Burn After Reading
|
List Price: Our Price: $1.85 You Save: $13.13 (88%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.82 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Burn After Reading
Movie Review: So funny it hurts! It's unique, precious, and a social test too!
Summary: 5 Stars
Situations and characters in this comedic tale are peculiar yet believable, especially if you know anything about the CIA. The casting, acting and direction is superb, making these absurd characters and their actions seem perfectly plausible.
Some films are so unusual, they require multiple viewings to understand the writing genius and acting talent that made them. This is one of those. Think of "Raising Arizona" and "Dr. Strangelove." Now put those together. That's almost what this film is.
This comedy is perversely dark and so hauntingly humorous that it feels creepy.
The "creepy factor" is enhanced by cinematic contrasts. Bright lighting and "sanitary" suburban / corporate cleanliness of most scenes, opposed to the murky insidious actions of the plot. Brad Pitt plays a transparently inept dupe... the perfect foil to Malkovich's opaque-black character. (Emphasis on MAL-kovich) Brad is like a serving of low-fat vanilla ice cream, while Malkovich is a topping of salty Tobasco on top.
You can see that all the actors enjoyed their roles and were fully "invested". They make real movie magic here; not the visual trickery of Computer Generated effects, but the stunning interplay of experienced actors bringing vision and life to a twisted peculiar plot. They all take turns leading and supporting throughout. This cast ACTS together like seasoned Jazz musicians PLAY together.
The pace is never slow and every scene is important, so you have to pay attention. That's hard to do if you're stuck in the theater with clueless corporate lackies and dimwitted "twitters."
This film bears, or even requires several viewings to appreciated much of the humor. It helps if you watch it alone and undisturbed or with a like-minded movie fan. Still, it made my stomach hurt the first time I saw it in the theater... and that was under less than ideal conditions.
I had the misfortune of first seeing it in the theater with a bunch of "bowling pins." They just didn't get it. My "dates" for the evening kept looking at me like I was the one who was crazy. They felt embarrassed that I laughed so much and they couldn't understand why. I felt embarrassed to be in the same room with people who were so torpid. Though in a way, that made it even funnier. Really... I cried.
After the movie, we went to a restaurant / bar where we ate and talked about the movie. During that dinner, I learned something important...
This comedy is a litmus test for the viewer's social and political understanding. You can appreciate it solely for the minds that could conceive such a story, or the multiple talents that cooperated so flawlessly to realize the film. However, to really appreciate the humor, you have to know something about people and the way the world really works.
If you are not aware of how the CIA or other "intelligence" agencies operate,
if you don't know how some of the people who work for those agencies think,
if you don't realize just how stupid, shallow, vain and greedy some people can be,
...then the heady humor of this masterwork will evaporate into the aether before you can savor it.
I can recommend this film on multiple levels and for numerous reasons, but mostly for these two:
ONE--- PERENNIAL LAUGHS.
IF you "get it" you will laugh every time you see it for years. It will even make you laugh aloud for days afterwards at odd times when you just happen to think about it.
TWO---LITMUS TEST.
IF someone does not "get it" then he / she needs to stop watching commercial television altogether. If anyone you know does not laugh at this movie, you cannot trust their opinions about any political or social issue. Their world-views and intellects have been severely attenuated. Really... I'm not kidding.
This comedy is a rare and exotic concoction... a unique recipe that only a few outliers will grasp. If you are one of them, it deserves a permanent place in your entertainment collection. If you are not one of them, buy a copy anyway. Someday, hopefully BEFORE criminal myopic madmen destroy us all, everyone will see.
Movie Review: The Coen Brothers return to Comedy
Summary: 5 Stars
Joel and Ethan Coen make movies that are at right angles to most of the rest of Hollywood. Their dramas, going back to "Blood Simple", have a refreshing splash of humor, and their comedies, going back to "Raising Arizona", have dark elements. The Coen's are so adept at crossing stylishly from one genre to another it is no surprise that their grim Oscar-winning "No Country For Old Men" is followed by this delightfully twisted comedy.
I repeatedly find in Coen comedies characters who are not only entertainly dumb, but (as happens so often in real life, doesn't it?) unaware of their stupidity. (Think back to "The Big Lebowski" and "O, Brother, Where Art Thou?") In "Burn After Reading" the Coens have assembled both performers and characters who are able to rip through a script that would be part hilarious and part ridiculous - ridiculous, that is, if it were not a Coen Brothers movie.
