packed with very little elbow room at all- still minutes before the previews even started.

Well, before trailers for Milk, Nixon/Frost, The Soloist, W. and The International started rolling, my sis and I discussed all on the Coens previous films (which was our favorite, our disappointments, etc.). It was somewhat of a big event for us because this was the first Coen brothers film for all of us to see together in a theater.

So, did Burn After Reading meet our expectations? Hell yeah! My dad, sister, and me came out loving it while my mom thought it was, "just horrible!" (***Spoilers*** Once Pitt died, she lost it ***Spoilers***).

Burn After Reading is a great return to the quirky and dark style of humor the Coens mastered in some of their previous films like Fargo and The Big Lebowski.

However, what I found most interesting at my theater was the audiences reactions to the movie. For the first 30 minutes oir so, there wasn't a single sound from the audience- and it was packed. I laughed at much at what was said, but I was alone for the most part. The humor went over the heads of the audience, I guess. Once Brad Pitt came into the picture, the audience finally got into it and laughed consistently from then on. However, the films deaths were surprisingly effective and upsetting--although I enjoyed the movie very much, this tore the audience in two.

Is Burn After Reading one of the Coens best films? It's probably not Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? or No Country for Old Men material- but I'd say it falls into place right under those films. Like every Coen Bros. flick it'll continue to grow on me and I'll be able to more successfully measure it once I see it again.

All-in-all, one of my favorite films of this year!
8/10

[Bourne101]

Burn After Reading - 9/10

Sheer fucking brilliance! The Coens have done it again! Last year they brought us one of the best films of the decade, and this year they bring us Burn After Reading which will undoubtedly be in my top 10 list of 2008. It takes a much different turn than No Country for Old Men, and takes a route which could best be described as a mix of Fargo and The Big Lebowski, two superb films. Burn After Reading throws us into a story filled with many interesting characters, most of them very unintelligent individuals, and spirals down a path of darkness while always managing to make me laugh. The characters are all very closely connected, yet most of them have no idea, even after the film has ended. You really have to see it for yourself, and it's best to go in just knowing that it is about two dummies trying to blackmail a man who is involved with the CIA.

The performances are great all around. Brad Pitt steals the show, playing the dumb, upbeat personal trainer, and although he probably won't get a nomination, the performance will undoubtedly go down as one of the better ones of the year. Frances McDormand is also great here, as the woman who just hasn't found that special someone and who can't afford to pay the bills for surgeries that she so desperately wants. George Clooney is obviously having a blast here, and delivers a hell of a performance. John Malkovich is great here, very funny, but also is a key element to making the movie as dark as it is. The final scene he is in is fucking brilliant. Tilda Swinton is great as usual, enough said. J.K. Simmons isn't in the movie long, but the two scenes he is in are fucking great and he is very much responsible for that greatness. Richard Jenkins is great here as well.

The direction is superb. The movie looks great, featuring many great shots. The script is absolutely brilliant. The dialogue flows perfectly, with many hilarious and clever lines. The story unfolds so perfectly, and the Coens set it up perfectly for what is one of the best endings of the year so far.

So overall, Burn After Reading is a very funny, extremely dark film with many great and memorable characters and performances, an excellent script, superb direction, a wonderful story, and a mindblowingly awesome ending. The pace is also lightening quick, and even though it is only 96 minutes long, it doesn't feel too short. In fact, it is a perfect length. It's the second best Coen film of the decade behind No Country for Old Men.

[visual_tension]

Although it starts off really slow, it goes on to quite an enjoyable film. Great performances from a stellar cast.

7/10

[JoeChar4321]

The only thing I seem to agree upon is the awfully slow start. The movie does pick up starting with Pitt's phone call but not enough to save this disappointment. It's every bit as quirky and bizarre as one would expect from a Coen Brothers effort. This thoroughly disposable film is touted as a comedy but no scene rises above the mildly amusing level. I’m sure the Coens thought it would be cute to string together a movie about blundering nobodies that goes nowhere but, in yet another quest to be different, they produced a borderline drivel movie that misses the mark everywhere. The problem is they never give one reason why anybody should care about these characters. Every single character is either a superficial a-hole or a complete moron. You find yourself turned off by the characters and, only at times, barely amused by their antics. Overall, a disappointing waste of screen talent to be sure.

5/10 not a bomb but not near as good as people want you to believe.

[Bourne101]

but not near as good as people want you to believe.

It most certainly is. :D

[Potzer! 37]

It most certainly is. :D
Agreed...

And I fell in love with Linda Litsky right away...she's just a lonely woman looking for a little happiness (and how can you not love Chad...he was the only positive person in the movie!) and while Clooney was a bit off moral wise, I felt for him when he's breaking his SPOILERS sex sled SPOILER.

I love this flick...me and the whole auidence were laughing histerically from jump street to credits.

[Shale]

Burn After Reading
Review by Shale
September 14, 2008

Seems the summer action movies are over and there is really not much to interest me until December when The Day the Earth Stood Still comes out. But, having movie withdrawal, I went to the Cineplex today and saw this dark comedy.

It looked like lite fare from the trailers, which showed an airhead Brad Pitt trying to shake down a CIA agent, John Malcovich and getting popped in the nose for his efforts. Also the cast included George Clooney and J.K. Simmons so it had all the makings of a good farce. But know that it is R-rated for the reasons of sexual situations and extremely graphic, blood splatter, violence. However, it was funny; the whole theater was laughing, which makes me question our humanity.

We start with our arrogant CIA operative Osborne Cox (John Malcovich) being demoted. He gets angry, quits the agency and decides to write his memoirs.

Disgruntled Agent Osborne
http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1189944/photo_11_hires.jpg

His domineering and frigid wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) is planning a divorce as she is having an affair with Treasury Agent Harry Pfaffer (George Clooney) who is actually sex obsessed and having affairs with other women including Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) a health club worker who hungers for male attention and wants to get $50K worth of body work that her insurance won't cover.

Katie, while secretly downloading her husband's financial reports in anticipation of her divorce also copies the beginning of his memoirs onto the disc. This disc is lost in the health club where it falls into the hands of Linda and her brainless co-worker Chad (Brad Pitt).

Found Disc with Top Secret Memoir
http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1189944/photo_01_hires.jpg

They locate Osborne and try to extort money for the return of the disc. After Osborne punches Chad in the nose Linda decides that they should sell it to the Russians.

The rest of the movie plays out with all these intrigues of disintegrating marriages, obsessive greed for the body enhancement operations, and paranoia within the intelligence community. The movie picks up pace as everything falls into place or actually falls apart. Again, it is a dark comedy with some pretty violent moments.

An Angry Osborne
http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1189944/photo_05_hires.jpg

However, some of the most hilarious moments while all this pandemonium is taking place with our protagonists, is the deadpan comments by the CIA Superior (J.K. Simmons) as the ever spiraling reports are coming in from the grey-suited agent. He isn't really concerned about all the chaos, or the bodies to be disposed of, just wanting to keep a lid on it.

