ViewGuide

Created Oct 28, 2008 05:57PM PST • Edited Oct 28, 2008 05:57PM PST

1. Quality

2. Summary

   Very Good 3.5

   After the Oscar-winning success of their last film ‘No Country For Old Men’, Joel and Ethan Coen effectively could have just stopped, taken a breather, and enjoyed glancing at the lil’ golden men on their mantelpiece for a few years. But here again we have a star-packed Coen Brothers movie, and in terms of comparison to ‘No Country…’, ‘Burn After Reading’ continues the trend of dark, madcap comedies from the writing and directing siblings, and once again, their quirkiness, with a little help from Messers Pitt, Clooney and Malkovich, creates a quite crazy little movie.

4. Acting

   Good 3.0

   Mere months after ‘No Country…’, the Coens have managed to rustle up some of the best actors out there (and some friends from previous flicks) to make what can best be described as a dark comedy. Trust me in saying that watching this movie, you may find sympathy for the mere minimum of one character. It’s that simple; every character in the film is utterly pathetic in one way or another, and as a result, it makes the madness that unfolds that much more hilarious to watch, because there is simply no empathy you feel for these people.

5. Male Stars Very Good 3.5

   Clooney and Malkovich have the majority of screen-time, and Malkovich’s short-fuse insanity is used to great effect throughout. Clooney plays a parody of the public perception of himself in Pfarrer – a man who is always in need of women, and sex, played by one of the acting world’s most notorious bachelors. Both actors are great here – Clooney is always better when he’s a joke of a character, and Malkovich just needs to shout at least once and I’m won over!

6. Female Stars Good 3.0

   McDormand, as with most Coen movies (‘Fargo’ in particular, which also starred McDormand), portrays the bizarre Linda Litzke, a complete kook, whose machinations end up causing massive ripples in search of a pathetic reward. Whilst not a stretch for one of the Mrs. Coens, McDormand does portray Linda with a semblance of idiocy that makes you feel sorry for her: how did she end up in the life she has?

7. Female Costars Good 3.0

   Swinton seems to keep getting these heartless, icy women roles, but she plays them so well that she may as well keep it up. She’s that believable in every one, and this is no exception!

8. Male Costars Great 4.0

   Support-wise, Brad Pitt dominates. He’s not so much stretching his acting talents as playing an idiot and getting paid for it, and his character Chad is one of the highlights of the movie. Everything he says is totally moronic, and his actions throughout his and Linda’s machinations are so ridiculous they serve as further hilarity (a sequence with a phone call, followed by a meeting with another character embodies this idiocy). J.K. Simmons (or Juno’s dad to many) manages to almost steal it away in an appearance as a C.I.A. boss who is totally mystified by the events going on around the agency with this disparate group of people, and he serves to embody us, the viewers, in his total bemusement at their antics.

10. Film

    Good 3.0

    The film looks great: lush Virginia landscapes and neighbourhoods (I assume, from the proximity to Langley!) fill the screen, and even with a nutball comedy such as this, they still manage to fill it with mad quotes. The music is anonymous though, which is a shame considering the strength this has been with past Coen films.

11. Direction Great 4.0

    The Brothers Coen again seem to segue perfectly from drama/thriller to comedy, though this film can, and should probably be seen as a dark comedy. It’s a Coen film all over, in every aspect, and as such it’s like a noir without the black and white or gangsters. The story could easily have been a classic Bogart vehicle, with some twists, and like “Lebowski”, which aped Marlowe, this seemingly innocent movie has noirish twists all over it.

12. Play Very Good 3.5

    The dialogue (the funniest mostly through Pitt and McDormand) is clever comedy, and as such many jokes I’m sure I will pick up on a second viewing. J.K. Simmons’ character has the best scenes of dialogue though; his total lack of understanding of the situation at hand reflects so well how the audience feels that it’s all the more hilarious when he speaks.

13. Music Barely OK 2.0

    This is anonymous and insignificant; when is a good movie soundtrack gonna come out? Other Coen movies have used songs to great effect, but there is nothing here in comparison. The orchestral soundtrack is too serious at times as well, which detracts from the surreal and bizzare nature of the movie.

14. Visuals Good 3.0

    The visuals we’re presented with are impressive; ominous corridors in Langley, autumnal townhouses in the city and the home as an ominous, creaky space. One character’s demise is also well visualised, if disgusting, and it shows that the brothers are capable of making a film that can look good and work well also.

15. Content

16. Edge

    Risqué 2.5

    Lots of swearing, particularly from Malkovich, and sex is pretty much hinted at, but nothing more. Two deaths are quite graphic in presentation (therefore making the idea of it being a black comedy seem more tangible), and so the film does become less madcap.

17. Sex Titillating 2.1

18. Violence Fierce 2.5

19. Rudeness Profane 3.0

21. Reality

    Surreal 2.6

    The circumstances are pretty mad, and in all fairness, for the people to be so randomly connected as they are would be a long shot. However, former intelligence workers have shared information before, and people have affairs and blackmailed in the past. What I guess I’m saying is that the events are totally realistic; just not in conjunction with one another as they’re presented in the film.

22. Circumstantial Surreal 2.6

23. Biological Surreal 2.6

24. Physical Surreal 2.6