Brad Pitt appears prominently in the film's ad campaign (and he is sublime as an airheaded fitness trainer), but it would be difficult to say he is the "star", as a half dozen characters share as much screen time. John Malkovich brings an edgy profanity to his not-as-smart-as-he-thinks-he-is CIA analyst, who quits rather than take a demotion when his bosses confront him about his drinking problem. Tilda Swinton is superbly cast as his icy wife, not only reprising her White Witch character from "Narnia", but also her cold-blooded lawyer from "Michael Clayton". Swinton plays a pediatrician - the kind that makes children cry and doesn't care. Swinton is having an affair with "Clayton" co-star George Clooney, who once again expertly essays a Coen Clown, this time an ex government protection agent who "never once discharged his weapon" in years of service, but tells another character at a cocktail party that he could use his pistol if needed, because "reflexes take over - it's all muscle memory". (These reflexes complicate the plot in a way that can only be described as Coenesque.) Frances McDormand does much of her best work for husband Joel and brother-in-law Ethan (winning her Oscar in "Fargo"), and here she gets a wonderful role as Pitt's dim-witted fitness center co-worker. McDormand has a poignant but funny early scene where she and a plastic surgeon (the extremely reliable Jeffrey DeMunn from "The Green Mile" and "Law and Order") discuss four separate operations she desperately wants - "I've gone about as far as I can go with this body here..." Richard Jenkins secretly pines for McDormand and tries to let her know he's interested even without the expensive surgery.
A MacGuffin is produced by the Malkovich character, who decides since he's left the CIA to write a memoir. The Swinton character copies Malkovich's computer files planning for divorce and wanting financial records, and the disc which incidentally includes Malkovich's memoirs is found at the gym where Pitt and McDormand work. Dimwit Pitt concludes that this CIA memoir is valuable spy stuff and he conspires with McDormand to offer the disc to the Russians to pay for McDormand's plastic surgery.
"The Russians?!" J.K. Simmons asks in amused confusion as a CIA superior when he is informed by Malkovich's former boss, played by David Rasche. Although they appear only briefly, Simmons and Rasche produce a couple of the film's best scenes, including the side-splitting conclusion where the "loose ends" are tied as only the Coens can. I could say more, but that would deprive you of the pleasure of finding out for yourself.
And you should.
Movie Review: Pretty Great
Summary: 5 Stars
After the true genius of No Country For Old Men, the Coen Brothers come back with a whole new dimension. Burn After Reading is a dark comedy about idiots faced with an intelligent and complex situation. Two Gym instructors Linda Litsky (Frances McDormand) and Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) find a disc containing the memoirs of ex CIA agent Osbourne Cox (John Malkovich). They, being idiots think it's a disc containing top secret information and try to bribe Osbourne for money which would help pay for Linda's cosmetic surgery. Things don't go to plan as Osbourne has bigger things on his mind, his wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) is having an affair with the paranoid Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney).
This film is actually quite intelligent in its own right, the characters seem well defined and are played superbly. The characters were specifically written for the actor playing them and it really shows.
John Malkovich portrays the agent lost of all hope well, you become quite intimidated by both his intelligence and temper.
George Clooney as the paranoid individual who's having more affairs than you can wave a stick at doesn't falter. He's jumpy, but hey who wouldn't be if you were sleeping with three different women. This eratic behaviour becomes a bit tragic and leads to the death of one of the characters in the film.
Brad Pitt as the loveable and wannabe cunning idiot is fantastic, the facial expressions and general stereotypical dexterity of what we would expect a personal trainer to be really works. This becomes especially amusing when he enters into the bribing game with Malkovich and starts to enter into the character of cunning spy. It has to be seen to be believed.
Frances McDormands character is the real shining light of the whole film as she's the catalyst leading up to the films biggest events. She's a middle aged gym instructor paranoid over the look of her body. While trying to get plastic surgery, she's turned down by her insurance company and is the one that convinces Pitts character to bribe Cox. She's a woman on the edge of giving up on life and wants to take one last leap into the chance of a relationship, but is made even more nervous by her own body insecurities.
The Coens once again create a film that is both surreal and believable, the characters are shockingly brilliant. The scenario is a bit over the top but comes together perfectly. There is something that bothered me, however, and that's the fact that every character in the film seemed to be having an affair with someone else. I don't know, maybe that was the whole point that made the film work. For fans of the Coens this is definitely one that sits proudly in their film catalogue next to such greats as No Country For Old Men and The Big Lebowski. I would strongly recommend it to any film fan overall, it's definitely worth it just for the Brad Pitt & Clooney facial expressions. Be warned though as if you're easily offended by swearing, then you might as well take your pad and pen with you to start writing your complaints letter.
