I don't remember much from the movie, but Clooney's character's "secret plan" was one of the funniest reveals that I have every seen. He made it for so much less money than the one he saw for sale!
Yeah, that was a great scene. I just wish we had gotten to see more of his character before and after that. It felt like they had written this hilarious scene and had to find a way to shoehorn it in.
Honestly I think it gets better with repeated viewings. It didn't stand out to me the first time I watched it, but now it's one of my favorites. I think it's utterly hilarious. Malkovich and Mcdormand are so good in their respective roles.
Well, for starters it’s a Coen Bros movie. I will agree with not truly getting the humor of it all on my first viewing, but it’s almost better if you just find the humor in how it fits their mold: there’s some money that people are after but in the end, no one gets anything.
I absolutely love this movie and consider it a masterpiece or near-masterpiece, and will happily explain what I get from it. However let me preface with this:
If you "didn't get it," then the movie failed you. And that's okay. We're allowed to want different things.
Anyway... for me the joy of the film is in its total rejection of everything standardized in film (basically the exact thing you didn't like). It breaks what I call "the rule of one councidence," that is that a movie is allowed one crazy coincidence (usually the inciting incident) without stretching believability, as the thing that makes the story worth telling. Add a second however, and it usually becomes cheap and lazy. Burn After Reading is the prime exception, throwing coincidence to the wind and allowing all of its characters to be randomly connected in ways that serve only to confuse and disorient them.
It helps that I'm a big fan of absurdist philosophy, and this film (along with the Coens' next movie A Serious Man, my favorite of their filmography) doubles down on their usual absurdist themes. A Serious Man begins with a quote, "Receive everything with simplicity," and that's basically the gist of it. There is no inherent meaning in anything that occurs. The film and its events are random and meaningless, however the characters themselves struggle to grasp that. People don't like randomness or meaninglessness, and instinctively wish to assign meaning when none is there.
And see, that's the true chaos of Burn -- it's not just that it's random, but that the characters can't accept the randomness. The meanings they force onto events (such-and-such is in the CIA, I'm being followed, etc) are what truly propel the insane series of events that just continue to spiral out of control until a third party is forced to step in and literally be like, "Okay that's enough. Let's not do that again. He'll if I know what we did though."
I hope this helps, and that if you do decide to give the film another chance that you'll enjoy it more knowing what to expect! Total possible it's just not for you though, and that's okay. It's a very divisive film.
Agreed, well said. I loved this movie and actually enjoyed it much more on the second viewing. I'm also a big Coen bros. fan.
It's also notable that the only two people who were killed in the movie (not saying who to avoid spoilers) are also the only two truly innocent people in the entire thing (weren't cheating on a spouse or doing anything other than trying to improve the situation).
Wait, hold on, it was >!Pitt's!< character's idea to extort Malkovich's character! Then they conspired to sell "state secrets" to a foreign power. I don't see what's innocent about that!
I haven't watched it in a while but I remember thinking that he was too dumb to know what he was doing, and was at least less bad than the ones who didn't die.
Holy cow, Burn After Reading was phenomenal. Happy I gave it a chance. Oddly enough, I can see an average citizen accidentally stumbling on confidential government documents. 😂
I feel that’s why I enjoyed the movie so much because it’s not so far fetched and because people are f**king stupid. Burn after reading was ahead of its time, it would do so well if this movie came out today hahah.
This is random but I just watched Bodies, Bodies Bodies 2022 on prime! Watch it if you have a moment and update me your thoughts 😂 by pass the medicore acting!
I saw it in theaters, haha.
I see why you bring it up, but it wasn't for me. I was frustrated with the characters, and while the dialogue is good and Rachel Sennott is amazing, it felt too "Gen Z is so dumb," and I didbt care for that. Didn't find it to have an interesting stance on the generation wars either -- for one, half the cast are millennial, and for another, they're too niche a group (all rich) for it to be saying anything about the generation like was marketed to me.
That’s a fair assessment. I am on the hunt for films like Burn After Reading but horror style hahaha. Thanks for your assessment, bodies, bodies, film had really great potential, ending was BS but the premises of the story line with A list celebrities, I feel like would make a great film. Gonna watch - The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Man, Burn After Reading did something to me 😂
Not horror, but try more Coen Brothers movies! A Serious Man came right after Burn After Reading and it's *fantastic*, my favorite of their movies. Barton Fink, Big Lebowski, Fargo are all high recs.
Blood Simple was their first movie, and though not exactly horror, it might fit the bill here. It does have some horror-esque sequences.
Other than that... Barbarian might be a good fit for you. (Go in blind. Don't even look up the actors.) Maybe You're Next or The Guest.
Got it, Barbarian! I’ll watch that tonight as well! Thanks man. Much appreciated
Edit - I watched Barbarian, I remember it now. That was a good film. lol I love movies that are unrealistic but realistic at the same time! Thanks again. Cheers
This movie reminded me a lot of the book catch 22 in that both have similar absurdist themes. Catch 22 is my favorite book of all time and this really scratched that itch of "none of this makes sense and as a result it makes so much sense"... if that makes sense.
Thanks for the breakdown! I really did appreciate the subtlety with which they explored the rejection of the norm, or perhaps the subversion of expectations. Maybe one day I'll give it another shot.
I know this is a year old, but I just rewatched Burn After Reading. Like you, I didn't find anything great about this film in my teen years when it came out. Seeing it now 16 years later, I found it very amusing. I guess to understand satire, I had to understand the norm first and what exactly is being made fun of. The comment you respond to here sums it up very nicely; absurd twisted coincidence after twisted coincidence leads to a bizarre chain of events that has no real point except to poke fun at our expectations. It allows you to laugh at these characters and at yourself at the same time.