I liked the movie and will probably get it on DVD when it comes down in price. BTW, when Chad is negotiating with Osborne, he takes an alias, "Mr. Black." Just a little movie trivia for those familiar with Brad Pitt characters.

[ilovemovies]

What a miserable, godawful ending. It seriously pissed me off that I actually wasted my time watching this movie.

This is the first movie I've seen by the Coens that I haven't liked.

I don't have a problem with the pacing of the begining, but some scenes and some of the performances were somewhat awkward. Things do pick up for sure when Brad Pitt enters the movie. Pitt is by far the best thing about the movie. It's a very funny performance and as stupid as his character is, Pitt still somehow makes him likeable. I was actually kind of rooting for him. The same can be said, though to a lesser extent, of Frances McDormand and Richard Jenkins as well. Really actually, I didn't have much trouble with any of the acting. Clooney also manages to be likeable though initially I was put off by his character and performance. But as the movie went along I started to like him more.

The problem is with the screenplay. The characters are stupid but a lot of them still somehow manage to be likeable. But the screenplay throws all of their likeability out with how they treat the characters. I liked Jenkins but what happens to him at the end was beyond asinine IMO. Same with Clooney's character. And while I didn't particularly like Malkovich's character what happens in the end was to me beyond apalling. But even more appalling is the fact that instead of showing us what happens, they tell us with that insulting final scene. It's not the actor's fault. Both JK Simmons and David Rasche deliver their dialogue with pinache. I love Simmons in particular and his delivery is gold. But the scene should not have existed. Or at least it should have showed us things first.

Even before the ending, this movie, enjoyable as it was at times, still felt rather inconsequential and incredibly silly. But with the ending, and I use that term loosely here, the movie felt like a complete waste of time. A MAJOR misfire by the Coens.


5/10

[BakeTheMooCow]

Hmm, I think ilovemovies is spot on about the ending. Although I liked the movie more than he did, I would have liked it a lot more had it not ended with such a whimper. It left a sour taste in my mouth. Isn't the number one rule of screenwriting to "Show, don't tell"? The ending violated that in a major way. And since the Coens have been at this for decades and wouldn't make such a rookie mistake, I can only imagine that they thought it would be funnier this way - to have the fates of three characters summed up in three sentences. But like I said, it seemed dismissive of the audience and made the whole movie kinda insignificant.

[Potzer! 37]

I hate the whole mentality of "rules of screenwriting"...bullshit.

Don't use voice over, it's too simple...yeah well, Goodfellas bitch (among others).
Show, don't tell...No Country For Old Men, Pulp Fiction (among others).
Action is better than Dialogue...Res. Dogs, September, The Breakfast Club (among others)
No Extranneous Scenes...Fargo, Clerks, Annie Hall (and many more)
Don't use too many monologues...Annie Hall, Good Will Hunting, Pulp Fiction, Chasing Amy...this list is LONG...

If you didn't like it you didn't like it...but fuck the rules...I loved that the ending was an abrupt cut and not only was it something new/suprising it was very funny to hear two character discuss what happened...the point of the scene and the film is that sometimes, things make no sense and mean nothing in the grand scheme...and after all the crazy shit in this film, anything other than that ending wouldn't have fit.

[jbar1026]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeChar4321
but not near as good as people want you to believe.

It most certainly is. :D

ohh no its not:D

[BakeTheMooCow]

Show, don't tell...No Country For Old Men, Pulp Fiction (among others).

I'm curious to know what aspects of those scripts fall under "Show, don't tell".

And of course a talented screenwriter can use any method he or she wants and pull it off. I'm just saying I didn't think it worked in this instance.

[Shale]

...I loved that the ending was an abrupt cut and not only was it something new/suprising it was very funny to hear two character discuss what happened...the point of the scene and the film is that sometimes, things make no sense and mean nothing in the grand scheme...and after all the crazy shit in this film, anything other than that ending wouldn't have fit.

The audience and I were laughing during the ending. The way all that murder and mayhem was being encapsulated so dispassionately by guys in grey suits in an office was the best way to end this farce and Simmons delivery made it funny.

[Mr.HyDe807]

A mix between Fargo and The Big Lewboski. I loved it, despite being a little slow in the beginning.

9/10

[SpikeDurden]

The Coen brothers have always loved poking fun at humans, and never has that been so true as in Burn After Reading. What makes the film so entertaining is twofold: first, rarely is such a great cast of A-listers having so much fun on screen, and secondly, rarely have the Coen brothers been this cynical, this sharp, this lambasting. For the majority of their career the Coen brothers have made films about morons in situations way above their head (often involving violence, a far reached goal, and some sort of higher intelligence power) and in many ways this film is a final comment on all of it. The film starts slow and methodically, introducing us to the various players and their connection to each other, and then the film begins to explode in a mess of idiocy and zany comedy that ultimately leads up to, and in many ways this is the Coens' point, nothing. Along the way we encounter a CD of "secret CIA shit," affairs ("everybody's sleeping with everybody"), a dildo machine, a hatchet, the Russians, Hardbodies gym, and a children's book author. (And there's more, but to give it away would ruin the film's best surprises and best jokes.)

Brad Pitt is the comic highlight of the film, and he's never been funnier. Every bit his equal though is John Malkovich, who carries the film for the first 20 minutes. He plays an intelligent man who is also an idiot, and he's very sympathetic and very venomous. George Clooney in a way pokes fun of his usual role, and he is a master of the hilarious facial tick. Tilda Swinton and Frances McDormand are the main female players, and they each play versions of characters they have played before to great affect. Richard Jenkins is, somehow, the only truly emotional character in the film and naturally his fate befits that. But the film really comes to a comedic close with JK Simmons and David Rasche, who are both subtle and sublime and truly sell the ultimate point of the film.

The Coens have achieved something remarkable here in that their last film was such a wonderful and serious picture, and they have followed it up with something so hilarious and zany, and yet it works as both a complimentary piece and as the antithesis. One can't help but think that the ending of this is a comment on the reaction people had to the ending of No Country, and that, in itself, is a feat worth looking out for.

Definitely one of the most entertaining films and funniest films of the year so far, and perhaps one of the most intelligent (in its own weird, zany way). It won't win them any oscars, but it may just appear on a lot of top ten lists, or at least honorable mention lists. Folks, I think the great film season of 2008 has finally begun.

8/10

[Potzer! 37]

We are told, not shown, what happened to Josh Brolin for one.

In Pulp Fiction we are told and now show, Tony Rocky Horror being thrown off a roof, Butch killing Floyd in the boxing match, everything that happened with Butch's father and Capt. Koontz in Vietman, that things got fucked up between Brent and Mr. Wallace...probably more.

[Tweek]

So I haven't seen it yet. About Pitt's character... Would it suffice to assume...


(highlight to read, of course. It is a spoiler!)


That Clooney's character shoots him?

[Bourne101]

So I haven't seen it yet. About Pitt's character... Would it suffice to assume...


