Burn After Reading *Spoilers*

JezChan

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
3,737
Location
Australia -> USA
Yeah, I know it's already been mentioned in a few threads, but seriously, wtf is this movie on about?

I don't see the point of it, and I don't really understand the humour in it when everyone gets involved in some intricate web of "sensitive shit". Two (three) people end up dead and the final outcome is that Linda gets her surgery?

Someone please explain; am I really missing the point?
 
JezChan said:
Yeah, I know it's already been mentioned in a few threads, but seriously, wtf is this movie on about?

I don't see the point of it, and I don't really understand the humour in it when everyone gets involved in some intricate web of "sensitive shit". Two (three) people end up dead and the final outcome is that Linda gets her surgery?

Someone please explain; am I really missing the point?
Click to expand...

I think you just gave a nice summary of what that movie is really about. It's kinda about nothing. Strange thing is I absolutely enjoyed it.
 
Brad Pitt was fecking funny. I thought the movie was pretty good, I think it was a commentary on some of crazy shit that can happen in life.
 
I was stoned when watching. Funniest movie ive ever seen.If i was at baseline it may have been shite... i never want to know. It was the subtleness of humour revolving around the nothing that happened that was funny.
 
Finally watched this today. What a disappointment. I think I laughed twice, maybe three times.

It felt like someone tried to make a Tarantino movie but failed miserably.
 
I didn't much care for this the first time I watched it. Caught it again recently on TV and it was a much better watch.
 
cw1984 said:
Finally watched this today. What a disappointment. I think I laughed twice, maybe three times.

It felt like someone tried to make a Tarantino movie but failed miserably.
Click to expand...

You failed miserably. Never seen a Coen Brothers film before? It's almost exactly like all of their other films in terms of plotting and dialogue. The ending was pretty much the same as the ending to all their other films as well, but with a bit of a tongue-in-cheek admission of as much.

Personally I enjoyed it. It's not their best film by any stretch, mind.
 
JezChan said:
Yeah, I know it's already been mentioned in a few threads, but seriously, wtf is this movie on about?

I don't see the point of it, and I don't really understand the humour in it when everyone gets involved in some intricate web of "sensitive shit". Two (three) people end up dead and the final outcome is that Linda gets her surgery?

Someone please explain; am I really missing the point?
Click to expand...

Its the biggest pile of shit i've ever seen. The film should be called Burn after watching. Its pure drivel!
 
The fact that people such as the OP, CW, RHD and my Dad were so infuriated by this film actually added to my enjoyment of it considerably. Why do people seem to want everything explained to them and wrapped up with a happy ending when it comes to films? My dad said "What's the point of it?". What's the point of anything?
 
decorativeed said:
The fact that people such as the OP, CW, RHD and my Dad were so infuriated by this film actually added to my enjoyment of it considerably. Why do people seem to want everything explained to them and wrapped up with a happy ending when it comes to films? My dad said "What's the point of it?". What's the point of anything?
Click to expand...

I just thought it was shit man, same as the Curious Case of Benjamin Button - both just happened to have Pitt in them, an actor i quite like aswell. I may well give it another looksee, but i may need a bag of ganje tho, its seemed to work for Fortboyard & i may need that shit also... in fact yeah i would need it to watch it again...
 
Same as in Benjamin Button? In what way was it same? Benjamin Button wasn't a comedy. It was a story about a man who aged backwards. Simple as that. A narrative.
 
I think he's saying he thought it was shit; he also thought Benjamin Button was shit.

I enjoyed Burn After Reading. Some quality performances, and I got what I expected.
 
I love that whenever someone calls a movie shit it must be because they "didn't get it." :rolleyes:

Grow up eh?
 
You don't get it mate.

Only messing, but have you seen any other film by the Coen Brothers? If so, surely the tone and themes of the film would have come as no surprise and you would not have made the sub-tarantino comparison.
 
AlwynP said:
I think he's saying he thought it was shit; he also thought Benjamin Button was shit.

I enjoyed Burn After Reading. Some quality performances, and I got what I expected.
Click to expand...

That's odd. Bringing up a random movie he also thought wasn't good. Doesn't make any sense.

Like saying. I like Star Wars. Good movie. Lightsabers are cool. Force and what not. I like turtles.
 
decorativeed said:
You don't get it mate.

Only messing, but have you seen any other film by the Coen Brothers? If so, surely the tone and themes of the film would have come as no surprise and you would not have made the sub-tarantino comparison.
Click to expand...

I don't claim to be any sort of movie expert. I just know what I do and don't like. I'm not sure if I've seen any Coen brothers movies. It's not something I pay much attention too.

I just got that Tarantino feel whilst watching it, only not executed half as well.
 
Tarantino-like in what way? Do you mean because there were a lot of characters with their own plots running around?
 
I'm not suggesting you don't "get it" because you are thick or that you have to be an expert. Loads of perfectly inteligent and well rounded individuals will not like or "get" this film. I don't "get" a lot of films because they don't appeal to me. Lots of people love Lord of the Rings. I hate it and find it to be interminably dull. I don't "get" wizards and dwarves and a massive plot hole at the end of a 9-hour epic.

I would not call those films "shit" though just because they are not to my taste.