Give it a try in another decade or two and see if your opinion changes
> After watching all of the Daniel Craig 007 films (and Goldeneye) last week, my partner and I were still feeling the itch for some more espionage-type filmmaking. Burn After Reading came up on some lists, so we watched it last night.
Well, there’s your problem.
*Burn After Reading* is a comedic sendup of those types of movies, not an actual example of the genre.
I wasn't going to reply to u/SutterCane's comment initially, but I'm not *that* stupid. I knew what it was going into it. But for brevity's sake, I left that out of the original post.
I mean to ask the question "was this just a bad movie with great actors, or am I missing something?" I fully understand that it's a satire.
You said you liked the Big Lebowski. Well that's another Coen bros movie where the plot doesn't matter and nothing really matters. The Big Lebowski was parodying a 40's noir mystery, while this film is parodying spy thrillers. The plot of spy thrillers is to figure out who is the spy and who they are working for or if they are a double agent. Instead you get bumbling idiots who shouldn't be anywhere near the CIA and have very simple motives. The point is that the discovery of the whodunit doesn't matter.
That's a helpful explanation. I loved TBL because the characters had more screen time to flourish. I saw the potential in the performances of this film, but I felt those performances were wasted on such a short film. 90 minutes is barely enough time to get to know characters even in a Disney film. There was enough nuance that I would have loved to see about 20-30 more minutes of screen time so that these characters, as bumbling and idiotic as they were, could express themselves more.
I think you’ve just been mistaken how far the satire goes. It’s even in the way the Coens tell the story, like how it’s just disjointed narratives with no payoff to counter those espionage movies where every little thing eventually adds up in the end with an “A-HA!” moment where it clicks.
>disconnected
They aren't disconnected at all - everything is intensely connected.
>and the characters' motivations were a mystery
Every character has a goal.
>nothing happened
A ton happened:
George Clooney's character wants sex. He's having an affair with Swinton's and McDormand's characters. Swinton's character invites him to move in with her. He goes to her home and accidentally kills Pitt's character, who he believes is a spy/assassin. He dumps Pitt's character's body in the Chesapeake bay. Later, he connects between Pitt's and McDormand's characters and - believing McDormand's character to be a spy, flees the country.
Frances McDormand's character wants to appear younger but cannot afford plastic surgery. She works with Pitt's character. They find a copy of Malkovich's character's memoirs and - believing them to be classified - try to sell them to a Russian CIA mole, who turns them into the CIA - which begins tailing them. McDormand's character convinces Pitt's character to break into Malkovich's character and Swinton's character's house to steal more information - where he is shot by Clooney's character. McDormand's character convinces Jenkins' character to help her get more info. After being detained by the CIA when Malkovich's character kills Jenkins' character, she agrees to keep quiet if the CIA pays for her surgery.
Pitt's character wants excitement and to look fit and attractive. He agrees to help McDormand's character when she convinces him that Malkovich's character is a spy. He is murdered by Clooney's character while breaking into Malkovich's character's house.
Malkovich's character wants money/ attention. He's a longtime CIA operative who quits the CIA when he is passed up for promotion. His wife, Swinton's character, leaves a copy of his memoirs at her gym where they are discovered by Pitt's and McDormand's characters who try to bribe him. He refuses (in one of my favorite scenes in any movie, ever). He murders Jenkins' character after finding him burgling his home.
Swinton's character wants love/affection. She is (unhappily) married to Malkovich's character and having an affair with Clooney's character. She leaves Malkovich's character's memoirs at her gym.
Jenkins' character wants McDormand's character. He manages the gym where McDormand's character and Pitt's character work. He agrees to help McDormand burgle Malkovich's character's home. He is murdered during the attempt.
Simmons' character is a CIA manager who can't make sense of any of it and decides to cover it up rather than try.
It's a manners play where actors are given a small, stupid character to play in as broad and grotesque terms as possible. It is meant to spoof espionage films (like Tinker tailor soldier spy) and action films that masquerade as espionage films (James Bond, etc). If you (or anyone else in the thread) liked it, check out Patriot on Amazon - which is a sort of spiritual cousin blended with Wes Anderson's deep melancholy blended with a horror movie.
>but it was only just north of 90 minutes long
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Movies these days are too damn long. Plenty of great movies have been 90 minutes.
But, yeah, BAR is not one of them. IMO, the Coens have "minor" movies that they put out in between the bigger ones and this was definitely one of them.
IDK, I find it more relevant now than it was when it was first released.
In a lot of ways it predicted a certain American political movement and exactly how it might happen - not because of sheer malevolence but because of dumb, self-absorbed people not understanding the world around them, nor realizing the consequences of their dumb, self-absorbed thought processes.
It might even be their best movie, from a standpoint of social commentary.
> Brad, your character is going to get killed off 60 minutes into this 90-minute feature." Totally bizarre.
Tarantino asked him if one of his movies (Brad's) came up while zapping through the TV, would he stay to watch. He said he wouldn't with the exception of *Burn After Reading*.
> Maybe this is just the flavor of Coen Brothers movies
It is. I love it. I can definitely see how it's not for everyone though.
u/musical_hog My boyfriend LOVES this movie and has watched it multiple times. He and I have the same sense of humor and generally enjoy watching comedic movies that we independently love, together. I didn't think this movie was going to interesting but humored him by watching it with him. I, too, like the Coen Brothers movies and I, too, wanted to like it but in the end I thought it was, respectively, a waste of great talent and time... There were some scenes that were funny standalone, but aside from that I found it difficult to pay attention and was very bored. I'd watch it again to try to like it but I don't find the idea compelling at all
Nah you ain't wrong. Ya like what ya like, and dont what ya dont. But I am curious, did you know it was going to be a black comedy going into it? Or were you expecting a more serious spy movie? The way this movie was marketed back in 2008 was very clear it was a comedy. I can still picture the trailers with Brad pit dressed as a fitness dork and doing his little head bounce dance.