(highlight to read, of course. It is a spoiler!)


That Clooney's character shoots him?

You assume correctly.

[BakeTheMooCow]

We are told, not shown, what happened to Josh Brolin for one.

In Pulp Fiction we are told and now show, Tony Rocky Horror being thrown off a roof, Butch killing Floyd in the boxing match, everything that happened with Butch's father and Capt. Koontz in Vietman, that things got fucked up between Brent and Mr. Wallace...probably more.

Those aren't on the same level as what happened at the end of this movie.

We do see the pick-up truck pulling away from the motel and Tommy Lee Jones rushing inside to see the aftermath.

In Pulp Fiction, the examples you mentioned are secondary or tertiary characters at the most. Of course we're not going to see the entire Vietnam segment because the movie would then be 5 hours long.

But the fates of John Malkovich, George Clooney and Frances McDormand - the three primary characters in this movie that we have spent 90 minutes with - are all casually tossed aside in a short conversation.

Don't you think that's very different from what happened in Pulp Fiction and No Country For Old Men?

What I'm saying is - it's a 97 minute movie, the Coens could have easily showed what happened to all three characters, but they chose not to and it was a stylistic and creative choice that I simply didn't find effective.

[Bourne101]

First of all, I pretty much disagree with most of what you have said, although I do understand where you are coming from. I'll now go into more detail...

The problem is with the screenplay. The characters are stupid but a lot of them still somehow manage to be likeable. But the screenplay throws all of their likeability out with how they treat the characters. I liked Jenkins but what happens to him at the end was beyond asinine IMO.

Jenkins' character was just a lonely dude, who by implication was attracted to McDormand's character. He really felt bad for her, and considering all the characters are stupid and the since that is one of the themes of the film, it was only fitting for Jenkins to do what he did. And the result was fucking priceless, yet one of the darkest scenes I have seen in a while. I don't think what he did made him less likable, if anything it made him more likable for trying to help out fellow likable character McDormand.

And while I didn't particularly like Malkovich's character what happens in the end was to me beyond apalling. But even more appalling is the fact that instead of showing us what happens, they tell us with that insulting final scene. It's not the actor's fault. Both JK Simmons and David Rasche deliver their dialogue with pinache. I love Simmons in particular and his delivery is gold. But the scene should not have existed. Or at least it should have showed us things first.

I thought the actions of Malkovich in the end were a brilliant aspect of the story. He had been royally fucked with throughout the entire film, and he just assumed Jenkins was just another person to go onto his "This person is going to fuck with me" list, so he went ballistic. And him getting shot and put into a coma was only fitting within the context of the story.

I felt that not showing things was absolutely brilliant. It really drove home the point of these people getting way in over their heads on a path to doom. Not only was the conversation hilarious, but it just showed how meaningless the blackmailing actually was. The whole point of blackmailing was so McDormand could have her surgeries, and in the end after all these people had been killed or injured, they just tossed the surgeries at her like they were giving away free candy at a parade. I don't think showing the deaths, or showing McDormand being caught would have sufficed. Kind of like in No Country when we don't see Brolin's character get killed. Why would we need to? It's better being implied or said after the fact. Having a big old showdown and showing everything would have been pointless. I think it's much better showing it from the perspective of those who are just trying to clean the mess up... or in this case "clusterfuck". :D

A MAJOR misfire by the Coens.


I have to wholeheartedly disagree here.

Again, this is just my opinion, and I 100% understand where you are coming from.

[BakeTheMooCow]

SPOILERS******



Like Bourne101, I don't have a problem with what happened to the characters. Brad Pitt's ultimate fate as well as Richard Jenkins' fate were both cases of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just because a character is likeable doesn't mean that they should have a happy ending. I've never believed that. And both those scenes were superbly shot and really tense. Malkovich pointing his gun while talking to Jenkins was nerve wracking and reminded me of Lorraine Bracco pointing a gun at Ray Liotta in bed in Goodfellas. Two excellent, irony-filled scenes.

[The Heart Collector]

Burn After Reading
Review by Shale
September 14, 2008

Seems the summer action movies are over and there is really not much to interest me until December when The Day the Earth Stood Still comes out. But, having movie withdrawal, I went to the Cineplex today and saw this dark comedy.

It looked like lite fare from the trailers, which showed an airhead Brad Pitt trying to shake down a CIA agent, John Malcovich and getting popped in the nose for his efforts. Also the cast included George Clooney and J.K. Simmons so it had all the makings of a good farce. But know that it is R-rated for the reasons of sexual situations and extremely graphic, blood splatter, violence. However, it was funny; the whole theater was laughing, which makes me question our humanity.

We start with our arrogant CIA operative Osborne Cox (John Malcovich) being demoted. He gets angry, quits the agency and decides to write his memoirs.

Disgruntled Agent Osborne
http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1189944/photo_11_hires.jpg

His domineering and frigid wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) is planning a divorce as she is having an affair with Treasury Agent Harry Pfaffer (George Clooney) who is actually sex obsessed and having affairs with other women including Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) a health club worker who hungers for male attention and wants to get $50K worth of body work that her insurance won't cover.

Katie, while secretly downloading her husband's financial reports in anticipation of her divorce also copies the beginning of his memoirs onto the disc. This disc is lost in the health club where it falls into the hands of Linda and her brainless co-worker Chad (Brad Pitt).

Found Disc with Top Secret Memoir
http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1189944/photo_01_hires.jpg

They locate Osborne and try to extort money for the return of the disc. After Osborne punches Chad in the nose Linda decides that they should sell it to the Russians.

The rest of the movie plays out with all these intrigues of disintegrating marriages, obsessive greed for the body enhancement operations, and paranoia within the intelligence community. The movie picks up pace as everything falls into place or actually falls apart. Again, it is a dark comedy with some pretty violent moments.

An Angry Osborne
http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1189944/photo_05_hires.jpg

However, some of the most hilarious moments while all this pandemonium is taking place with our protagonists, is the deadpan comments by the CIA Superior (J.K. Simmons) as the ever spiraling reports are coming in from the grey-suited agent. He isn't really concerned about all the chaos, or the bodies to be disposed of, just wanting to keep a lid on it.

I liked the movie and will probably get it on DVD when it comes down in price. BTW, when Chad is negotiating with Osborne, he takes an alias, "Mr. Black." Just a little movie trivia for those familiar with Brad Pitt characters.

There are exactly two paragraphs of something that could actually pass for a review here. The rest is a bunch of giant thread-hogging pictures, blue text for no goddamn reason, and restating who the characters are and the plot of the this movie, which mostly everyone in this thread already knows, or has been explained before in the thread. In fact, the opening post already describes the plot and has one of the pictures you posted.

Can you refrain from copying reviews straight from your blog, or pretending this thread is your blog, or whatever you just did?

[LordSimen]

Now instead of talking about the movie, we're reviewing other schmoe's reviews of the movie? That's just sad.