Movie Review: "Burn..." as absurdist metaphor
Summary: 5 Stars
***SPOILER ALERT!***
I was hoping some other reviewer, someone sharper than I, would have picked this up - but since I don't see it here I'll have to mention it myself:
The film is a carefully crafted (I think brilliant) allegory and goof of W. Bush's relationship to the intelligence community. To be fair, one would have to pick over every minute of the film to get the full scope, but I'll note the big sweep here.
McDormand's character has a single minded desire for unnecessary plastic surgery. This is a metaphor for Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq. It speaks to the possiblity that many of the events of that last six years were all for Bush's vanity. There are jokes aplenty regarding how she makes herself understood ( a glaring Bush failing) and many other small moments in the film that are indirect goofs on our President's personality.
The "only one she can count on" is Brad Pitt's character. Pitt's is more complicated - his character has attributes of the US military and current American youth in general and will do whatever she wants no matter how nonsensical. He simply goes where he is ordered and dies in the line of duty, so to speak.
The gym manager is another complicated metaphor for both the American public and the GOP - he, too, gets mauled for Bush/McDormand's insane demands.
McDormand's character gets exactly what she wants by the film's end and walks away scott-free.
Obviously, the Coens spent a lot of time discussing their views of recent events and the current zeitgeist with each other, and decided that "gym culture" was an accurate metaphor for how the nation has been run.
They claim in the special features that the film is not political.
It isn't - they don't offer any solutions and say so through JK Simmon's CIA officer " I guess all we learned is not to do it again". There is no other agenda than to portray as humorously as possible a series of sad events, events that correspond, however absurdly, to our own sad state of affairs.
Malkovich's is the only character who simply is who he is: the old guard within CIA who does his job without prejudice or fear of retribution for being "politcally unreliable".
And he is crucified for it, and says so.
He screams at one point early on "THIS IS POLITICAL!", perhaps addressing the audience.
The blackmail he endures at McDormand's insistance is a metaphor for all that the intelligence community has withstood at the Bush administration's hands.
He responds to the insane events in the film repeatedly, before losing it himself:
"What the ****?!"
Weren't the thoughtful and informed among us thinking the same thing over the last six years or so?
Movie Review: Right, Right, Naysayers, We Get It! Now please, No More "Burn BEFORE Viewing" Jokes
Summary: 5 Stars
The reviews have been mixed, and I'm not at all surprised. BURN AFTER READING won't be everybody's cup of Gatorade, but if you're one of the many naysayers who claim to find the film a major letdown after last year's officially designated Best Pic NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, well, let me just say, I do understand your point. But has it occurred to you that maybe you're less of a COEN BROS. fan and more of a CORMAC McCARTHY fan?
Yes, yes, I know that NO COUNTRY was supposed to be a case of the source material (the McCarthy novel of the same name) being the perfect fit for our two most idiosyncratic filmmakers, and in many ways, it was just that. But there was one significant difference, in my book anyway. And that was the person(?) of Anton Chigurh himself. We all know by now that Chigurh is quite simply the personification of implacable evil, less of human being than a force of supernature. And like a malevolent phoenix, he rises from the ashes more than once. One thing he's NOT is a bumbler. In that, he differs from just about every other Coen "bad guy," or for that matter, just about every other major Coen character.
Heck, even the seemingly invincible biker dude in RAISING ARIZONA turned out to be Wile E. Coyote in the end.
I know the Brothers don't particularly like to be intellectualized about, but if there's one common theme uniting all their work, it's probably that the entire human race is the Gang That Could't Shoot Straight. In the Coen's universe, we're all bad comic actors strutting and fretting for about 90 minutes on atarnished silver screen. Good guys or bad, small or mighty, it don't make no never mind. Usually, just like in real life, the misterioso elements that do occur (a cow on a barn, say) are just enough for us fools to scratch and wonder if just maybe there aren't more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt in our philosophy...OR our cinema. Or my name isn't Horatio!
If you keep the Coens' basic worldview in mind, you just may find that BURN AFTER READING is a near perfect expression of same. This is an absurd world where EVERYBODY is out of their league. And they've all watched too many spy movies. Even the spies--who really should know better. When John Malkovich--being the quintessential John Malkovich here--rails at Brad Pitt's buffoonish would-be blackmailer/"Good Samaritan" and tells him that he (Pitt) has no idea what he's up against, he's so into his espionage mode that you might forget for a second that he's just a (fired) CIA analyst penning what appears to be a not very revealing tell-all. In other words, this is not "spy vs. spy." It's "schlub vs. schlub."
And you gotta love that. Or at least I do. You can do what you want.