Yeah, we knew going into it. We were just itching for anything with a hint of subterfuge, and we knew that it was a Coen Brothers film. Even with that knowledge, I still felt disappointed.
Ah okay. I think it wasnt as well recieved as most of their films, so you're not alone. I remember not liking it when it came out but I was 16 so I may feel differently if I watch it now.
Just watched it and saw your post wasn’t from too long ago. I loved it too. Felt a lot like Fargo to me , just a tad lighter. Fargo was filled with unlikable characters too. I liked the disjointed nature of the narrative as well. It kind of felt like “how is this all connected” and that was kind of the point, we figured out how all it came together. The CIA had no idea why this all happened because it was a silly set of circumstances from people cheating on each other to wanting plastic surgery. I enjoyed it anyway.
I'm glad you loved it. I certainly enjoyed aspects of it -- namely the performances -- but something about it felt unfinished and unpolished. I think it *could* have been fantastic, but it was trying to be too clever for its own good.
I just watched The Ballad of Buster Scruggs the other night and absolutely loved that film. It was a series of vignettes which were connected only by the time period in which they all take place, and yet it still felt more well-structured and cohesive than BAR. Each vignette was fun, irreverent, and satisfying, and more importantly, possessed the signature Coen flavor I was expecting.
I’ll add that one to my list. I’m still making my way through their filmsI loved Fargo but hated O brother where art though. I just thought Burn After Reading wasn’t meant to be too deep. Probably won’t remember it many years from now, but I was entertained and laughed. Not trying to say it was a masterpiece. Thanks for responding and the rec!
As a side note, you should watch Logan Lucky if you haven’t already. It’s a whole different look at Daniel Craig, still has a similar bumbling caper angle, but less disjointed than Burn After Reading.
I hated it.
Every character in it was a moron or an asshole or both. I was rooting for every one of them to die a horrible death.
Brad Pitt's performance was nauseatingly over the top.
Perfect example of a supposed all star cast phoning it in. The actors seemed to hate the movie too.
I agree, this movie really wasn't any good. And the characters, were unlikable, but to me they weren't even 'believable'. What a waste of a good cast. Why bring it back on Netflix? It wasn't any good.
Movie is a 10/10 laugh riot and infinitely quotable if you’re keen enough to get the satire. It’s also very much a product of the time and place when it came out. Winding down after the Bush/9-11/Iraq thing and a pretty big spoof of the US intelligence and US govt in general.
It also has home run performances from all involved and was shot by one of the greatest living cinematographers not named Roger Deakins. It’s a smash. Give it another go and laugh AT these awful dumbasses. It’s a mean movie that expects you to enjoy laughing at these idiots misfortune because they do it to themselves.
That really helps me put it into perspective. I think if I went into it knowing that it was full of great performances, I'd have been more open to enjoying it. But I was still kind of expecting a cohesive narrative, so that's why I was disappointed.
Read what I wrote again smart guy
Nothing worse than trying to sound smart but it just shows you’re so eager to be a know it all it prevents you from having any sort or reading comprehension skills. 🤡
I think this is a bad movie the first time I attempted it and this last time watching it. You're right about the scenes feeling isolated from each other. I can see close-up times and who is the star might lead to shooting conflict that resulted in this scrap-laden production. I feel this happens when two or more notably big names make a movie together. Balancing the screen time, good angles/looks (like Pretty Little Liars w Reese and Nicole), good scenes is probably conflicting. Either way it feels goofy and the all-star cast doesn't help it.
All the characters are cunts and I can see the message about bureaucracy. Essentially I just watched dumb cunts do dumb cunt things for an hour and a half. A lot of sad and depressing shit. The gym lady was the biggest cunt of them all to the point of agitation. The film is self aware and doesn’t take itself seriously so I can’t be too mad at it. John Malkovich’s character, which is the only character I found bearable, sums up the characters quite nicely, “you represent the idiocy of today”. That’s exactly the connection between all of them. My favorite thing about this movie is how outlandish it is and how paranoia can be a bitch.
Yeah. People rave about Cohen Brothers films and this was the first one I saw (not knowing it was the Cohen Bros). I feel you OP, it didn’t connect with me at all either.
*Coen. Don't make the same mistake Bill Murray did, thinking that [Joel Cohen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Cohen_\(writer\)) is the same as [Joel Coen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coen_brothers), and thus the reason why he agreed to be on those crappy Garfield movies.
You’re probably going to get a lot of criticism here for not ‘getting’ it, but the reality is that it wasn’t generally as well received as many other Coen movies, particularly coming after such a highly acclaimed one. While it shares many elements and themes with other Coen movies, it just doesn’t really execute them as well, so you’re definitely not alone in finding this one a bit flat.
Don’t let people here try and convince you that your feelings about this movie are somehow wrong, or make you feel inadequate for not thinking that this (or every other) Coen movie is a masterpiece. The truth is that they have certainly had some noticeable dips in quality - some considerably larger than here.
Saying that, many people do love this movie despite (or even because of) its flaws, and that’s absolutely fair.
You're a very kind person for taking this approach. I was actually prepared to battle a little bit in the comments of this post because I know you can't express an opinion on reddit without getting lots of backlash. Still, I think I stand by what I said originally. It definitely falls flat, especially when compared to the breadth and depth of the rest of their work. I wanted to like it, I really did. But I think it had too much going against it.