[Shale]

There are exactly two paragraphs of something that could actually pass for a review here. The rest is a bunch of giant thread-hogging pictures, blue text for no goddamn reason, and restating who the characters are and the plot of the this movie, which mostly everyone in this thread already knows, or has been explained before in the thread. In fact, the opening post already describes the plot and has one of the pictures you posted.

Can you refrain from copying reviews straight from your blog, or pretending this thread is your blog, or whatever you just did?

If you are a mod, I suppose you coulda just deleted my review. The blue text is because I happen to be obsessed with blue as a color and it is sortof a trademark of mine, whether e-mail or postings.

If my "blog" was such a giant thread-hogging post of pictures, why did you copy the whole thing again? That was really bright, Chad.

OK, I make reviews for my friends. I post them here then send out an e-mail list with the link to my post only. They have the option to click on all the other posts, which I hope they don't until after seeing the movie as I think there were some significant spoilers by other real reviewers here with very little spoiler space (but who am I to complain?)

These "reviews" are usually personal, reflecting why I went to a movie, how the weather is on Miami Beach to make it worth going to a movie on a bicycle, etc. Ppl who know me then know a little about the movie as I interpret it. Also, I like to give them a few pix that I find relevant to the movie.

So, no I am not the same calbre of fanatics that posts on this site. I post my "review/blog" after seeing the movie. These threads start weeks before the movie opens with everyone giving most valuable information such as "I def wanna see this flick" and "It looks like a piece of shit." Sorry that I haven't the time to do the extensive research that other posters here do.

So far, Great and Powerful Heart Collector, you are the only one who has voiced any concern of the content of my posts. If others chime in that I am unwelcome here, then I will stop posting on this site.

Or if you are a mod, I suppose you can just ban me from posting.

Enjoy the Blue.

[jz68]

1. The Big Lebowski
2. Raising Arizona
3. Fargo
4. The Hudsucker Proxy
5. O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Burn After Reading is nowhere near being in the top 5 and belongs in the forgotten category along with Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers.

[Danger^Cart]

Yeah, your pointless blue reviews piss me off as well. So now we're two.

If you've got such a hard on for the color blue, jerk off to an episode of The Smurfs while listening to Eiffel 65, just leave our retina out of it.

[Shale]

OK, I guess I don't belong on this board.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

[Jimbo513]

dude, Shale, this is the Internet. There are always some fuck twits that will rub you the wrong way. Fuck those guys.

I like your reviews. I usually just scan through reviews to get to the final verdicts. Yours always stands out and is unique. I dig the pictures you always post.

I don't think you should abandon this board just cause one douche bag started some shit. However, if you are that sensitive maybe you should re-think being on the net at all. No matter where you go on the net, you will always run into assholes. You gotta take the good with the bad.

[Jimbo513]

Oh, and Heart Collector, fuck off. I have not been on this board long, but I do actually remember when this guy started posting. From what I have seen, this guy has done nothing but post reviews and keep to himself. He has not been flaming or trolling, that I know of, and is simply trying to voice his opinion.

I would expect this bullshit from some casual JoBlo member, but not from someone who is a regular like you.

You just made this forum a little bit worse.

[Lazy Boy]

OK, I guess I don't belong on this board.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

Don't go! I like your reviews, despite opinions to the contrary.

[Reigh Kaufman]

Oh, and Heart Collector, fuck off. I have not been on this board long, but I do actually remember when this guy started posting. From what I have seen, this guy has done nothing but post reviews and keep to himself. He has not been flaming or trolling, that I know of, and is simply trying to voice his opinion.

I would expect this bullshit from some casual JoBlo member, but not from someone who is a regular like you.

You just made this forum a little bit worse.

I care not a WHIT whether or not the guy is a troll. Better Schmoes have fallen for less than this post.

So...

Why don't you start talking movies and stop talking trash in the few remaining hours you have left on the boards?

5 years and still no clue as to how it works around here.

'Burn After Reading' was enjoyed immensely by yours truly this evening. I thought that The Coens made a perfect addition to their "stupid criminal" catalogue, and the complaints about:





SPOILERS:

Brad's death...

...Were only justified if you had not seen, say, Wheezy Joe die in 'Intolerable Cruelty'. Death is...whimsical in their movies.


END SPOILERS:

There are no sacred cows with The Coens. We should get that by now, don't ya think?

[Tweek]

Yeah... Gonna close this before it gets even further out of hand.

Let's refrain from the insults and needless bickering as dictated by our forum rules. :)


Edit: Opening 'er back up.

But still... What's in bold still stands.


Oh and poor Wheezy Joe. Really tugged at my heartstrings. :(

[bigred760]

Shale, you do whatever the hell you want . . . as long as it's movie related - it doesn't matter.

As for my thoughts on the movie:

It's impressive how the Coen Bros. can go from No Country for Old Men, a dark movie with an assassin chasing a small-town thief, to Burn After Reading, a movie about . . . dimwits, basically. Burn After Reading is everything NCFOM isn't . . . funny. The characters we're following aren't the brightest stars in the sky and how their stories coincide are not only brilliant, but as funny as hell.

The movie starts off with basic introductions: we meet John Malkovich, who was just laid off from the CIA; his wife, Tilda Swinton, who's having an affair with George Clooney, who's married to a children's book author. After their introductions, we see Frances McDormand who is desperate to "reinvent" herself through plastic surgery. She works at a fitness gym with Brad Pitt. We eventually learn more about the characters as the movie progresses, and the situations they put themselves in is hysterical. There are assumptions made, threats, blackmail, womanizing, affairs, and more. The movie flows really well and how everything turns out is not only surprising and unexpected, but the final scene that kind of sums it all up is hilarious.

Come to think of it, the way things turn out shouldn't be all that surprising considering it is a Coen Bros. comedy. It's a dark comedy, but a comedy nonetheless. The Coens, the cast, the story, and its development make for a great movie that's worth watching again.

8/10

[Z_oasis]

I dont know about this one. Everyone really worships the coens it seems like but i find them, especially now, very overrated. Its just my opinion here. I understand the story, the quirks and the twists i just wasnt with the execution. I mean, the cast was ok.. Malkavich was great AS ALWAYS, Tilda Swinton...... HOW THE FUCK IS SHE FAMOUS??? She won supporting actress for a role where she was boring and also no spark at all being in it 15 minutes or less. Total throwaway actress. Frances..... Annoying (i know thats her character but it felt to forced) Clooney, GREAT. Perfect. Pitt went full retard it seems like. JK Simmons was good.. But i just wasnt all gung ho about it. It was a lil bland. I KNOW its a satire, etc etc but proves to me the Coens are overhyped EVEN more cuz they on best director and best pic.


6/10

[ilovemovies]

SPOILERS!



I don't mind when bad things happen to likeable characters. I was fine with Brad Pitt's death scene. It was an amusing scene.

