Sim1Slow "Burn" to Start Fall Season
September 15th 2008 05:19
All I've been hearing for weeks was how genius the Coen brothers new movie, Burn After Reading was. It was hysterically funny, brilliantly goofy and charmingly quirky. But you see, sometimes hype works on a 2-way street. Sometimes it can build up an idea to be something that no movie, or person, or book or anything can match. Such was the case when I went to go see Burn, expecting the funniest movie I have seen since Forgetting Sarah Marshall hit the screen.
Now don't get me wrong, I am a fan of the Coen brothers and I did enjoy Burn. However, I think it was mistakenly billed as a laugh-a-minute comedy. The way the Coen brothers shape their humor, is not to give in solely to cheap laughs. They create characters and situations that are funny over time, with reactions or simply given the situation. Sure, there are some on-sight laughs, like George Clooney's present to his wife, or Brad Pitt running on the trampoline, but most of those laughs have been played out in previews the last few months. The remaining jokes take the shape of facial reactions, and the characters being placed in amusing situations. It creates funny moments, but not a comedic masterpiece.
The film, as one would expect, is very well acted. A very slim George Clooney is superbly frantic as ex-agent Harry Pfarrer, while Brad Pitt is back to his goofy, comedic spasms as Chad Fledheimer, a trainer at Hard Bodies gym. (See this is where Coen brother humor plays in, as Hard Bodies might also give the connotation of a strip club, which pokes fun at the similarities between gym and strip joint). John Malkovich is similarly engrossing as Osborne Cox, a disgruntled, ex-CIA agent and Coen brothers leading lady Frances McDormand is exceptional as bumbling, make-over needy, Linda Litzke. On the other end of the spectrum is Tilda Swinton, who seems to play the exact same role she did in Michael Clayton. Her, Katie Cox is so cold and miserable, that she has no redeeming qualities about her. You hope all movie that she will be hacked up, or thrown in a grinder in typical Coen-style.
The Coen's don't disappoint with shockingly out-of-nowhere violence that is typical of all their movies. It jars the audience, but only enough to keep them on their toes and make them re-think whether they really understand what is going on.
While humor doesn't drive this movie, it doesn't necessarily need to. The characters the Coen's have built are engrossing and interesting enough to carry the movie. In a situation in which nobody seems to know what is going on and everybody seems to be over their head, laughs are bound to come. What makes the Coen brothers great is when they don't try to force those jokes, but let them emerge organically. When Burn does this, it is a true joy to watch.
In the end, the Coen brothers have taken a movie about (as scene-stealer J.K. Simmons points out) nothing really important and turned it into an enjoyable experience. It's not just something that'll have you in fits of laughter.
Now don't get me wrong, I am a fan of the Coen brothers and I did enjoy Burn. However, I think it was mistakenly billed as a laugh-a-minute comedy. The way the Coen brothers shape their humor, is not to give in solely to cheap laughs. They create characters and situations that are funny over time, with reactions or simply given the situation. Sure, there are some on-sight laughs, like George Clooney's present to his wife, or Brad Pitt running on the trampoline, but most of those laughs have been played out in previews the last few months. The remaining jokes take the shape of facial reactions, and the characters being placed in amusing situations. It creates funny moments, but not a comedic masterpiece.
The film, as one would expect, is very well acted. A very slim George Clooney is superbly frantic as ex-agent Harry Pfarrer, while Brad Pitt is back to his goofy, comedic spasms as Chad Fledheimer, a trainer at Hard Bodies gym. (See this is where Coen brother humor plays in, as Hard Bodies might also give the connotation of a strip club, which pokes fun at the similarities between gym and strip joint). John Malkovich is similarly engrossing as Osborne Cox, a disgruntled, ex-CIA agent and Coen brothers leading lady Frances McDormand is exceptional as bumbling, make-over needy, Linda Litzke. On the other end of the spectrum is Tilda Swinton, who seems to play the exact same role she did in Michael Clayton. Her, Katie Cox is so cold and miserable, that she has no redeeming qualities about her. You hope all movie that she will be hacked up, or thrown in a grinder in typical Coen-style.
The Coen's don't disappoint with shockingly out-of-nowhere violence that is typical of all their movies. It jars the audience, but only enough to keep them on their toes and make them re-think whether they really understand what is going on.
While humor doesn't drive this movie, it doesn't necessarily need to. The characters the Coen's have built are engrossing and interesting enough to carry the movie. In a situation in which nobody seems to know what is going on and everybody seems to be over their head, laughs are bound to come. What makes the Coen brothers great is when they don't try to force those jokes, but let them emerge organically. When Burn does this, it is a true joy to watch.
In the end, the Coen brothers have taken a movie about (as scene-stealer J.K. Simmons points out) nothing really important and turned it into an enjoyable experience. It's not just something that'll have you in fits of laughter.
| 74 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