Also, the Coen brothers have been making films in a similar vein since 1984 - 8 years before Tarantino made his first feature. If anything you could say Reservior Dogs felt like someone tried to make a Coen brothers movie but failed miserably. Or I could complain that I didn't like the Lord of the Rings because it felt like someone was trying to make a Harry Potter film but failed miserably.

You say it was a disappointment, so presumably you had some expectations about it, was it recommended by someone or what? Did you go out of your way to watch it or catch it on TV?

This film sits in the ground somewhere between Fargo and the Big Lebowski and more light-hearted Coen films like the Ladykillers or Raising Arizona. Almost all of these share similar themes and elements - kidnap, extortion, violence, a MacGuffin and several characters that are complete idiots. A great combo. Tarantino films use most of the above as well, so I suppose the comparison is not ridiculous. There's just less absurd humour in his stuff and a lot of it is pastiche/homage.
 
Yeh. Lots of characters with their own thing going on but that is all linked and heading to the same conclusion.
 
QT is a blagger, a very skilful and creative one...but still a blagger. The Coen's are original film-makers who've always come up with films that are worth seeing.
 
These bits I liked





Not a big fan of the Coen's. Love The Big Lebowski though.
 
decorativeed said:
You don't get it mate.

Only messing, but have you seen any other film by the Coen Brothers? If so, surely the tone and themes of the film would have come as no surprise and you would not have made the sub-tarantino comparison.
Click to expand...

Saw the Big Lebowski and loved it. Whilst I do agree that both movies are basically, much ado about nothing, to me Lebowski had more weight about it. There was more of an emotional connection with the characters and the plot itself.

I haven't seen Burn After Reading since, but from what I can recall, there seemed to be too much going on; that the Coen brothers overdid it. Perhaps time for another viewing?
 
Maybe. I'm not saying it was as good as the Big Lebowski or that it is some kind of overlooked classic. I have only seen it once when it came out at the cinema, so might rewatch it myself soon.
 
Red Hand Devil said:
I just thought it was shit man, same as the Curious Case of Benjamin Button - both just happened to have Pitt in them, an actor i quite like aswell. I may well give it another looksee, but i may need a bag of ganje tho, its seemed to work for Fortboyard & i may need that shit also... in fact yeah i would need it to watch it again...
Click to expand...

:(

I love both these movies
 
Wasn't a fan of this ... but then I disagree with those saying you know what you're getting with the Coens. There tend to be two very different Coens, on one hand making films like Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski, The Ladykillers, O Brother etc and on the other making films like Miller's Crossing, No Country for Old Men, A Serious Man etc.

Not to get over-analytical but I think they're the Radiohead of film! They try too hard to challenge, to twist and play with the rules of the medium and therefore don't quite satisfy as much as many of their earlier works. On top of that they seem to have forgotten how to create sympathetic characters so I don't really care what happens to them. I'd say that's been a problem right back since The Man Who Wasn't There and is the main problem of Burn After Reading. All only my opinion of course.
 
All good points. All their films do tend to share a lot of the same elements though, but they are handled in varying degrees of seriousness. Except, really for A Serious Man (I think - I can't remember too much about it now). It does have the common theme of the life of the main character getting out of their control though and the film ending without any resolution.

Agree to some extent about the sympathetic characters. That's what spoilied No Country For Old Men for me really. I couldn' care less about any of those people and because it was a departure stylistically (especially in terms of the lack of their idiosyncratic dialogue) I was disappointed with it. Also, we know not to get too attached to anyone in a Coen Brothers film, so you tend not o form emotional attachments to any character nowadays.

I also think they are at their best when producing original work rather than remakes and adaptations. I disagree about The Man Who Wasn't There, though. I always though Ed Crane was a fairly sympathetic guy really.
 
decorativeed said:
I'm not suggesting you don't "get it" because you are thick or that you have to be an expert. Loads of perfectly inteligent and well rounded individuals will not like or "get" this film. I don't "get" a lot of films because they don't appeal to me. Lots of people love Lord of the Rings. I hate it and find it to be interminably dull. I don't "get" wizards and dwarves and a massive plot hole at the end of a 9-hour epic.

I would not call those films "shit" though just because they are not to my taste.

Also, the Coen brothers have been making films in a similar vein since 1984 - 8 years before Tarantino made his first feature. If anything you could say Reservior Dogs felt like someone tried to make a Coen brothers movie but failed miserably. Or I could complain that I didn't like the Lord of the Rings because it felt like someone was trying to make a Harry Potter film but failed miserably.

You say it was a disappointment, so presumably you had some expectations about it, was it recommended by someone or what? Did you go out of your way to watch it or catch it on TV?

This film sits in the ground somewhere between Fargo and the Big Lebowski and more light-hearted Coen films like the Ladykillers or Raising Arizona. Almost all of these share similar themes and elements - kidnap, extortion, violence, a MacGuffin and several characters that are complete idiots. A great combo. Tarantino films use most of the above as well, so I suppose the comparison is not ridiculous. There's just less absurd humour in his stuff and a lot of it is pastiche/homage.
Click to expand...

I'll just start by saying I never called it shit, just a big disappointment.

Also, from what people have said in here I'm not sure I've seen any other Coen movie. Certainly not any of the movies mentioned unless Benjamin Button was a Coen movie.

It was a disappointment purely based on the trailer and cast. I had no idea what to expect (other than I was told it was a comedy) but what I did see I wasn't a fan of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.