But the entire final 10 minutes or so, starting with Malkovich blowing up and going to his wife's house and Clooney's paranoia making him go insane and running away and Malkovich killing Jenkins's character, it was stupid to me. It wasn't funny or sad or tragic to me, just idiotic and lame. And the final scene of JK Simmons being told what happened to the characters just made it that much worse.

[chinton]

Enjoyed it although I like O Brother and Lebowski more.


I do have to say I was susprised at how angry and bleak that film was. I think its the cruelest film they've ever done.


I do admire end in the way that film really just kind of comes out and admits that there was really no point (unless you count pointlesness a point) and that no lesson was learned by anyone. After all in the end the disk held worthless information. It was essentially horrible people doing horrible things to each other over an object that turned out to be worthless. I thought it was funny.

[Bourne101]

I do have to say I was susprised at how angry and bleak that film was. I think its the cruelest film they've ever done.

Spoilers







Yeah, it was definitely pretty damn dark. Malkovich hitting Jenkins in the head with an axe was one of the most brutal things I've seen in a long while.

[chinton]

Spoilers







Yeah, it was definitely pretty damn dark. Malkovich hitting Jenkins in the head with an axe was one of the most brutal things I've seen in a long while.


That was particuraly cruel. They not only kill off the two most likable characters Pitt and Jenkins but Jenkins the most innocent of all of them gets shot AND get his head caved in with an ax. I actually found myself laughing and then felt really bad about it.

[jaw2929]

I really enjoyed this movie. Just got back from seeing it.... All actors did excellent jobs with their roles. My favourite characters were Chad and Ozzie.... Anytime Malkovich said "fuck" was golden too. :)

Coupla questions:

*SPOILERS*







-How did the manager of the gym know where/how to go to Ozzie's house and be in his basement on his computer? Do you think McDormand's character told him where to go?

-Also, did JK Simmons' character OK the idea to send Clooney's character Hank to Venezuela, so he'd be able to get away with the muder of Pitt's character Chad? Clooney was also an ex-CIA agent, right? Which is why he was always stating in 20 yrs he's never fired his weapon, etc. correct?

Just slightly puzzled on those two things.

Anyway, really entertaining movie, and the Coen Bros. have actually moved up into my favourite director/s.

[DaMovieMan]

SPOILERS!!!!!





Shit, I expected more overall I think. I was hoping for laughter ala Big Lebowski but I didn't get that. There were long drawn-out moments where not much happens and there isn't much laughter.
All the actors are excellent; Clooney, McDormant, Pitt and Malkovich being the best. I was pissed that Chad dies so suddenly and the film definitely lost momentum after that....until the scene where Harry is cutting the carrots. That was hilarious and put things right back on track.
The pointlessness doesn't bother me. The Big Lebowski is one of my favorite comedies and it's hard to find the point of that film. Plus, pointless Coen brothers film always have some kind of point ;) but what I didn't like was that it felt like with that cast, that crazy convoluted storyline and perfect characters (a few gestures and scenes are all is needed to completely understand what kind of lives these people live...the most brilliant part of the script) it could of been....more? I don't know, I might be reaching too high here, but I just wasn't as amused as I thought I would be.

7/10 for now but I have a feeling this film can improve with repeat viewings.

Definitely better than The Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty but nowhere near the top 5 Coen films:

1. Fargo
2. The Big Lebowski
3. Barton Fink
4. Miller's Crossing
5. The Man Who Wasn't There
6. No Country For Old Men
7. Blood Simple
8. O Brother Where Art Thou
9. Burn After Reading


My favorite line from the film: "You think that's a Schwinn"

Music was exceptional as well, and quite melancholic and serious for such a featherweight film.

[Potzer! 37]

I really enjoyed this movie. Just got back from seeing it.... All actors did excellent jobs with their roles. My favourite characters were Chad and Ozzie.... Anytime Malkovich said "fuck" was golden too. :)

Coupla questions:

*SPOILERS*







-How did the manager of the gym know where/how to go to Ozzie's house and be in his basement on his computer? Do you think McDormand's character told him where to go?

-Also, did JK Simmons' character OK the idea to send Clooney's character Hank to Venezuela, so he'd be able to get away with the muder of Pitt's character Chad? Clooney was also an ex-CIA agent, right? Which is why he was always stating in 20 yrs he's never fired his weapon, etc. correct?

Just slightly puzzled on those two things.

Anyway, really entertaining movie, and the Coen Bros. have actually moved up into my favourite director/s.
Spoilers:

I have to imagine that McDormand either told him/showed him where to go, or he had learned enough thoughout the story to figure out where Os' house was.

JK Simmons character (the higher up CIA guy) just want this to be over and all loose ends tied up...the whole situation was so fucked up and stupid and the people involved easy enough to get rid of without much notice (lonely Linda's two friends are dead, Osbourn is a pariah with the CIA and hated by his wife and Clooney I think has a history of being a fuck-wit and his wife and only close lover know that he's run off...fuck it, he thinks, just end it all.

[Bourne101]

I actually found myself laughing and then felt really bad about it.

Yeah, it was disturbingly amusing. But the angle it is shot at was perfect. Not too close, not too far away, but just perfect. Very realistic.

[chinton]

Yeah, it was disturbingly amusing. But the angle it is shot at was perfect. Not too close, not too far away, but just perfect. Very realistic.

Excellent point.



I also have to say while I had some problems with it (the movie not really rolling for me til Pitt showed up and I wished Swinton had a bit more to do) the thing that I least had a problem with is the ending. I'm surprised at the complaints about the ending as I can't possibly think how this could end in any other way. The ending matched the tone of the film, the drive of the film to overturn genre conventions, and the two CIA officers helpfully summed exaclty what the film was about.

While I only enjoyed the film there are three things I thought was brilliant. One is the ending. The other being the two conversations between Pitt and Malcovich. They had me rolling in the aisle.

[jaw2929]

Spoilers:

I have to imagine that McDormand either told him/showed him where to go, or he had learned enough thoughout the story to figure out where Os' house was.

JK Simmons character (the higher up CIA guy) just want this to be over and all loose ends tied up...the whole situation was so fucked up and stupid and the people involved easy enough to get rid of without much notice (lonely Linda's two friends are dead, Osbourn is a pariah with the CIA and hated by his wife and Clooney I think has a history of being a fuck-wit and his wife and only close lover know that he's run off...fuck it, he thinks, just end it all.


Got it sir, I figured those were 2 points where you just sorta draw your own conclusions. Thanks :)

[DaMovieMan]

My main concern with the ending wasn't how abruptly it ended, or that the two characters were self-consciously discussing the pointlessness of the film but the fact that we were told what happened to Osborne instead of showed. I really can't think of a good reason why they chose to do it that way because it certainly wasn't funnier than it could of been had it actually been played out and it took a lot of the wind away. In the cinema i was watching it in, the scene with Osborne and the Jenkins character was getting more and more reactions as it went on until it culminated in that brilliant fashion and then the next scene got a LOT of laughs because of J.K. Simmons confused face..and once we were told what happens to Osborne the whole cinema just went silent and started murmuring.

