Burn After Reading

[Highsteppa]

Re: Burn After Reading

It's alright, nothing hugely special (apart from the headshot, which was one of the best since Pulp Fiction). Anything that the Cohen Brothers did after No Country For Old Men is going to be a bit of a letdown. Reminded me a lot of when they did The Ladykillers or Intolerable Cruelty - it was almost like they were coasting and just doing a movie to pay the bills.

[Erik Mitchell]

Re: Burn After Reading

I like this one very much. Then again I've got a weird sense of humor I guess. I think that was the point of this movie not to really be about anything. Just random crazy events haha

The end was way too abrupt though...

[Shpira]

Re: Burn After Reading

It's alright, nothing hugely special (apart from the headshot, which was one of the best since Pulp Fiction). Anything that the Cohen Brothers did after No Country For Old Men is going to be a bit of a letdown. Reminded me a lot of when they did The Ladykillers or Intolerable Cruelty - it was almost like they were coasting and just doing a movie to pay the bills.

This was actually filmed before no country for old men.

[toasty]

Re: Burn After Reading

It's definitely quirky and probably not for everyone, but I enjoyed it.

[Highsteppa]

Re: Burn After Reading

This was actually filmed before no country for old men.

I'm sorry sir, but you are mistaken.

Burn After Reading was shot between Aug 2007 and Oct 2007, while No Country For Old Men was shot between (I'm not 100% sure of the exact dates) Apr or May 2006 and Jul 2006. Also, No Country For Old Men was screened at Cannes on May 19 2007 and received wide release Nov 21st 2007.

Wikipedia has the dates under each film, under the heading of production.

[superdave]

Re: Burn After Reading

I saw this over the weekend and liked it. My favorite character was the CIA chief or top guy.

[Shpira]

Re: Burn After Reading

I'm sorry sir, but you are mistaken.

Burn After Reading was shot between Aug 2007 and Oct 2007, while No Country For Old Men was shot between (I'm not 100% sure of the exact dates) Apr or May 2006 and Jul 2006. Also, No Country For Old Men was screened at Cannes on May 19 2007 and received wide release Nov 21st 2007.

Wikipedia has the dates under each film, under the heading of production.

well I am not sure who to trust..according to Empire magazine Wikipedia is wrong.
I guess it doesn't really matter...

[coliver1980]

Re: Burn After Reading

I was looking foward to this. Having read a few posts on this thread, i'm kinda put off it. Then again, you just have to watch these kind of shows to just decide for youself. Which i shall do.

[floridaorange]

Re: Burn After Reading

I don't like most movies, and I liked this one. It fit into my definition of a good movie, but everyone is different.

[Shpira]

Re: Burn After Reading

This guy at IMDB nailed it for me

I have heard it said that a good film has no bad scenes and four good ones. Well, 'Burn After Reading' has no bad scenes... and no really good ones either.

The film was consistently amusing, and kept me interested enough to want to see what happens next. The ending was not predictable, nor was it entirely unsatisfactory. Never once did the film insult my intelligence or presume upon me to care for a character without providing sufficient reason. These are all good things. But while we're talking about things this film never did, never once did this "comedy" amuse me enough to actually consider it "funny".

Now, that's not good at all.

As has been pointed out in the consistently funny comic 'Calvin and Hobbes', there is more to 'good' than the mere absence of evil. So while, unlike almost every other film I've ever seen, 'Burn After Reading' has no flaws or niggly little bits where I'm left thinking how I'd do things differently, it doesn't have any particularly good bits either, and has ultimately left me underwhelmed.

It's like we've had some sort of yin-yang trade-off, where by removing the bad we have unwittingly eliminated the good, stranding the film in limbo for eternity.

So, did 'Burn After Reading' amuse me? Yes, I was amused, though I never once laughed out loud.

Do I regret seeing it? Not really. It kept me interested for 90 minutes, which is more than I can say for a lot of other films out there.

Was it a good film? My feelings here are truly mixed, though ultimately I'd have to say "I don't think so".

I'm guessing that critics are going crazy over this film because it doesn't make any of the irritating mistakes that plague so many other films. The story is solid with no plot holes or overt clichés, the characters are well written and consistent, it never talks down to the audience, the acting is great and so is the directing.

Now, as a point of comparison I'd like you to consider 'Open Season'. This aimated film was flawed at many levels, from sluggish direction to uninspired writing and miscast actors. But in addition to this there were at least half a dozen really funny bits in it.

My point here is that while much of 'Open Season' was regrettable, at least I laughed six times. Which is six more times than I laughed during 'Burn After Reading'. As a result, I remember 'Open Season' much more fondly, despite it being the inferior film in almost every way.

In conclusion, 'Burn After Reading' just isn't exciting or funny enough to cut any sort of mustard, and so we have a film that a lot can be learned from, both in what to and not to do when making a film.

I mean, seriously. My prevailing feeling with regard to 'Burn After Reading' is one of apathy. That's never good.

[floridaorange]

Re: Burn After Reading

^I have been reading and agreeing that this film "plays better the second time." Why do you think that is? Discuss...

LOL

I'm bigger... I'm back... I'm
better... I'm back... than ever... I'm
back... fuckers... I'm back...

[Highsteppa]

Re: Burn After Reading

^I have been reading and agreeing that this film "plays better the second time." Why do you think that is? Discuss...

LOL

I'm bigger... I'm back... I'm
better... I'm back... than ever... I'm
back... fuckers... I'm back...

Usually because you're better prepared for the story and the plot and it allows you to pay attention to the smaller details that are in the background, or the subtle behavior that the actors start to allude to. You can follow the story and plot a bit more passively, and focus on other details.

Some films are designed to be like that, and most Cohen brothers films are pretty densely layered. That's what makes films like The Big Lebowski, Fargo (which I didn't like much, but appreciate the work), Barton Fink, Miller's Crossing and their other work so easy to watch over and over again.

[Shpira]

Re: Burn After Reading

To be honest I am not a big fan of the Cohen brothers I thought Millers Crossing was so, so...I mean def better than average but not on par with like the godfather or anything even near...I liked Fargo and thought it was a very good film, Big Lebowski was good but by all means not a master piece that everyone makes it out to be, it was just ahead o its time by 5-10 years.
Me and you guys obviously have a very different taste in movies which is fine.
p.s.
The only two films I own made by the Cohen's are No Country for Old Man and Fargo...I had millers crossing but I sold it...Big Lebowski is also worth owning for sure hehe thats a funny film.

[floridaorange]

Re: Burn After Reading

^honesty is the best policy

[Shpira]

Re: Burn After Reading

M'kay