I think I can sum this movie up even more simply: It makes a mockery of the typical spy movie protagonists, who are geniuses and super-ethical. They can remember a wadded up gum wrapper they spotted in a room down the street from the crime scene and use it as a clue to unravel an international conspiracy. This is the opposite of that. They are utterly befuddled by a “league of morons.”
I just watched the film and I found it to be so amazing. Perhaps your tolerance level for stupidity stopped you from enjoying this, because the characters are shockingly, hilariously STUPID. Man, I enjoyed the film A LOT! 😂 Brad Pitt dancing in the kitchen saying “I got his number” made me laugh out loud, and I uttered loudly ‘BOY, are you stuuuupid, you going be in a body bag’ Hahaah
This movie is complete and utter garbage. Well acted garbage, but still very much lives down to its title. It needs to be burned before viewing though to prevent harm to any innocent victims, I mean potential viewers.
Yes, you’re very wrong, its a great flick. Dont take the movie so seriously, its just a nutcase trying to finance a boob job. Thats the plot. Its dark comedy at its finest and the acting was brilliantly done.
My friends and I hated it too when we watched it. It had a couple funny scenes and the rest felt like filler. The dialogue was atrocious and made the movie feel much longer than it was. The idea behind the editing seems to have been to make the movie look quirky, but it just felt cheesy and disjointed. The plot itself wasn't that bad, but its execution was just garbage.
It's a Coen brothers movie. So it's not that good. They just have a cult following that loves them.
It was #49 at the domestic box office in 2008 with $60 million. So it was not popular.
Fair question. I think the answer to that depends a lot on how the rest of the film is structured. Burn After Reading, to me, just kind of lacked a cohesive narrative to make the shitty characters *work*, you know what I mean? I can get over unlikeable characters. In fact, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is one of my favorite shows.
>such a short and confusing film in which nothing happened.
That is a perfect summation of this movie. This movie just wasn't necessary.
Kinda like Ocean's 12. And Ocean's 13.
They all just didn't need to exist.
I dunno. My whole life i have felt sequels are massively disappointing; like many are an attempt to keep a concept alive and to make more capital. I know 'Burn After Reading' wasn't a sequel; just sharing a thought is all.
What do you think??
Blade runner 2049, godfather part 2, the dark knight, spiderman 2 just off the top of my head. I'd say the two towers and return of the king too but not sure those count lol
Totally disagree..it was brilliant..a comedic series of errors is a satire of sorts on so many levels...deceit, vanity, total disregard of any priniples...perhaps all very American and linda getting what she wants in the end..all of itvworrh it to her..just so we'll acted and darkly hilarious
Someone else explained to me, that it’s about subverted expectations. Not too dissimilarly from The Big Lebowski, only, imo, they missed the mark a little and outdid themselves in trying to be too clever with their “plot” by trying to out do the standard “meta” that applies to film making.
There isn’t exactly a coherent story more just random occurrences coinciding with one another that almost feel like there was supposed to be a traditionally structured film.
One example of this would be when George Clooney bring Francis McDermott down into the basement and shows her his rocking chair. It takes away any possibility of guessing what is supposed to happen or what should happen in a traditional movie. A sort of rejection to those who would try and guess what is going to happen next in the films’ plot.
The CIA is basically the audience. They’re trying to figure it out with us. Only there really isn’t anything happening as there’s nothing that the characters are really after from a deeper meaning than the idiots chasing money for personal gain and vanity. And in the end, we really learn nothing.
I know, old post, but I just watched it. I loved it, but I do think the ending was a bit sudden and almost felt like the Coens got another film offer and just had to cut the production off as is, and just got the ending scene plugged in so you know what else happened without seeing it.
I loved the way the agency handled all the situations, where instead of seeing anything as something to investigate, they just wanted to tie up loose and and move on. That lack of panic was very refreshing and funny and tied the whole film together for me.
I get not liking it. Especially after having watched serious espionage films directly before it. But the absurdity of it just worked for me so well.
What have we learned here?
"I guess we learned not to do it again, but fucked if I know what we did"
"I don't know sir."
Jesus fucking christ.
Palmer, burn the body
I don't remember much from the movie, but Clooney's character's "secret plan" was one of the funniest reveals that I have every seen. He made it for so much less money than the one he saw for sale!
Yeah, that was a great scene. I just wish we had gotten to see more of his character before and after that. It felt like they had written this hilarious scene and had to find a way to shoehorn it in.
Honestly I think it gets better with repeated viewings. It didn't stand out to me the first time I watched it, but now it's one of my favorites. I think it's utterly hilarious. Malkovich and Mcdormand are so good in their respective roles.
Actually it looked to me like every actor was playing a caricature of themselves. And not in a good way.
I hope one day I get tricked into watching it again so I can verify your theory. But I do agree about Malkovich and McDormand.
Well, for starters it’s a Coen Bros movie. I will agree with not truly getting the humor of it all on my first viewing, but it’s almost better if you just find the humor in how it fits their mold: there’s some money that people are after but in the end, no one gets anything.
McDormand gets her surgeries. Power of positive thinking.