Why in God's name did they do that? A little too pretentious even for them I find.

[chinton]

I guess we'll just have to disagree. Being told everyone's ends instead of shown just fit perfectly fine with me with the way film played til then.

In fact if we're talking about abrupt endings I actually felt this was more deserved and logical than the one in No Country and I liked No COuntrys ending.

[Potzer! 37]

I think had the violence gone on any longer (more with the ax and then Os getting shot) it wouldn't have been funny...it would have been out of place and changed the tone...they get away with the first death because Clooney's reaction to it is histerical and it was a suprise...a sustained bit of violence would have put the whole thing out of wack...and the biggest laugh in my theater was JK Simmons coming in with "wait, wait...what?!" which is what the auidence felt...great ending.

[chasingbanky]

Loved the whole movie, but especially the ending. I like that the Coen's made note that this movie was just some crazy idea, and the film is basically filler to even them. JK being completely like "WTF?" was the whole pay off. Here's all these meaningless people, doing little meaningless shit, and in the end none of it changed a damn thing. Just a "fart in the wind," so to speak.

See it if you haven't.

[Badbird]

I am no fan of these guys. I've severely disliked almost every movie I've seen by them, a few with a passion. I did enjoy Hudsucker Proxy a lot. Intolerable Cruelty was okay. And it's been so long since I've seen Miller's Crossing that I can't really give an honest opinion. Everything else left a vile taste in my mouth.

But I did enjoy this movie quite a bit, even if they couldn't resist inflicting the cruelest of fates on the two nicest characters. I didn't find either scene funny at all. They were shocking for the sake of being shocking. I think the Coen's get some kind of pleasure in knowing that part of their audience will hate the movie while sniffing their own smug, nihilistic asses and think their shit doesn't stink. But whatever.

No, what makes *that one* scene funny is Clooney's reaction to it. That part was hilarious. What he did was not funny at all. It's like when people laughed at Uma Thurman getting the needle in the chest in Pulp Fiction. The reaction was funny (kinda), the action itself was not.

Coen rant aside, I did laugh a lot at this movie. I had no problem with the end. In fact, I thought it was one of the funniest scenes and a perfect way to end all the absurdity. I guess my only beef was that Tilda Swinton didn't get some terrible fate that she deserved.

By far the funniest part had to be George Clooney's "invention." I almost fell out of my seat when he showed how it worked. And it was a present for his wife! Hysterical. Then when he casually toted around the purple sex wedge... classic.

If it wasn't so mean spirited, I'd give it a higher grade, but I think 8/10 is what it deserves.

[chasingbanky]

I think the Coen's get some kind of pleasure in knowing that part of their audience will hate the movie while sniffing their own smug, nihilistic asses and think their shit doesn't stink. But whatever.



It sounds as if you believe there are movies out there where the entire world's audience is in total agreement over it's enjoyability.

[Badbird]

It sounds as if you believe there are movies out there where the entire world's audience is in total agreement over it's enjoyability.

No. I just think the Coen brothers are douche bags. But, hey, man, that's my opinion.

[silentasylum]

have you seen Raising Arizona? how can you not like that movie? haha. that's one of the funniest movies ever made. different than most of their other movies.


it's mean spirited but it's still funny. you can call most of the stuff thats funny mean spirited if you think about it.

[n2oop5u]

No. I just think the Coen brothers are douche bags. But, hey, man, that's my opinion.

Dude, you are taking them way too seriously man. If you can't find enjoyment out of movies like The Big Lebowski and Fargo, then you have a severe issue with movies in general. The coens make movies for fans of movies. They're cinematography is always gorgeous and they're great story tellers. Plus man, why are they douche bags? They bring enjoyment to many many people. You're a hater. It's cool though because everyone successful has to have haters, otherwise they aren't doing their job correctly.

[DaMovieMan]

Hahaha, i love these noobs coming in and saying 'if you don't like this movie you probably don't like movies at all' lol.
The man is entitled to his opinion and I for one understand him. I can totally see how someone can think the Coens are douchebags because their films can completely be seen as pretentious and evasive if their sense of humor doesn't grind with your own. Plus they completely acted like douches at the Oscars last year.

I love their stuff but I can see how someone wouldn't. So take a hallucinogenic chill pill and imagine the sequel to Fargo. :)

[n2oop5u]

yo, don't use the term "noobs." It makes you look pretentious and nerdy. And if you're all about people's opinions, let me have mine. I happen to think the Coen brothers make movies for movie going folk. Sure, I can understand if you don't like them but to me, that means you don't watch many movies. They like taking the cliche and the mundane and flipping it on its head, as far as filmaking goes. So how about you stop giving me the high hat. if you're all about letting someone have their opinion, allow me mine.

[Canto]

Loved it. 9/10

"It was just lying there, on the floor there."

[ilovemovies]

yo, don't use the term "noobs." It makes you look pretentious and nerdy. And if you're all about people's opinions, let me have mine. I happen to think the Coen brothers make movies for movie going folk. Sure, I can understand if you don't like them but to me, that means you don't watch many movies. They like taking the cliche and the mundane and flipping it on its head, as far as filmaking goes. So how about you stop giving me the high hat. if you're all about letting someone have their opinion, allow me mine.

Wow. I don't see you lasting long.

You are the one not allowing an opinion by saying someone who doesn't like the Coen brothers movie then they haven't seen many movies.

For the record, I've seen 5 of the Coens brother's movies and liked all but 1 and this is that one.

[n2oop5u]

Its like, just my opinion man.

"I don't see you lasting long." What does that even mean?

[Reigh Kaufman]

Its like, just my opinion man.

"I don't see you lasting long." What does that even mean?

You can't say to someone "if you don't like 'The Big Lebowski' or 'Fargo' movies then you must have a problem with movies in general" because it ishis opinion. Furthermore, you try to validate negating his opinion by stating that it's your opinion that his opinion means "you don't watch many movies". (That's basically rewording your first, slightly condescending opinion of his opinion, right?). You then sign off - and this made me laugh, but only inside - by saying "If you are all about letting someone have an opinion, allow me mine".

Do you get it?

You haven't let him have his opinion, but your defensive about your right to have one.

Can't have it both ways. And you're not a "noob" - you've been here over a year and half - so you should know that.

What you could have said, is 'Wow! I liked this (insert name of film), but I guess some people have a different opinion!". What you did say, was ''Wow! You don't like these films, so I don't respect your opinion of ALL films'.

Now, Ilovemovies statement that you 'Won't last long here' means that one of the forum rules is 'Respect other people's opinions'. By refusing to let someone have an opinion and then saying "get off your high hat and let me have my opinion", you are being disrespectful, rude AND hypocritical.

I loved the film; I love The Coens. I also like their efforts at subverting film conventions, particularly in 'Burn After Reading', 'No Country for Old Men' and 'The Man Who Wasn't There' (which took some explaining to people). I have heard that they have only ever had one script rejected - a silent film starring Brad Pitt on a deserted island, I believe - but they are not for everyone.

