Disappointingly pedantic and boring

Rating: 6/10 (29 October 2008)

Well over a month after seeing it, I am still disappointed by Burn After Reading. The massive amount of talent involved, the fresh from winning Oscars Coen Brothers, and the premise of a classic screwball comedy, should have meant instant gold. But instead, it rather came and went with nearly a whimper.
The film jumps around quite excessively, but basically gets kickstarted after Osbourne Cox (John Malkovich) quits his senior analyst job within the CIA. He gets drunk, annoys his wife Katie (Tilda Swinton), and ends up writing his memoirs. One way or another, a CD with a lot of this material is found in a local gym. Thinking it could be used as leverage towards an expensive plastic surgery bid, trainer Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) (with the help of co-worker Chad (Brad Pitt)) attempt to blackmail him into paying money to get it back. When that does not work, they go to the Russians.
Throw a subplot involving the gym's manager Ted (Richard Jenkins) pining for Litzske, Cox's wife's affair with another CIA agent Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), a whole lot of paranoia and intrigue, and J.K. Simmons, and you basically have what the Coens figured would be an appropriate follow-up to the mesmerizing No Country for Old Men.
The problems only begin to start with the story. The film runs for 95 minutes, but it feels about a half hour longer. About five minutes into the film, I was totally bored. Sure, it had plenty of laughs here and there (and many of the Coens' signature hilariously pitch black moments), but the whole thing just lacks the zest to make it run properly from beginning to end. Hell, even comparing it to The Big Lebowski, a comedy classic ten years after its initial release, is a bit of an insult. While that movie packs laughs with a ridiculously silly story that works, this movie tries to want to give a touch of laughs and a ridiculously silly story that may have worked as an concept on paper, but not on film.
Moments that should be funny are plagued by boredom, and when the emphasis on paranoia begins to sink in, the film only hurts itself more. I am a big fan of the Coens, but watching this almost made me think they may have truly lost their touch. With the exception of No Country, the brothers have yet to make anything remotely better than decent since O Brother, Where Art Thou? almost ten years ago. They clearly still have some creativity left in them, but they are barely polishing any of their movies before churning them out. This film feels like it could have been able to measure up to the greatness of their classics like Lebowski and Fargo, but the magic seems to be missing. It is almost as if they are trying to recreate something they used to have, but no longer can even muster to make work. Yes, the movie is funnier than a lot of the usual film offerings, but at the expense of putting the audience through agonizing torture waiting for the next funny moment. I would like to think that No Country was not merely a fluke, but with something as rushed and pedantic as this, I cannot fathom thinking of it as anything else.
The acting is almost just as disappointing.
I have heard the raves, but as far as I was concerned, McDormand and Swinton were fairly bland in their roles. McDormand gets a lot more to do than Swinton, but both look and sound like they are merely taking up space, and getting ready between takes to grab their money. I usually like McDormand, but her character just seemed so plain and lazy that I could never take her seriously for an instant. This may have been the intent, but when we have to watch the pathos and desperation build for her, I think we can assume she needed to put a little more effort in. Swinton serves as a mere catalyst to the reasoning for the whole film in general, but she is so underused and underwritten it hurts (especially after coming off an Oscar win for Michael Clayton). Even worse, she puts less effort into her performance than McDormand does.
Clooney, while clearly putting more effort into his character, is just too silly for this film. His zany, oversexed nature is a little jarring when it first springs up, but it gets to be a little bit of a handful by the end of the film. He is clearly just trying to ham it up as someone who may or may not be a close representation of the real-life Clooney, but the results of this bizarre attempt are hit and miss. Malkovich on the other hand, gives a valiant effort with his character. Although his character is nowhere near as important in the second half as he is in the first, he shines rather brightly within the cast as someone who takes the role seriously, but clearly has the ability to play funny too. I think if the focus reverted and stayed on Malkovich the whole time, he could have made up for more than enough faults the film has.
As it stands however, Pitt is the one who steals the movie. Playing totally out of character, his silly performance is the only real reason anyone should sit through the movie (and the criminally underused Simmons). His weird portrayal fits in very well, and is nowhere near as jarring as Clooney's. Pitt is clearly having fun, and is giving it his all to convince everyone that he is playing the anti-Brad Pitt. It is just too bad that he is negated to being a mere supporting character to the rest of the cast. If they all worked with one screw loose and put in some effort like he does, the movie could have actually been worthwhile.
6/10.