Burn After Reading

[SiliasRuby]

I enjoyed myself deeply but overall there were some sequences that just felt odd to me. The whole movie felt hit and miss to me. Brad pitt was great though.

[Pas]

The only legitimate criticism I've seen lofted at this film is that it is either cruel or indifferent to it's characters.

anyone who loves this i really have to wonder if you can tell the difference between their good films and these. 

I'm guessing someone who loves this can tell the difference between what he loves and what he loves not.

No one said this is the best movie of all time. It's just a nice complement to a dinner and a couple pints of beers.

[john]

anyone who loves this i really have to wonder if you can tell the difference between their good films and these. 

That's the most presumptuous thing I've read on the internet all week... and it's the fucking internet, its powered by presumption.

I enjoy O.C. and Stiggs, too - but it doesn't mean I can't tell that there's a vast difference between that film and Nashville.

the hate comes from seeing filmmakers who are capable of so much more waste their time and mine with this pointless film.

I think you're letting your opinion of them define not only what they are capable of doing, but what they should be doing. There's a film fan enthusiasm in your sentiment that I empathize with... but a director being too precious regarding what project they choose to add to their filmography wastes just as much time as a director who will do anything. Even at their worst, I don't think the Coens are guilty of either.*

You must make pretty good use of your free time, too, if it was actually wasted watching a middle-of-the-road Coen farce.





*Soderbergh, on the other hand...

[Pas]

anyone who loves this i really have to wonder if you can tell the difference between their good films and these. 

That's the most presumptuous thing I've read on the internet all week... and it's the fucking internet, its powered by presumption.

I enjoy O.C. and Stiggs, too - but it doesn't mean I can't tell that there's a vast difference between that film and Nashville.

the hate comes from seeing filmmakers who are capable of so much more waste their time and mine with this pointless film.

I think you're letting your opinion of them define not only what they are capable of doing, but what they should be doing. There's a film fan enthusiasm in your sentiment that I empathize with... but a director being too precious regarding what project they choose to add to their filmography wastes just as much time as a director who will do anything. Even at their worst, I don't think the Coens are guilty of either.*

You must make pretty good use of your free time, too, if it was actually wasted watching a middle-of-the-road Coen farce.

[modage]

I enjoy O.C. and Stiggs, too - but it doesn't mean I can't tell that there's a vast difference between that film and Nashville.

well thats good.

You must make pretty good use of your free time, too, if it was actually wasted watching a middle-of-the-road Coen farce.

i do, actually.  and i'm not going to waste it ever sitting through that turd again.

[Pozer]

i'm not going to waste it ever...

too late for that, ay?

[MacGuffin]

i'm not going to waste it ever...

too late for that, ay?

Maybe now mod can get a run in.

[Sleepless]

Of course our opinion of this is going to be colored from what we expect of the Coens. That's not to say we think the Coens should be doing a certain film, but we are entitled to have expectations from them. No? I think Mod is perfectly correct to point out the difference between their good films and this. Look at Miller's Crossing. That's a film that deals with multiple characters, double-crossings, subterfuge and hidden agendas. There is no comparison. If you didn't know otherwise you would have no idea these were from the same filmmaker. Of course, you wouldn't naturally link Miller's and other films in the Coens' oeuvre either... Lebowski... O Brother... But all their pre-Intolerable Cruelty films are unarguably in a different class from those since. I don't know what it is, but there is a significant change there. I'll keep on getting excited for all their films, but recently I've gotten used to being disappointed. I realize I differed in opinion with most of you over No Country, and I'm prepared to chalk that up to a simple matter of personal taste. But this film ranks alongside Cruelty and Ladykillers. It is not a good film.

[Gold Trumpet]

I think Mod is perfectly correct to point out the difference between their good films and this. Look at Miller's Crossing. That's a film that deals with multiple characters, double-crossings, subterfuge and hidden agendas. There is no comparison. If you didn't know otherwise you would have no idea these were from the same filmmaker.

I have to ask, why do you think Miller's Crossing is any good? Should it just be assumed it is?

To me Burn After Reading is by far the superior film. The plot happenings make no sense, but the characterization has logic on a deconstructionist line of thinking. With Miller's Crossing you have a film that extrapolates numerous genre references from the gangster film to the musical, but the references are as random as a Family Guy episode and usually mean absolutely nothing. The only major difference between the films is that the style references are more varied and pronounced in Miller's Crossing, but none of it has any significance.