In fact, they have stated several times that they write for themselves.

...and I'm done.

[bigred760]

Dude, you are taking them way too seriously man. If you can't find enjoyment out of movies like The Big Lebowski and Fargo, then you have a severe issue with movies in general.

How? I'm not a big fan of Big Lebowski - I don't hate it, but I don't think it's anything special. I think Fargo is a great movie though.

Does that mean I don't have a "severe" issue with movies in general, just a mild one?

Let the man have his opinion. Just because he doesn't like the Coens or their movies, doesn't mean he hates movies.

[n2oop5u]

Oh man, so I'm that guy? I'm not trying to be disrespectful and I apologize if I came off that way. All I was trying to say was I think its easier to appreciate the Coen brothers movies if you are a movie fan in general. They take the norm and flip it on its head. So therefore, I find most people who are aware what the norm is can appreciate their way around it. They take conventional story structure and fiddle around with it in different ways every movie.

So therefore, I find people who don't like the Coen brothers movies are either not looking close enough at them or don't know what the norm is so they can't appreciate the way the Coen brothers utilize it and tinker with it.

Maybe the way I put it above was rude and I apologize but that doesn't mean I don't continue to have the same opinion.

[bigred760]

I find the Coen Bros. to be rather unique in their movies, their storytelling, and their comedy. Which is probably why some people don't like their movies. They're hit or miss.

[sbunn10]

Oh man, so I'm that guy? I'm not trying to be disrespectful and I apologize if I came off that way. All I was trying to say was I think its easier to appreciate the Coen brothers movies if you are a movie fan in general. They take the norm and flip it on its head. So therefore, I find most people who are aware what the norm is can appreciate their way around it. They take conventional story structure and fiddle around with it in different ways every movie.

So therefore, I find people who don't like the Coen brothers movies are either not looking close enough at them or don't know what the norm is so they can't appreciate the way the Coen brothers utilize it and tinker with it.

Maybe the way I put it above was rude and I apologize but that doesn't mean I don't continue to have the same opinion.



I love the Coen Brothers, but there are plenty of people who don't. A lot of those people are big time into movies, but simply don't like the Coens style. It doesn't mean they dont get it, or don't appreciate it. People just have different taste.

[n2oop5u]

But the Coens style differs pretty radically movie to movie. I think it's very difficult to dislike all of their movies. I go to NYU and I find a lot of the time kids here just say they don't like the Coen brothers to get away from being part of the norm. Everyone likes them, so why should I, kind of thing. And yes, I can understand someone not liking Burn After Reading and I can understand someone not liking The Big Lebowski but not finding any redeeming qualities? Hating them? I personally think its highly unlikely, if you are a lover of movies, to hate every one of their movies. And people who say they do I think are just trying to have their opinion for the sake of going against the grain. And those people suck. I'm not calling anyone on this forum one of those people, I'm just saying those people in general.

[ScaryFreak1827]

I caught this last night, going in with mild expectations, and thought it was great. Agreed with the slow beginning (although it didn't really bother me) and I especially agree with the brilliance of Pitt's hilarious Chad (my favorite character by far.) Another good film from the Coens.

8/10

[DaMovieMan]

The Coen style doesn't really differ from film to film, can you give examples of this? The only film that had a distinctly different style was No Country For Old Men. But all the films have quirky eccentric characters, suffering in one form or another loneliness, one in many who seems to express the opinion of the audience etc. Their theme of crime is pretty much in every one of their films. Plus they have a distinct sense of humor that is one and the same in all their films.
So yes, it is possible for a person to not like any Coen Brothers film, or dislike them a lot, (as far as I know nobody said they hated them)...maybe your opinion is influenced by those kids who go to NYU (didn't really hear good things about them)?

Otherwise, I know that some people would say shit like that just to go against the grain but there's no way of knowing that on a forum so just don't assume stuff like that in the future. And appologies for the noob comment, I just saw your amount of posts not how long you've been around.

*squints eyes*

:D

[Potzer! 37]

Well, Blood Simple was a very dramatic and serious crime film...then Raising Arizona was a screwball comedy...they've done film noir serious (The Man Who Wasn't There) and goofy (The Big Lebowski)...they've done a psudo-musical (O' Brother)...they've done a very arty/symobolic flick (Barton Fink)...they've done a gangster film (Miller's Crossing)...they've done an homage to screwball classic comedy (Hudsucker Proxy)...they've done hybrids (comedy/crime/romance in Fargo, comedy/thriller in Burn After Reading)...they've done very serious and straight forward narratives (No Country For Old Men) and very NOT serious, goofy, narratives (Ladykillers)...so yeah...I think they change their style often.

[DaMovieMan]

Well, Blood Simple was a very dramatic and serious crime film...then Raising Arizona was a screwball comedy...they've done film noir serious (The Man Who Wasn't There) and goofy (The Big Lebowski)...they've done a psudo-musical (O' Brother)...they've done a very arty/symobolic flick (Barton Fink)...they've done a gangster film (Miller's Crossing)...they've done an homage to screwball classic comedy (Hudsucker Proxy)...they've done hybrids (comedy/crime/romance in Fargo, comedy/thriller in Burn After Reading)...they've done very serious and straight forward narratives (No Country For Old Men) and very NOT serious, goofy, narratives (Ladykillers)...so yeah...I think they change their style often.

I think you're confusing style with genre. Their themes and influences vary but their style is pretty much always the same...with a few exceptions (in this case NCFOM)

[Reigh Kaufman]

I think you're confusing style with genre. Their themes and influences vary but their style is pretty much always the same...with a few exceptions (in this case NCFOM)

Okay. 'Blood simple' is a dark, noir-ish piece of cinema. 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' is (stylistically) a deliberately washed-out quasi-musical. 'The Man Who Wasn't There' is stylistically similar to 40s/50s movies - typically noir lighting, with one scene reminiscent of 'Citizen Kane' - but a finale which is pure Science-fiction B-movie (Billy Bob Thornton is an alien, in case you were wondering). 'Hudsucker Proxy' and 'Intolerable Cruelty' are modern homages to the 'screwball' style of film-making, yet 'Raising Arizona' is a 70s farce a la 'Fun With Dick and Jane' or 'Freebie and the Bean'.

Style and genre are not confused here. It's style and theme which are confused.

They tend to share the same themes, but...style? The guys are more varied than The Clash.

[DaMovieMan]

You make sense Kaufman and now I see how a person could say the Coens have a different style for each film. I was using the term differently though, connecting it more to their screenplays than their camera. Their noir-ish, deliberately screw-ball style is found in every one of their films and characters. But their style varries in how they actually shoot the film as you so succinctly put it, this is true.

[Potzer! 37]

What he said...every various genre I mentioned I feel has a different visual and structural and dialogue style than the others...so I think they change their style with each new genre they attempt.

