Coen Brothers’ Burn After Reading Is Too Hot to Handle!
Enough four-letter words and middle-aged morons! Can’t we have another Miller’s Crossing? Plus: Diane English’s well-meaning feminism ruins The Women
MORE At the Movies
Burn After Reading
Running time 96 minutes
Written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen
Starring George Clooney, Brad Pitt, John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton
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. What makes it even worse is that every one of the “name” performances—George Clooney, Brad Pitt, John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, and Tilda Swinton—seem determined to best each other in projecting the idiocy of their caricatured middle-aged losers. Yet the early scenes are not intended for middle-aged audiences, but, rather, for teenage viewers and listeners who can be expected to howl with laughter at every gratuitous use of the F and S four-letter words. Don’t get me wrong. I have lobbied as a libertarian in the cause of anti-censorship and anti-ratings. Still, I reserve the right as a critic to question the excessive use of expletives at the expense of sociological and conversational probability. And here the Coen brothers have repeatedly crossed the line to get some easy laughs out of otherwise witlessly malignant dialogue.
Their particularly nasty litany of losers begins right off the bat at a C.I.A. meeting at which analyst Osbourne Cox (Mr. Malkovich) is about to be kicked downstairs to another branch of the government, with lower security clearance, because of his untreated problems with alcoholism. Osbourne decides to quit the government altogether and write a tell-all memoir about his years with the C.I.A.
Osbourne tells his wife, Katie (Tilda Swinton), about the radical change in his life’s work, but she is too preoccupied with her clandestine affair with a federal marshal, Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), to pay much attention to her husband’s problems. Mr. Clooney has never played goofier than he does here as Harry, who has been virtually infantilized by his successful career woman wife (Elizabeth Marvel), who is always traveling overseas to promote her children’s books. Still, the bumbling Harry is not all that comfortable with Katie, who is as demanding with him as she is with her own husband.
Despite the frequent references to the C.I.A., Burn After Reading is not at all a political movie in this politically contentious year, though it is true that the Washington, D.C., suburbs seem to constitute the homeland of imbecility at every level. Indeed, when the focus shifts from C.I.A. headquarters in Virginia to another suburb housing a Hardbodies Fitness Center, the film seems to become apolitical to a fault. The fitness center happens to be the workplace of Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), her dim-witted buddy, Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt), and the gym’s manager, Ted Treffon (Richard Jenkins). By the way, you may have noticed the invariably peculiar names given to the main characters, as if the names themselves are designed to elicit guffaws.
Linda is shown as having a fixation on expensive cosmetic surgery to make her into a new woman. When Chad accidentally discovers a misplaced disc containing C.I.A. analyst Osbourne’s memoirist musings about C.I.A. secrets, Linda and Chad decide to approach Osbourne and sell the disc back at a hefty price to pay for Linda’s surgery. Instead, Osbourne gets violent with Chad, and gives him a bloody nose. Outraged by Osbourne’s rejection, Linda leads Chad to the Russian embassy in Washington, D.C., where they hope to sell the disc for a heap of rubles or dollars. This I found a little hard to believe even in these mercenary times. Meanwhile, Linda’s manager, Ted, has been nursing a crush on Linda, despite her dalliance with the endlessly fickle Harry. Soon the conflicting aspirations of these clownish figures lead to violence-filled misunderstandings and even a few killings.
In the final cop-out of the script, the last stages of the bloodbath are reported verbally by a C.I.A. officer (David Rasche) to his C.I.A. supervisor (J. K. Simmons) who puts a lid on the whole mess, after even the Russians have dismissed Osbourne’s C.I.A. disc as “drivel.”
Except for Miller’s Crossing (1990) and Fargo (1996), the Coen brothers have generally left me with the impression of mean-spirited academic film nuts with little feeling for their hapless victims of terminal clumsiness and ineptitude. No Country for Old Men (2007) was at least ultra-competent in its villainous nihilism, but I did not share in the general enthusiasm for the film, except for its cast of virtuosos. But Burn After Reading has hit rock bottom for me. See it at your own peril.
asarris@observer.com
Upcoming Dance Performances
"Tarantella - Spider Dance"-I Giullari di Piazza
American Theater of Actors/Chernuchian Theater, New York
Starting: 12/20/2008
Box Office:
Buy Tickets |
212-868-4444
Dance On Camera Festival
Walter Reade Theater, New York
Starting: 1/7/2009
Click here for more info >>
Sugar Salon - Jane Comfort and Company, Heather Olson, Deganit Shemy, and Anna Sperber
Baryshnikov Arts Center, Howard Gilman Performance Space, New York
Starting: 1/7/2009
Click here for more info >>
Your Ticket to Exclusive Movie Screenings
Presented by The Observer
I COULDN'T agree more with this review-the movie is AWFUL AWFUL AND MORE AWFUL! What is so astounding to me is that ANY filmmaker could have put this dreck together, and not immediately seen it for what it was-something that should have NEVER made its way off the cutting room floor!
The fact that the egoism of the Coen brothers is such that that still went ahead and made this utterly agonizing teeth-grinder, with no redeeming qualities about it WHATSOEVER-no humor, no interesting plot, the stars who were acting in this movie-the perennial stink-bomber George Clooney, Pitt, McDormand, Swinton et al-HOW COULD THEY HAVE NOT REALIZED HOW AWFUL THEY WERE IN THIS MOVIE? AND HOW AWFUL AND DISJOINTED AND AWFUL IT WAS AS THEY WERE MAKING IT? WHY WAS THIS ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD?
