Burn After Reading

Started by modage, February 04, 2006, 12:51:21 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RegularKarate

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on September 14, 2008, 06:31:43 PM
I can already see that Coen fans will tear themselves apart over it. The arguing will be fun to watch.

Not really on both counts... this is an entertaining enough movie, but it's a retread.
Those who are claiming it brilliant (I elected not to read all of New Feeling's post yet) probably just love to love.

Mostly in agreement with Pic here.  There are some really hilarious parts to this film and some classic Coenisms that made me chuckle, but it's mostly just trying to update the humor in something like Blood Simple.

It's not awful though... I don't get the hatred...  I get the dislike, but not the hatred.  Not from this group at least... and anyone who complains about the end was never a Coen fan, that's for damn sure.

New Feeling

I admit it.  I love to love. 

Pozer

the two J.K. Simmons and David Rasche scenes were best.  but yeah, what RegularKarate said.

you & me 3 for 3, GT?  up top?

pete

the problem with the movie rests on its slightness, then we're divided into those who are bothered by it and those who aren't.  it is pointless, but it is also fun.  if you're willing to go with it, willing to ignore the fact that clooney and brad pitt have used up all their coasting privileges in the ocean's movies, then it is a good, dark comedy, in which the motivations are clear but their relationship with each other isn't.  I actually think the coens restrained themselves quite a bit, because every scene has the potential to be completely slapstick.  They're simply amused by characters crashing into each other's lives so liberally.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

New Feeling

I really don't think this is pointless.  I think the point is to turn a mirror on America, seriously but ridiculously, and I think it's going to age well.  This will probably be their only Washington movie, might as well enjoy it.

samsong

i was hoping that it went without saying that i didn't actually want you to make that list, but could i have expected?  well, whether it was out of spite or obliviousness, thanks.  in the end, the only conclusion i can come to is that you're a coen brothers devotee. 

i hardly find it subversive to make a film about washington d.c. with a slew of unlikable characters you can't sympathize for, but i also don't find that to be the case in Burn After Reading.   there were darker undertones of sadness that are short-lived by the callousness of the satire and left unattended, content on mean spirited facetiousness (which i'm usually all for but there's a lot of unrealized potential in this film).  the manager comes to mind, who i refuse to view as simply an object of ridicule.  i found the film to be a tonal nightmare, inconsistent and muddled.  the one instance that i thought these elements were brilliantly combined is the "insane" scene you keep referencing between cox and his father on the boat.  in regard to lubezki's pristine photography, i thought it stood more as exhibitionism than a service to the film's interests, which i'm still pretty confused about as to what they actually are.  that is to say i'm not sold on the idea that this film holds any mirrors up to anything.  at times it is "entertaining enough" (a phrase i don't think should ever be associated with a worthwhile movie) but i found it to be a long 97 minutes and was, at times, extremely uninterested and bored--i didn't have that much fun.

the next time i see this movie will probably be at 3 in the morning on cable, and if i like it then you'll be the first to know.

New Feeling

sweet, I'll look forward to it.

Pas

I don't get the criticism : ''nothing was interesting except Malkovich and J.K. Simmons'' ... well, that's already half the movie. Then there's the Clooner/dildo moment that cannot be not funny. And then Pitt's good scenes everyone finds funny (security of your shit, come on!) ... so you got about 70% of the movie there.

Kal

this is pretty bad. its not fun, or funny. if you say you only liked malkovich or simmons or whatever its bullshit. simmons is funny in spider man 3 too and it was total shit. malkovich is always good. so the fact that they got a great cast doesnt mean the movie is any good. its pointless and stupid and it surprises me how the same people who did 'no country for old men' can release this shit less than a year later. its always a mystery with these coens, cause it happened the same way after an amazing film like 'lebowski' and then 'ladykillers', and so on... you never know what the fuck you are getting.


picolas

Quote from: kal on September 16, 2008, 11:47:00 PMits always a mystery with these coens, cause it happened the same way after an amazing film like 'lebowski' and then 'ladykillers', and so on... you never know what the fuck you are getting.
umm. ladykillers was long after lebowski. 6 years and three movies later. how many of their movies have you seen? the number of masterpieces far outweigh their recent "failures".

Kal

Quote from: picolas on September 17, 2008, 01:07:00 AM
Quote from: kal on September 16, 2008, 11:47:00 PMits always a mystery with these coens, cause it happened the same way after an amazing film like 'lebowski' and then 'ladykillers', and so on... you never know what the fuck you are getting.
umm. ladykillers was long after lebowski. 6 years and three movies later. how many of their movies have you seen? the number of masterpieces far outweigh their recent "failures".