[Reigh Kaufman]

You make sense Kaufman and now I see how a person could say the Coens have a different style for each film. I was using the term differently though, connecting it more to their screenplays than their camera. Their noir-ish, deliberately screw-ball style is found in every one of their films and characters. But their style varries in how they actually shoot the film as you so succinctly put it, this is true.

I think you are...cool.

;)

[xseanymacx]

8/10.

Now that I've read some responses, and have had a little while to think about it, I really enjoy the ending. And JK Simmons being totally mindfucked was GREAT. I thought the acting was A+ all around, the movie was morbidly funny, but it certainly is not without its flaws. I'm sure there is 15-30 minutes of deleted scenes. Some spots just seemed...choppy to me.

[Cop No. 633]

I really enjoyed this one. It was a nice fun movie that's pretty light and just entertaining. Sure, it's not the Big Lebowski but I really enjoyed myself. I loved the actors in this one. They all got the tone just right. Everyone had their eccentricity and they milked it for all its worth. I think the last scene sums up exactly what the Coen Bros wanted to do... make a pointless film that just was meant to make you laugh and enjoy yourself which is what I did.

The fucking sex chair. I loved how they set it up as a MacGuffin and it never paid off the way they suggested. Also loved the scene where Chad blackmails Ozzy.... "Is this... Obsbourne Cox?" lol

I also liked the tragic element to it involving Ted. You can't help but feel really sorry for the guy. And essentially, the two most harmless people in the film die which was surprising and funny.

Overall, I recommend this to people who are already Coen Bros. fans. I think their style of comedy is an acquired taste. It's hard to fully grasp because the jokes are always through the characters and it can be subtle at times. But overall, a very enjoyable time.

[notchreturns]

"You think it's a Schwinn!" line had me laughing for about 5 minutes.

[xseanymacx]

Especially with that laugh Pitt delivers, hahaha

[DaMovieMan]

By far the best line and that car scene between Osborne and Chad is surely the highlight of the film.

[DarthWade]

Saw it this weekend and I loved it.

The chair's reveal gave me one of the biggest laughs. All along I was expecting something sinister and terrible and then it's revealed....

"That's a shit man, shit, that's the shit, shit..." (I had that going through my head quite a bit afterwards).


Totally awesome movie.

[daddiefatsacks]

the more i think about it, the more i think it stunk.

Pitt's character was beyond annoying (dancing in the car? LOL!) that felt like it belonged in epic movie, or disaster movie....not funny

I felt like the movie never got started, and like it ended very cheapily.

[gyro_44]

Caught up to this last night. I'll echo the sentiments that the first act was maybe a bit too deliberate in setting up all the characters. But the way everything fell into place at the end (and by that I really mean "fell completely apart") was classic Coens. I appreciated the fact that it was largely played as a straight spy thriller, just with a bunch of morons (Osbourne Cox had it right).

Due respect to those who had problems with it, but that last scene was a big fat cherry on top of an already amusing movie. It was a PERFECT way to end the nonsense.

"Jesus, what a clusterfuck".

"So what did we learn from this?"

"I don't know... never do it again?"


I think this one will get a lot funnier the second time around as well.

8/10

[Monotreme]

Summing up my review, I'll say that I really enjoyed this one. I agree with sentiments that the movie set up the whole thing admirably and delivered quite a few surprises and twists along the way, all to be summed up in the brilliant last scene which reveals basically that although the film is full of complex plot twists and character relations, in the end nothing really happened. Performances are top-notch, in particular George Clooney, Frances McDormand and John Malkovich, and while Brad Pitt's character has less substance than the others, he's also probably the most fun to watch. The film features some classic Coen staples like repeating lines, idiot characters in way over their heads, and in all I was surprised at just how dark and even sad the movie managed to get.

"On the floor there! Just lying there..."

RATING: 8/10. Wasn't exactly what I expected, but that's the Coens for ya.

[slothlike]

saw the trailer on imdb and it didn't really appeal. looked a bit boring. the coens have made some good films, but i think they're overrated.

[Scorpio24]

Well that was an entertaining mornings reading. People claiming the site just got a little worse because of comments, people calling others noobs, and ragging noobs that state things (Becasue we all know nobody is a film fan till they get here) people stating opinions like facts and insults, all good stuff. ha

As for the film. I loved it. Will go with alot of other people are saying and felt that the first 20 minutes were very odd. To be honest I was sitting there bored out of my skin. It picked up when Pitt got on screen who was brilliant and you could see was having a real blast with the charcter. I laughed my ass off at the phone call conversation with Malkovich's character. Clooney also really pulled it ofter a slow start. The two ladies involved were both hgreat in theri given roles and Malkovich was supurb as a the grouchy angry drunk. The highlights were the last conversation and what Clooney is building down in the basement.

I personaly have no problems with the way it ended. I had a much bigger problem with No country for old men's ending. After investing so much into a charcter to just be told BANG he's dead now was disssapointing and anti climatic.

I could see why this is splitting people a bit but I have the feeling it will get beter with repeat viewings.

8/10

[paul calf]

i absolutly loved it after the very poor word of mouth reveiws i had been given i more than feared the worst but this delivererd bigtime for me.
the the whole plot and acting had me engrossed from start to finish the understated humour and larger than life charictors made this a joy for me.
9/10

[Cosimo]

how the coens can make rubbish like this after the masterpiece that was no country is completely beyond me?! neither funny or interesting, burn after reading is a mess that sits alongside other coen brothers fuck ups the ladykillers and intolerable cruelty

this is another case of them having fun throughout production with their actor buds over delivering a film of quality. massively disappointing and i disliked it immensly but i knew this was always going to be the case as soon as i heard about the story and saw the trailer

(4)

[Bourne101]

This movie has been on my mind since I saw it. I can't wait until it comes out on DVD. One of the best films of the year so far.

[Cosimo]

i rewatched last night in a better frame of mood and i admit maybe i was a little harsh. the first 15 minutes of the film put me right off on first viewing so i ended up channel hopping. second half vastly improves

superior to intolerable cruelty and ladykillers

(6.5)

[Raimo69]

Seen it recently and the only thing i have to say that i really liked one of the best films of this year.

[mick621]

$10 bucks out of $10 bucks. very entertaining and a joy to watch.

[Tweek]

This movie=WIN



SPOILERS








Favorite parts:

Clooney's freakout at the end in the park.

Pitt's stupid voice when calling Cox... And his stupid face before he got shot.

and

Rasche: We don't know why he was trying to go to Venezuela.
Simmons: You don't know?... We have no extradition with Venezuela.
Rasche: Ooooh. What should we do with him?
Simmons: For fuck's sake, put him on the next flight to Venezuela.






END SPOILERS


LOL
I actually liked that last scene even though it's a big screenwriting no-no.

:p

7/10

[DaMovieMan]

This movie has been on my mind since I saw it. I can't wait until it comes out on DVD. One of the best films of the year so far.

I second that. If its repeat value is as good as Big Lebowski I'm gonna love owning this one.