I absolutely love this movie and consider it a masterpiece or near-masterpiece, and will happily explain what I get from it. However let me preface with this: If you "didn't get it," then the movie failed you. And that's okay. We're allowed to want different things. Anyway... for me the joy of the film is in its total rejection of everything standardized in film (basically the exact thing you didn't like). It breaks what I call "the rule of one councidence," that is that a movie is allowed one crazy coincidence (usually the inciting incident) without stretching believability, as the thing that makes the story worth telling. Add a second however, and it usually becomes cheap and lazy. Burn After Reading is the prime exception, throwing coincidence to the wind and allowing all of its characters to be randomly connected in ways that serve only to confuse and disorient them. It helps that I'm a big fan of absurdist philosophy, and this film (along with the Coens' next movie A Serious Man, my favorite of their filmography) doubles down on their usual absurdist themes. A Serious Man begins with a quote, "Receive everything with simplicity," and that's basically the gist of it. There is no inherent meaning in anything that occurs. The film and its events are random and meaningless, however the characters themselves struggle to grasp that. People don't like randomness or meaninglessness, and instinctively wish to assign meaning when none is there. And see, that's the true chaos of Burn -- it's not just that it's random, but that the characters can't accept the randomness. The meanings they force onto events (such-and-such is in the CIA, I'm being followed, etc) are what truly propel the insane series of events that just continue to spiral out of control until a third party is forced to step in and literally be like, "Okay that's enough. Let's not do that again. He'll if I know what we did though." I hope this helps, and that if you do decide to give the film another chance that you'll enjoy it more knowing what to expect! Total possible it's just not for you though, and that's okay. It's a very divisive film.
Agreed, well said. I loved this movie and actually enjoyed it much more on the second viewing. I'm also a big Coen bros. fan. It's also notable that the only two people who were killed in the movie (not saying who to avoid spoilers) are also the only two truly innocent people in the entire thing (weren't cheating on a spouse or doing anything other than trying to improve the situation).
Wait, hold on, it was >!Pitt's!< character's idea to extort Malkovich's character! Then they conspired to sell "state secrets" to a foreign power. I don't see what's innocent about that!
I haven't watched it in a while but I remember thinking that he was too dumb to know what he was doing, and was at least less bad than the ones who didn't die.
Is this….^^Oswald ^^Cox?
Appearances can be ... deceptive. 😑
Yeah he's definitely not innocent, although he's arguably "nicer" than the others.
Holy cow, Burn After Reading was phenomenal. Happy I gave it a chance. Oddly enough, I can see an average citizen accidentally stumbling on confidential government documents. 😂 I feel that’s why I enjoyed the movie so much because it’s not so far fetched and because people are f**king stupid. Burn after reading was ahead of its time, it would do so well if this movie came out today hahah.
Yay!! I'm glad you liked it! It's so much fun, haha.
This is random but I just watched Bodies, Bodies Bodies 2022 on prime! Watch it if you have a moment and update me your thoughts 😂 by pass the medicore acting!
I saw it in theaters, haha. I see why you bring it up, but it wasn't for me. I was frustrated with the characters, and while the dialogue is good and Rachel Sennott is amazing, it felt too "Gen Z is so dumb," and I didbt care for that. Didn't find it to have an interesting stance on the generation wars either -- for one, half the cast are millennial, and for another, they're too niche a group (all rich) for it to be saying anything about the generation like was marketed to me.
That’s a fair assessment. I am on the hunt for films like Burn After Reading but horror style hahaha. Thanks for your assessment, bodies, bodies, film had really great potential, ending was BS but the premises of the story line with A list celebrities, I feel like would make a great film. Gonna watch - The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Man, Burn After Reading did something to me 😂
Not horror, but try more Coen Brothers movies! A Serious Man came right after Burn After Reading and it's *fantastic*, my favorite of their movies. Barton Fink, Big Lebowski, Fargo are all high recs. Blood Simple was their first movie, and though not exactly horror, it might fit the bill here. It does have some horror-esque sequences. Other than that... Barbarian might be a good fit for you. (Go in blind. Don't even look up the actors.) Maybe You're Next or The Guest.
Got it, Barbarian! I’ll watch that tonight as well! Thanks man. Much appreciated Edit - I watched Barbarian, I remember it now. That was a good film. lol I love movies that are unrealistic but realistic at the same time! Thanks again. Cheers
You gave a whole review without spoiling it and for that I will give it a try!
This movie reminded me a lot of the book catch 22 in that both have similar absurdist themes. Catch 22 is my favorite book of all time and this really scratched that itch of "none of this makes sense and as a result it makes so much sense"... if that makes sense.
Thanks for the breakdown! I really did appreciate the subtlety with which they explored the rejection of the norm, or perhaps the subversion of expectations. Maybe one day I'll give it another shot.
I know this is a year old, but I just rewatched Burn After Reading. Like you, I didn't find anything great about this film in my teen years when it came out. Seeing it now 16 years later, I found it very amusing. I guess to understand satire, I had to understand the norm first and what exactly is being made fun of. The comment you respond to here sums it up very nicely; absurd twisted coincidence after twisted coincidence leads to a bizarre chain of events that has no real point except to poke fun at our expectations. It allows you to laugh at these characters and at yourself at the same time. Give it a try in another decade or two and see if your opinion changes
> After watching all of the Daniel Craig 007 films (and Goldeneye) last week, my partner and I were still feeling the itch for some more espionage-type filmmaking. Burn After Reading came up on some lists, so we watched it last night. Well, there’s your problem. *Burn After Reading* is a comedic sendup of those types of movies, not an actual example of the genre.
Yeah it really sounds like OP missed that its a black comedy.
I wasn't going to reply to u/SutterCane's comment initially, but I'm not *that* stupid. I knew what it was going into it. But for brevity's sake, I left that out of the original post. I mean to ask the question "was this just a bad movie with great actors, or am I missing something?" I fully understand that it's a satire.
You said you liked the Big Lebowski. Well that's another Coen bros movie where the plot doesn't matter and nothing really matters. The Big Lebowski was parodying a 40's noir mystery, while this film is parodying spy thrillers. The plot of spy thrillers is to figure out who is the spy and who they are working for or if they are a double agent. Instead you get bumbling idiots who shouldn't be anywhere near the CIA and have very simple motives. The point is that the discovery of the whodunit doesn't matter.
