Burn After Reading - Coen Bros New Film

Sad Max said:
It's the first Coen Brothers movie which I have actively disliked at first sight.
Click to expand...

Moreso than Intolerable Cruelty and Lady Killers?

I'm not about to say Burn after Reading was their best work... but those two films can't hold a candle to this one in my opinion.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
Moreso than Intolerable Cruelty and Lady Killers?

I'm not about to say Burn after Reading was their best work... but those two films can't hold a candle to this one in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I preferred both Cruelty and Ladykillers by a wide margin, over Burn.

That's them there tastes a-differin', agin.
 
acoelho1 said:
I dont think his performance was much of stretch and if you havent seen a better one this year then I think you havent gone to see enough films or the right films. The movie to me was just blah...nothing special.
Click to expand...

Please tell me some some films with better supporting actor roles from this year, heck even if they don't have better supporting roles call out some titles. I see just about everything I can...I'd love some suggestions.
 
Sad Max said:
Compared to prior Coen Brothers films - prior to No Country for Old Men, that is - Burn After Reading is startlingly violent. I guess in the interest of non-spoileriness I won't be graphic in description, but there's up-close-and-personal bloody ultraviolence the likes of which I've only seen from them before, in No Country. Too early to guess if this is a trend.
Click to expand...

I thought Fargo was more violent. Same with Miller's Crossing. And Blood Simple too (knife through the hand).

Violence is definately nothing new to the Coens.
 
I had gotten to thinking about that, and you're right; there has been comparable violence in previous Coen Brothers films.

I don't know why it seemed particularly jarring to me, in this one.
 
becuase the one big instant of violence you dont see coming becuase
spoiler but non spoiling:
You dont expect "him" to be killed.
 
GENERAL SPOILERS BELOW - KIND OF... so don't read if you don't want to hear anything at all about the violence of the film.



Sad Max said:
I don't know why it seemed particularly jarring to me, in this one.
Click to expand...

I think that unlike some of their other films, the violence was not played for laughs in this one, while the film itself was funny overall.

Alot of comedy came out of the violence in Fargo (I thought).
Blood Simple had its funny moments, but was overall tense - so the violence fit the mood (same could be said of 'No Country').

But in this film the violent moments weren't really punctuated by anything funny.
Another thing I think is that there were really no 'high' stakes in this film.
Which made the violence seem that much more extreme.

In Fargo you could understand why people would be shooting eachother, or throwing people in woodchippers.
There was a lot of money at stake.
(Same with No Country).

But what was at stake here?
Not much. Certainly not anything worth killing people over.

I think that's part of the reason why the violent bits seemed so much more graphic, possibly.
Though I agree, overall - nothing new for the Coens.
They've always been pretty violent in their films.

Just my two cents.
 
SPOILERS!!!







i can't believe brad pitt died. that was Awesome. how many huge stars would do a role like that? i can't imagine tom cruise or will smith playing a part who gets killed with a half hour left in the movie.
 
Saw this last night. I really enjoyed it. The first few minutes I wasn't sure for some reason. But that changed pretty fast. When Pitt got shot on the head that was a total surprise. Good Coen brother film. John Malikovich, Clooney, McDormand all good.
 
I really loved No Country for Old Men, but seeing the trailers for this I was worried. I agree with Zim, the first few minutes seemed off. But after that it really turned into a great movie. Even though the movie appears to be about nothing, the commentary on voluntary cosmetic surgery, affairs, just plain being stupid, are brilliant. For me, best movie of the year so far.

BTW, I'm glad I found this forum, it's looks to be extremely helpful.
 
I agree with Sad Max on this one. I found it to be limp, drab and ultimately pointless. Some amusing character bits, and that's it...And I love the Coens, even in understated mode as in The Man Who Wasn't There. But this just kind of sat there for me. I came out of the theater feeling like it was a complete waste of time.
 
I liked it. Not their best work, obviously, but still worth seeing.

I think what makes me enjoy it so much is this, it is the perfect movie definition of a giant clusterf*@k that makes you laugh and cringe all at the same time.
 
I'm a little late on this one. But this was classic Cohen Brothers, I agree it was not their best film, but definately worth checking out. I thought Clooney and Malkovich were fantastic along with the rest of the cast. Some scenes were just hilarious and others violent as hell.

They seem to have the dumbest people in the world, doing a bunch of dumb ass sh!t, that ultimately get people killed in their films. I enjoy that about them.
 
TheMacB said:
SPOILERS!!!







i can't believe brad pitt died. that was Awesome. how many huge stars would do a role like that? i can't imagine tom cruise or will smith playing a part who gets killed with a half hour left in the movie.
Click to expand...

I froze for a good 5 minutes of screen time waiting for him to come back to life. That was probably the most brilliantly shocking murder in any film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top