I don't know, I know people here love the Coens and Kubrick, but I always wonder why. I'm not trying to be an asshole with questioning the love, but I think it is fair to ask also. 

[Sleepless]

GT, only you could view Miller's Crossing as a merely a collection of references. It is a gangster film, yes, but it also an exploration of masculinity and everything that goes along with it: love, friendship, loyalty, selfishness. You might not agree with me that it is a good film, and that's fine. We've disagreed before, and we'll disagree again. There's no problem with that. But the comparison I was making - and why I brought up Miller's Crossing in the first place - was to demonstrate the Coens once made a film with similar elements to Burn After Reading, and handled the ideas far more successfully, and actually within a coherent narrative. In Miller's Crossing, Tom plays two gangs against each other as much to ultimately help his true friend Leo win in the end, as he does to express his own power and abilities. He plays people off one another, but he always does so with reason, he knows the end game even if no-one else does, the audience included. In Burn After Reading the plot is so muddled there isn't even a protagonist. Everyone muddles in and out of relevance to everyone else, often without even realizing. People lie and cheat, but with little purpose, and yet we are expected to admire this large tableaux of cause-and-effect, yet the events that occur are proven irrelevant and purposeless. It was just a coincidental mess that happened, it is not a story. It is a waste of my time to watch it. And that is why Burn After Reading is not a good film.

It's the equivalent of Brett Ratner or McG remaking Magnolia as a spy-caper.

[Gold Trumpet]

Yes, Sleepless, everything you said about the story in Miller's Crossing is accurate. A synopsis of the film would say the same exact thing, but the stylistic references do nothing to advance the plot in the film. The film just combines slapstick with the musical and also the gangster genre. There is no marriage of the material and style.

I think the Coen Brothers played musical chairs with genres that were popular in the 1930s and 40s, the general time period in which the story is set. At random times through out the film the story will change tonal direction and become either musical-like or slapstick or something else. The original story continues on, but the tone of the film is always revolving. Then when the film becomes serious or heartwarming, it may or may not take itself seriously. It all depends on what heart strings the Coen Brothers feel like pressing.

See, I almost believe Miller's Crossing is a purposely bad movie. The film is so specific with what genre it recalls that it believes audience members will buy into genre ploys of the scene even if it doesn't make sense. And when the film becomes dramatic at the end with the expected execution in the woods, the film takes that tone. It wants viewers to believe that the scene is worthy of the dramatic tone it has even though very little about the film beforehand warranted such a scene.

It just seems to be a mockery of Howard Hawk's old idea that a great film required 3 great scenes. The Coen Brothers delivered those scenes in all their dramatic fashion, but laughed at him with the rest of the film because the stylistic references are so nonsensical and play against the expectations of the story. It's irreverence for irrevence's sake and what could be more boring?

Burn After Reading has a story that makes no sense on a superficial level, but the inner story between all the characters makes sense on a comedic level. That's noteworthy.

[Alexandro]

I don't know what you guys are talking about. I laughed a lot with this, an so were the people at the showing i went to. And so far a bunch of people have told me they liked it.

I don't think it's pointless at all.

[cron]

i saw it with no country for old men fresh in mind, so my first  impression is that this movie is of a profoundly inferior craft in every sense, but  man  i adored the last part. it's really only a movie about stupidity and paranoia, and the ridiculous lenghts to which our contemporary leaders and societies have taken these concepts. it reminded me of radiohead's hail to the thief, in the way that these two things seemed more like period pieces with very particular and narrow topics, rather than universal masterpieces.  i liked it. i particularily liked how dismissive and playful it was with traditional espionage aesthetics (shoes). it didn't changed the way i see the world and shit but it was very relaxing to take a break and see stupid stuff when everyone's so serious and worried.

also, this movie answered the question 'which fictional character do you identify the most with'?
i am george clooney's character.

[MacGuffin]

also, this movie answered the question 'which fictional character do you identify the most with'?
i am george clooney's character.

You build dildo chairs?

[last days of gerry the elephant]

also, this movie answered the question 'which fictional character do you identify the most with'?
i am george clooney's character.

You build dildo chairs?

lol