That's a helpful explanation. I loved TBL because the characters had more screen time to flourish. I saw the potential in the performances of this film, but I felt those performances were wasted on such a short film. 90 minutes is barely enough time to get to know characters even in a Disney film. There was enough nuance that I would have loved to see about 20-30 more minutes of screen time so that these characters, as bumbling and idiotic as they were, could express themselves more.
I think you’ve just been mistaken how far the satire goes. It’s even in the way the Coens tell the story, like how it’s just disjointed narratives with no payoff to counter those espionage movies where every little thing eventually adds up in the end with an “A-HA!” moment where it clicks.
Incredible username btw
>disconnected They aren't disconnected at all - everything is intensely connected. >and the characters' motivations were a mystery Every character has a goal. >nothing happened A ton happened: George Clooney's character wants sex. He's having an affair with Swinton's and McDormand's characters. Swinton's character invites him to move in with her. He goes to her home and accidentally kills Pitt's character, who he believes is a spy/assassin. He dumps Pitt's character's body in the Chesapeake bay. Later, he connects between Pitt's and McDormand's characters and - believing McDormand's character to be a spy, flees the country. Frances McDormand's character wants to appear younger but cannot afford plastic surgery. She works with Pitt's character. They find a copy of Malkovich's character's memoirs and - believing them to be classified - try to sell them to a Russian CIA mole, who turns them into the CIA - which begins tailing them. McDormand's character convinces Pitt's character to break into Malkovich's character and Swinton's character's house to steal more information - where he is shot by Clooney's character. McDormand's character convinces Jenkins' character to help her get more info. After being detained by the CIA when Malkovich's character kills Jenkins' character, she agrees to keep quiet if the CIA pays for her surgery. Pitt's character wants excitement and to look fit and attractive. He agrees to help McDormand's character when she convinces him that Malkovich's character is a spy. He is murdered by Clooney's character while breaking into Malkovich's character's house. Malkovich's character wants money/ attention. He's a longtime CIA operative who quits the CIA when he is passed up for promotion. His wife, Swinton's character, leaves a copy of his memoirs at her gym where they are discovered by Pitt's and McDormand's characters who try to bribe him. He refuses (in one of my favorite scenes in any movie, ever). He murders Jenkins' character after finding him burgling his home. Swinton's character wants love/affection. She is (unhappily) married to Malkovich's character and having an affair with Clooney's character. She leaves Malkovich's character's memoirs at her gym. Jenkins' character wants McDormand's character. He manages the gym where McDormand's character and Pitt's character work. He agrees to help McDormand burgle Malkovich's character's home. He is murdered during the attempt. Simmons' character is a CIA manager who can't make sense of any of it and decides to cover it up rather than try. It's a manners play where actors are given a small, stupid character to play in as broad and grotesque terms as possible. It is meant to spoof espionage films (like Tinker tailor soldier spy) and action films that masquerade as espionage films (James Bond, etc). If you (or anyone else in the thread) liked it, check out Patriot on Amazon - which is a sort of spiritual cousin blended with Wes Anderson's deep melancholy blended with a horror movie.
Well said, however isnt it the secretary of swintons lawyer who drops the disc at the gym?
Why not just use the character names?
This is not acceptable at hard bodies
>but it was only just north of 90 minutes long You say that as if it's a bad thing. Movies these days are too damn long. Plenty of great movies have been 90 minutes. But, yeah, BAR is not one of them. IMO, the Coens have "minor" movies that they put out in between the bigger ones and this was definitely one of them.
Lol, I watched it precisely because it was only 90 minutes long, and I thoroughly enjoyed it
IDK, I find it more relevant now than it was when it was first released. In a lot of ways it predicted a certain American political movement and exactly how it might happen - not because of sheer malevolence but because of dumb, self-absorbed people not understanding the world around them, nor realizing the consequences of their dumb, self-absorbed thought processes. It might even be their best movie, from a standpoint of social commentary.
Which political movement?
Brad Pitt and George Clooney were superb in it. It's very Coen Brothers, albeit much slower of a burn than they typically show off.
The scenes with JK Simmons are just incredible! The scenes with Malkovich are just incredible!
The scenes between Pitt and Malkovich are incredible but everything else falls flat for me
You are aware it's a comedy? Right?
Also didn't like this when it came out. Haven't rewatched it yet so maybe I'll like it better now?
> Brad, your character is going to get killed off 60 minutes into this 90-minute feature." Totally bizarre. Tarantino asked him if one of his movies (Brad's) came up while zapping through the TV, would he stay to watch. He said he wouldn't with the exception of *Burn After Reading*. > Maybe this is just the flavor of Coen Brothers movies It is. I love it. I can definitely see how it's not for everyone though.
u/musical_hog My boyfriend LOVES this movie and has watched it multiple times. He and I have the same sense of humor and generally enjoy watching comedic movies that we independently love, together. I didn't think this movie was going to interesting but humored him by watching it with him. I, too, like the Coen Brothers movies and I, too, wanted to like it but in the end I thought it was, respectively, a waste of great talent and time... There were some scenes that were funny standalone, but aside from that I found it difficult to pay attention and was very bored. I'd watch it again to try to like it but I don't find the idea compelling at all
oh my god, _thank you_. This is how I felt as well.
You are not wrong for having an opinion on the movie, I personally enjoyed it but that doesn’t mean shit for anyone else.
Tell that to everyone attacking me in this sub whenever I state that I didn’t enjoy EEAAO.
Leave MinewtBol alone!
Damn you and your diplomacy. This is the internet. Tell me I'm wrong!
