The Coens strike lucky with another hit

Rating: 9/10 (24 March 2009)

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning
CIA big shot Osbourne Cox (John Malkovich) is uncerimoniously fired from his high level job over an apparent drinking problem and tries to solve his woes by writing his memoirs of his time with the agency. He has another problem in the shape of his wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) who's having an affair with Harry (George Clooney) a man he dislikes. Harry meets Linda (Frances McDormand) a gym trainer who's desperate for a man. Unknown to him, she and her work colleague Chad (Brad Pitt) have got their hands on a copy of Osbourne's memoirs...and this plunges them all into a chaotic game of cat and mouse, by turns hilarious and deadly.
You know when you're watching a Coen Brothers film. No other directors can match their unique sense of style and atmosphere. And given most of their films have tended to be good rather than bad, this isn't a bad thing. Though their preferred staple genre would appear to be the thriller mould, they have always toyed with elements of humour and absurdity, and Burn After Reading is the first film of theirs that I thought tended to focus more on this than the thriller part. And, like the long list of thrillers they've made before it, it's a genre they've pulled off well.
As the main character, Malkovich has to carry the film, and as intense a dramatic actor as he can be, here he is given a springboard to show how funny he can be too. His voice and the way he pronounces words, mixed with the awkward and far out situations he finds himself in here, make for comedy gold. In support, Clooney has aged so his good looks aren't something to fall back on so much, but he's his usual chirpy wise guy persona. Coens regular McDormand gives her all in her role too, and there's decent support from Pitt and Swinton as well.
It ends rather abruptly, but by the time it comes, all you're really left wondering is: will the Coens ever make a really 'bad' film? ****