I hope in the future that movie stuio moguls will look carefully at George Clooney, and think: Do we REALLY want to give him another shot at being the star of yet another bomb? Has he ever made money in his roles? I gotta wonder, George seems a nice guy, but he's got no sense apparently of what works and what doesn't on the big screen-which doesn't say much for his instincts!
DON'T UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS-WAIT FOR THE DVD!
Factual inaccuracies are a pet peeve of mine, so I thought I'd correct you on something. While you may generally dislike George Clooney's films, which is fine, to say that most/all of his films have bombed at the box office is a ludicrous statement to make, considering his films have made a combined $816 Million since 2001 (average of $102 Million per year, excluding "Burn After Reading" and how much it will make). This includes: "Leatherheads" making approximately $31 Million (2008), Oscar-nominated "Michael Clayton" making a little under $49 Million (2007), "Ocean's Thirteen" making a whopping $117 Million (2007), Edward R. Murrow's tribute in "Good Night and Good Luck" making $31.5 Million (2005), "Syriana" pouring in approximately $50.75 Million (2005), "Ocean's Twelve" made $125 Million (2004), "Intolerable Cruelty" made $35 Million (2003), and "Ocean's Eleven" collected an astounding $183 Million (2001) in that time frame. If you'd like source verification, you may read more at the following URL (or others, I'm sure):
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/george_clooney/
I was tempted to comment that this review reeks of 'I didn't get it' or rather 'this film wasn't made for me'. A more honest reviewer would just admit that.
If people think a Coen film is OK, I get worried. If it leaves people cold, then I know I'm in for a treat (but feel a bit sorry for those that don't get it). If they describe it as 'awful', however, then I know there's something else going on. A venerable but veteran critic trying to distinguish himself by disparaging not only a hilarious film but also two of our finest film makers is nothing more than a cry for relevance. You may not 'get' them but Coen brothers films are never awful: they are always well written, always beautifully shot and scored and always something to think about, even in their lesser moments.
Anyone who says the Coen Brothers' films are never awful has never seen Barton Fink or O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Man, you are a real douchebag? Why do you think people like the Coen brothers movies if they're so shitty?
The movie was awesome and hilarious. You Fail.
You didn't like the movie Mr. Critic because you are a part of the league of morons. Who the hel are you to place such a judgement?
I laughed my as off because of how ridiculous it was. It was advertised as a comedy, so if you went to go see it too see some dark, heavy hitting drama then I say you have hit rock bottom. Read future posts by this critic at your own peril.
The disc that is found at hardbodies is actually that of Ozzie's wife's attorney and it contains all of his info so his wife can use it in the divorce hearings. Ozzie just THINKS it's his memoirs. While I agree this movie is more of a headache than the smart satire they were going for, I think those who criticize it should be up on their facts first.
Where the great and stunning work that is No Country for Old Men is lifted out of horror by Tommy Lee Jones' humane portrait of the wonder @ human evil, Burn After Reading has no admirable protagonist to lift it out of its hatred for the human race. And this movie while having a couple of laughs is just depressing. The
Coen's misanthropy over whelms any entertainment value here. I hated hated this movie. Sarris nails it what a terrible movie.
I thought The Man Who Wasn't There was on Mr. Sarris' Top Ten for 2001?
I could not disagree more with this reviewer. While there were many things to fault this movie for, it is over all an excellent film. From the juxtaposition of an intense spy thriller score with bumbling characters to the explosions of unexpected violence, this movie delivers.
The reviewer admits to not being a fan of the Coens. I can honestly say that I've never disliked a single film they've made. I was quite cautious going into this one, but came out a believer again.
You call them "mean-spirited academic film nuts with little feeling for their hapless victims of terminal clumsiness and ineptitude." Is there a problem with this? Clumsiness and ineptitude have become a standard among people in our culture, and are generally traits that are praised in film and television. How many main characters are bumbling idiots who somehow come out on top? The Coens are willing to show that sometimes being an idiot doesn't pay. Though I must say, watch Husucker Proxy to see a quite touching portrayal of stupidity.
Burn After Reading suffered from poor pacing, disjointed acting styles, and could have used some scene re-arranging, but is generally hilarious, well shot, and well acted.
What happened? It's like the Coen's forgot how to make a movie. They've done so well in the past. This is the Coen's "Hook". Actually - "Hook" was better, and it sucked!
Amen
"... you may have notuiced the invariably peculiar names given to the main characters, as if the names themselves are designed to elicit guffaws."
I haven't seen the film, so I won't comment on its quality or lack thereof, but I *will* say that these character names of the Coens' devising are much in the tradition of Preston Sturges' Trudy Kockenlocker. Not to mention much of Dickens and Ben Jonson.
Horrible, horrible movie.
This is the crappy movie the Coens have always hinted they have in them, and now after putting down their exhausted formula, this dreary, pointless, leaden product is in the evidence file, for keeps. 'Burn after Reading' is the kind of movie you make when you feel it’s important to keep working, rather than because you have an idea worth a damn. Scene after scene just sits there, piling up, one after another, defying the urge to entertain, building to nothing. There isn’t a confident move made in the whole dud.
All the actors have a "Hooray, I’m in the next Coen bros movie" on their faces. But the firepower is too great for this unengaging trifle. Noone is as lost as Brad Pitt.
Can't the Coens tell a joke? This is a comedy? This movie sucks. Powerfully lousy movie making.