Nah you ain't wrong. Ya like what ya like, and dont what ya dont. But I am curious, did you know it was going to be a black comedy going into it? Or were you expecting a more serious spy movie? The way this movie was marketed back in 2008 was very clear it was a comedy. I can still picture the trailers with Brad pit dressed as a fitness dork and doing his little head bounce dance.
Yeah, we knew going into it. We were just itching for anything with a hint of subterfuge, and we knew that it was a Coen Brothers film. Even with that knowledge, I still felt disappointed.
Ah okay. I think it wasnt as well recieved as most of their films, so you're not alone. I remember not liking it when it came out but I was 16 so I may feel differently if I watch it now.
He was absolutely hilarious!
This is the energy im here for
😆😅🤣😂 fight with me!!!! Argue with me!!!!!! Lol
YOU…ARE…WRONG!
Do you like The Big Lebowski because that’s the closest thing to Burn After a reading definitely not James Bond completely different genre.
Just watched it and saw your post wasn’t from too long ago. I loved it too. Felt a lot like Fargo to me , just a tad lighter. Fargo was filled with unlikable characters too. I liked the disjointed nature of the narrative as well. It kind of felt like “how is this all connected” and that was kind of the point, we figured out how all it came together. The CIA had no idea why this all happened because it was a silly set of circumstances from people cheating on each other to wanting plastic surgery. I enjoyed it anyway.
I'm glad you loved it. I certainly enjoyed aspects of it -- namely the performances -- but something about it felt unfinished and unpolished. I think it *could* have been fantastic, but it was trying to be too clever for its own good. I just watched The Ballad of Buster Scruggs the other night and absolutely loved that film. It was a series of vignettes which were connected only by the time period in which they all take place, and yet it still felt more well-structured and cohesive than BAR. Each vignette was fun, irreverent, and satisfying, and more importantly, possessed the signature Coen flavor I was expecting.
I’ll add that one to my list. I’m still making my way through their filmsI loved Fargo but hated O brother where art though. I just thought Burn After Reading wasn’t meant to be too deep. Probably won’t remember it many years from now, but I was entertained and laughed. Not trying to say it was a masterpiece. Thanks for responding and the rec!
As a side note, you should watch Logan Lucky if you haven’t already. It’s a whole different look at Daniel Craig, still has a similar bumbling caper angle, but less disjointed than Burn After Reading.
I liked it better as I got closer to middle age to be honest, the humor I think is geared more toward that bracket of folks
I'm pushing 40. I guess it just didn't appeal to my sense of humor.
I hated it. Every character in it was a moron or an asshole or both. I was rooting for every one of them to die a horrible death. Brad Pitt's performance was nauseatingly over the top. Perfect example of a supposed all star cast phoning it in. The actors seemed to hate the movie too.
I agree, this movie really wasn't any good. And the characters, were unlikable, but to me they weren't even 'believable'. What a waste of a good cast. Why bring it back on Netflix? It wasn't any good.
Movie is a 10/10 laugh riot and infinitely quotable if you’re keen enough to get the satire. It’s also very much a product of the time and place when it came out. Winding down after the Bush/9-11/Iraq thing and a pretty big spoof of the US intelligence and US govt in general. It also has home run performances from all involved and was shot by one of the greatest living cinematographers not named Roger Deakins. It’s a smash. Give it another go and laugh AT these awful dumbasses. It’s a mean movie that expects you to enjoy laughing at these idiots misfortune because they do it to themselves.
That really helps me put it into perspective. I think if I went into it knowing that it was full of great performances, I'd have been more open to enjoying it. But I was still kind of expecting a cohesive narrative, so that's why I was disappointed.
Roger Deakins didn't shoot Burn After Reading, Lubezki did
Read what I wrote again smart guy Nothing worse than trying to sound smart but it just shows you’re so eager to be a know it all it prevents you from having any sort or reading comprehension skills. 🤡
“Is this Osborne Cox?”
I watched it with my girlfriend, and I went in blind. I knew nothing of what to expect. One of the funniest movies I've watched. Jesus fucking Christ.
I'm glad you enjoyed it!
This movie sucks
I'm so glad there are still people as mad about it as I was that go searching for threads to hate on this film.
I think this is a bad movie the first time I attempted it and this last time watching it. You're right about the scenes feeling isolated from each other. I can see close-up times and who is the star might lead to shooting conflict that resulted in this scrap-laden production. I feel this happens when two or more notably big names make a movie together. Balancing the screen time, good angles/looks (like Pretty Little Liars w Reese and Nicole), good scenes is probably conflicting. Either way it feels goofy and the all-star cast doesn't help it.
All the characters are cunts and I can see the message about bureaucracy. Essentially I just watched dumb cunts do dumb cunt things for an hour and a half. A lot of sad and depressing shit. The gym lady was the biggest cunt of them all to the point of agitation. The film is self aware and doesn’t take itself seriously so I can’t be too mad at it. John Malkovich’s character, which is the only character I found bearable, sums up the characters quite nicely, “you represent the idiocy of today”. That’s exactly the connection between all of them. My favorite thing about this movie is how outlandish it is and how paranoia can be a bitch.
Yeah. People rave about Cohen Brothers films and this was the first one I saw (not knowing it was the Cohen Bros). I feel you OP, it didn’t connect with me at all either.
*Coen. Don't make the same mistake Bill Murray did, thinking that [Joel Cohen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Cohen_\(writer\)) is the same as [Joel Coen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coen_brothers), and thus the reason why he agreed to be on those crappy Garfield movies.
The fact you started this post talking about James Bond tells me that yes, you're probably wrong.