Well honestly I dont remember how many years, I know it was a while, but they only made O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Intolerable Cruelty I think before Ladykillers. Before that they were very good, but just when they seemed to be getting back on track now with NCFOM, they release this shit that I think its worse than Intolerable Cruelty and Ladykillers combined.

john

The only legitimate criticism I've seen lofted at this film is that it is either cruel or indifferent to it's characters. Even that seems more like personal taste than valid criticism. I don't think the indifference hurts the film at all. If anything it is a benefit. Without having any protagonist to warm up to, it's hard to embrace the film as easily as other comedies of theirs, like Raising or Lebowski, or even Hudsucker.

Raising and Lebowski also trump Reading because there's a warm melancholy, even a bit of true reflection, that both of those film earn. Reading practically scoffs at either sentiment.

It's not their best work, even in this genre... but so far it's been puzzling to read people argue why it's so bad while the people who have been praising it have been much more direct and detailed.

"not funny", is irrelevant. It's taste. Personal discretion.

I'm also surprised at the knocks against Emmanuel Lubezki's cinematography. Not once did I think it stood out to the point of distraction.

Are we just practicing for the inevitable love/hate fiasco that is "W"?


Maybe every day is Saturday morning.

Gold Trumpet

It's funny, because as a constant critic of the Coens, I think I actually understood the purpose of this film. Most of the times I find their comedies to be masturbatory and pointless, but there seemed to be some logical thought to this one. It's still not a very good film, but it's definitely better than horrible.

The Coens are just doing a take on spy films and "serious" people in a "serious" world. Besides Pitt and McDormand, every character represents a status and prestige within the intelligence community. The purpose of Pitt and McDormand is that they hatch a scheme that makes absolutely no sense but sets off a chain of events that allow every character to come to their weakest point. It's a deconstruction of all the characters to their inner crux, however shallow it may be. At first certain characters are funny for weird superficial reasons manners (like Clooney's eating habits or Malkovich being Malkovich) but slowly the mannerisms become revealtions of true insecurities. The events (while they make no sense) become an unmasking of everyone. Stanley Kubrick once said the purpose of comedy was people trying to be serious and just failing. The Coens Brothers exemplify that idea here.

Which is why the tone of the film had be more serious and dead pan. The whole point of the film is that characters do become unmasked and revealed for their weaknesses. If the tone was more airy and absurd like the general Coen Brother approach, the whole point would be lost. The weird series of events would just be a bunch of weird series of events. If you only care about plot, they are, but as far characterization goes it's all for bringing everyone down to their basic purpose in life, whether it is to just be loved (Clooney) or to just get a surgey (McDormand) or to show someone you love them (the guy Malkovich kills). The film has different tones for every ending because each character is finding their own end and purpose. It's a comedy, but it is weighted to the characters.

That's really good for me because one thing about Coen comedies I always hated is how every character existed on one level of absurdity. Quentin Tarantino does this too, but the Coens too much write for characters who just represent their own personality. There isn't much difference between the major characters besides their interests. They all sound the same and thus usually represent same ideas. This film is weighted with different tones and levels of comedy between everyone. It allows the themes to get out better. The idea that the film is about the redudancy of seriousness in a serious world becomes very apparent by the end.

With all that being said, the film doesn't do much to distinguish itself. The great idea is that our status in this world makes fools out of us all, but that's old hat. The film uses the backdrop of the intelligence agency to shows its unintelligence because it is so blogged down by bureacratic bullshit, but again, that is old hat. It's a general subject for our world. When comedy greats like Dr. Strangelove and How I Won the War were made, they had the teeth to go after tough subjects that were very controversial, but Burn After Reading is about Coen brother-esque characters only. We understand their motivations and why the Coens find them amusing, but they are going after themes here and do have a decent back drop, but they still mainly regulate themselves to things of self interest.

That's a problem because the movie isn't really funny all around. Yes, scenes like the penis chair and some of Brad Pitt's work is funny, but they are too far and few between to make the whole movie worthwhile. And since I don't think any of the themes were truly honored, I can't recommend the movie, but at least I appreciated the effort.

matt35mm


modage

Quote from: john on September 17, 2008, 02:51:05 AM
The only legitimate criticism I've seen lofted at this film is that it is either cruel or indifferent to it's characters.
it's also the same movie they've made at least 3 or 4 times, but this one is much worse.  all of the actors are going out of their way to give 'comedic' performances and none of them landed anywhere near funny, malkovich included.  i don't buy pitt, clooney or mcdormand as idiots and to see them floundering around in these scenes is embarrassing.  as has been pointed out, their previous characters might have been dimwits or people in over their heads but you can feel the disinterest they have in these characters because i couldn't care less about them either.  anyone who loves this i really have to wonder if you can tell the difference between their good films and these.  the hate comes from seeing filmmakers who are capable of so much more waste their time and mine with this pointless film.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.