Movie Review: Burn After Reading

Continuing with the movie reviews, today I'm gonna tackle the new Coen Bros. movie. Be warned, in case you haven't already noticed, my reviews come off as too film studies-esque to be funny, and too stupid to be interesting. Oh well, here goes.

The Good: The acting was superb and not a rehash of typecasted roles. A star-studded ensemble cast including "the Cloon" and ol' dreamboat Pitt somehow NOT being related to theft of large sums of money? (well, that's arguable, but lets not ruin the movie for those who haven't seen it yet) Quite refreshing and all the actors are genuinely exciting to watch. Tilda Swinton was just that creepy Constantine version of Archangel Gabriel before I saw this one, and now I'm starting to buy into the hype. I'm drinkin' the Swinton Kool-Aid! John Malkovich continues to show us exactly why many of us truly wish we were Being John Malkovich. But, you know, less weird. Brad Pitt is his usual charming self, and George Clooney manages to play the sleazeball role quite well. Even J.K Simmons' role as the confused C.I.A suit is f-ing hilarious, and just serves to reinforce my belief that audiences just love to see Simmons swearing.

The story itself was quite good. Two parts Fargo, two parts spy movie spoof and one part David-Lynchian suburban seediness and you've got yourself a mixture pretty close to this movie. The Coen Brothers once again delve into the heart of American culture through its side-splitting portrayal of Bribery, Adultery, Theft and Divorce, and the sad realization that half the crap that we do is done for no real reason.

I don't think I even need to talk about the directing. It's a fucking Coen Brothers movie.

The Bad: The movie is a little bit slow to start. But just like Clue, while the film's action doesn't really get started until halfway through the movie, the narrative slowly builds steam and completely blows you away.

Many of the scenes seem overly reliant on the performances of the actors, and give the impression that they just sort of left the camera on and let John Malkovich be his usual tempramental self. In the hands of a less skilled cast, this movie could've been REALLY bad. Like Guy Ritchie bad.

OVERALL: Quite possibly the best movie I've seen this year (yes, Dark Knight included), and definitely one I'm going to buy once it's out on DVD.

9.5/10

Movie Review: Tropic Thunder

I haven't touched this blog in a long time, but after watching 107 minutes (122 with trailers!) of this movie, I felt possessed enough to write up a review.

THE GOOD: Each performance in the film is exceptionally well done. Each character plays their part well and had meaningful contributions to the film. Robert Downey Jr. shines in his role as the eccentric "dude-playing-a-dude-playing-another-dude", Kirk Lazarus. While the trailer prepared me for potentially rehashed versions of each the actors' prior characters, every member of the cast excelled at portraying more than the roles I expected from them. The film also does an excellent job of absolutely skewering the inside politics of Hollywood. From Tom Cruise's excellent portrayal of a Harvey Weinstein-esque director, to the aforementioned Downey Jr. part-Russell Crowe/part-Daniel Day-Lewis classic method actor taking his role to seriously, to Matthew McConaghey's doggedly persistent Agent to Ben Stiller's character, the film attacks the state of the modern movie industry as one that has lost its focus.

THE BAD: There's so much about the film that, if better thought out, could have made this film what it was meant to be. Oh, where to begin? Maybe I should talk about how the narrative was sloppy and unfocused. Or for you english majors out there, how about the not-so-subtle theme of authenticity running throughout the movie? Thanks, Mr. Stiller, Hollywood is fake. We really had no idea. But hey, we're just a naive modern audience that's really only looking for the scenes of a severed head mounted atop a gun.

Maybe the the real problem with the film is the fact that it's just too ambitious and too poorly executed to really provide any real substance. Good for the actors: They come out of their ordeal as better men, who have come to terms with the lies that Hollywood has forced them into, and will now make an effort to be more true to themselves. They choose to reject what Hollywood has made them into, and rid themselves of the corruption that has consumed their lives. And how are these changed men rewarded? Ben Stiller gets an Oscar? What the fuck? I don't know if that's some kind of twisted irony, or just a really poorly thought out plot hole. The fact that a good portion of the film consists of fart jokes and panda killing leads me to think it's more of the latter.

Is the film a gritty satire of the cesspool that is Hollywood as we know it? Or is the film just a low-brow comedy, an excuse for Ben Stiller to bring a bunch of the big boys together for an old-fashioned laugh fest in the toilet? Since the filmmakers seem to be okay with being precariously perched on the fence, I hope they're okay with my rating too:

5/10