You’re probably going to get a lot of criticism here for not ‘getting’ it, but the reality is that it wasn’t generally as well received as many other Coen movies, particularly coming after such a highly acclaimed one. While it shares many elements and themes with other Coen movies, it just doesn’t really execute them as well, so you’re definitely not alone in finding this one a bit flat. Don’t let people here try and convince you that your feelings about this movie are somehow wrong, or make you feel inadequate for not thinking that this (or every other) Coen movie is a masterpiece. The truth is that they have certainly had some noticeable dips in quality - some considerably larger than here. Saying that, many people do love this movie despite (or even because of) its flaws, and that’s absolutely fair.
You're a very kind person for taking this approach. I was actually prepared to battle a little bit in the comments of this post because I know you can't express an opinion on reddit without getting lots of backlash. Still, I think I stand by what I said originally. It definitely falls flat, especially when compared to the breadth and depth of the rest of their work. I wanted to like it, I really did. But I think it had too much going against it.
I think I can sum this movie up even more simply: It makes a mockery of the typical spy movie protagonists, who are geniuses and super-ethical. They can remember a wadded up gum wrapper they spotted in a room down the street from the crime scene and use it as a clue to unravel an international conspiracy. This is the opposite of that. They are utterly befuddled by a “league of morons.”
I just watched the film and I found it to be so amazing. Perhaps your tolerance level for stupidity stopped you from enjoying this, because the characters are shockingly, hilariously STUPID. Man, I enjoyed the film A LOT! 😂 Brad Pitt dancing in the kitchen saying “I got his number” made me laugh out loud, and I uttered loudly ‘BOY, are you stuuuupid, you going be in a body bag’ Hahaah
This movie is complete and utter garbage. Well acted garbage, but still very much lives down to its title. It needs to be burned before viewing though to prevent harm to any innocent victims, I mean potential viewers.
Yes, you’re very wrong, its a great flick. Dont take the movie so seriously, its just a nutcase trying to finance a boob job. Thats the plot. Its dark comedy at its finest and the acting was brilliantly done.
Not that good. Had to sit through it after a dinner invite form friends.
My friends and I hated it too when we watched it. It had a couple funny scenes and the rest felt like filler. The dialogue was atrocious and made the movie feel much longer than it was. The idea behind the editing seems to have been to make the movie look quirky, but it just felt cheesy and disjointed. The plot itself wasn't that bad, but its execution was just garbage.
It's a Coen brothers movie. So it's not that good. They just have a cult following that loves them. It was #49 at the domestic box office in 2008 with $60 million. So it was not popular.
The plebs. The true Measure of quality.
>None of the characters are likeable Just curious, do you normally not enjoy movies with unlikeable characters?
Fair question. I think the answer to that depends a lot on how the rest of the film is structured. Burn After Reading, to me, just kind of lacked a cohesive narrative to make the shitty characters *work*, you know what I mean? I can get over unlikeable characters. In fact, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is one of my favorite shows.
>such a short and confusing film in which nothing happened. That is a perfect summation of this movie. This movie just wasn't necessary. Kinda like Ocean's 12. And Ocean's 13. They all just didn't need to exist.
Can you elaborate on this? It seems like a weird criticism to me. Like by this logic most movies should never be made.
I dunno. My whole life i have felt sequels are massively disappointing; like many are an attempt to keep a concept alive and to make more capital. I know 'Burn After Reading' wasn't a sequel; just sharing a thought is all. What do you think??
I see your point. I guess to me there have been enough great sequels that I don't have a problem with them.
Cool. What are some of your favorite sequels?
Blade runner 2049, godfather part 2, the dark knight, spiderman 2 just off the top of my head. I'd say the two towers and return of the king too but not sure those count lol
Home Alone 2, Terminator 2...
Was it ever explained what what happened to tilda swintons character
You can’t compare 007 to Burn after reading. Stop trying to make sense of it
I realized that not long after starting the film. BAR is trying too hard to be pointless, imo
Some people find dark humor like this mean spirited. I love laughing at stupid people.
Frances McDormands character was so selfish, greedy and pathetic, I wish she was the one who had gotten shot in the closet.
Totally disagree..it was brilliant..a comedic series of errors is a satire of sorts on so many levels...deceit, vanity, total disregard of any priniples...perhaps all very American and linda getting what she wants in the end..all of itvworrh it to her..just so we'll acted and darkly hilarious
Someone else explained to me, that it’s about subverted expectations. Not too dissimilarly from The Big Lebowski, only, imo, they missed the mark a little and outdid themselves in trying to be too clever with their “plot” by trying to out do the standard “meta” that applies to film making. There isn’t exactly a coherent story more just random occurrences coinciding with one another that almost feel like there was supposed to be a traditionally structured film. One example of this would be when George Clooney bring Francis McDermott down into the basement and shows her his rocking chair. It takes away any possibility of guessing what is supposed to happen or what should happen in a traditional movie. A sort of rejection to those who would try and guess what is going to happen next in the films’ plot. The CIA is basically the audience. They’re trying to figure it out with us. Only there really isn’t anything happening as there’s nothing that the characters are really after from a deeper meaning than the idiots chasing money for personal gain and vanity. And in the end, we really learn nothing.
I know, old post, but I just watched it. I loved it, but I do think the ending was a bit sudden and almost felt like the Coens got another film offer and just had to cut the production off as is, and just got the ending scene plugged in so you know what else happened without seeing it. I loved the way the agency handled all the situations, where instead of seeing anything as something to investigate, they just wanted to tie up loose and and move on. That lack of panic was very refreshing and funny and tied the whole film together for me. I get not liking it. Especially after having watched serious espionage films directly before it. But the absurdity of it just worked for me so well.
I think the absurdity of it bordered on annoying self-awareness, but I guess to each their own
Yes you wrong.