Even a "bad" Coen Brothers movie...

Rating: 8/10 (8 January 2009)

...is better than other "good" movies.
Yeah, I'll admit that "Burn" is a little weak; not operatic, like "No Country," which at least was based on a piece of well-turned literature.
I watched "Burn," and felt that I'd been sort of burned. But over time it starts to grow on you.
There's a common thread to the Coen's films: They're all about the primacy of the human spirit. Sure, they tend to take up themes in which this truth is showcased in negative situations, but spirit continues to be the focus; the Coens see to that.
And that's the simple message in "Burn." There's one particularly salutary side effect of this emphasis in a spooked-themed movie. The anti-"Burn" movie could be, for instance, "Enemy of the State." I mentioned this in another of my comments. "Enemy" commits the sin of hewing to the convention that what we really want is to be reminded that "they"--you, know, "them"--are out get "us." And "Enemy" goes to insanely high-production, high-dollar ends to drive that theme a mile into the ground.
The Coens will never do this. They will never, ever let us off the hook; that sharp little hook that is the eternal truth that we are responsible for what we choose to see, and are therefore responsible for who we allow ourselves to become. And for that, I'm thankful. And that is a redeeming aspect of "Burn." It's another notch on the handle of the crossbow the Coens use to shoot down the most sacred of the human race's sacred cows: That we can--nay, must!--point to someone else and blame them for our oppression.
So, I guess my net impression is that, "Burn" is a sort of yawpy romp, but in the Coen tradition; which means that this yawpy romp is better than other more "serious" films which nonetheless commit the error of encouraging us in our blindness.