Film can be the most fun.

One of the most interesting things about film is how we use them to work out who we are. I'm interested in certain notions of complex abstract reasoning, but the simpler, more obvious stuff is fun too. One of those "simple" things is national identity. And there is hardly a better case than how the British defined themselves during the great war. While France rolled over and most Europeans were left to define themselves as humans instead of citizens, the English really turned to film as a nation.

One of the most interesting appropriations was Sherlock Holmes. He has a singular importance in the history of literature, both in terms of placing a discoverer of story in the story, and in terms of being a representative of the (then) new notion that people are motivated and act rationally.

So any movie with Holmes in it, no matter how casual, is loaded, and this one is loaded by bulldozers. Holmes is transported from Victorian times to then modern times. His nemesis here is the guy who played his old opponent: Moriarty.

And there are other transpositions as well. Holmes' interest in science is transformed to a focus on technology, here microfilm, high tech for the time. And the action  after some homeland establishing shots (including a loving mother)  is transported from the UK to the US. And that's the interesting part, because when you are defining your nature, you have the choice by defining it against others.

In this case, we have a parade of American stereotypes. Since it was absolutely clear that the Americans were saving the Brits from extinction, this is done with less edge than usual. But we still have the bullmoose loud senator, the dippy but earnest girlie, the solid naval officer and such. These are woven around landmarks of Washington.

But one stereotype is particularly of interest. In the 40's in the US, black men were railroad porters. By a lucky accident, it was a way to earn decent money, be relatively cosmopolitan but still stay in a role of servitude. These were Jim Crow days in the US, a bad time, a time of canker. So depicting the necessary black man in this film was handled with some sensitivity. The British filmmakers followed the form of polite deference, but with less bowing and scraping than in an America movie of the era.

But check out who plays the black porter. He's George Muse, perhaps the least servile black man in the business at the time, someone who would go on to earn a doctorate. Someone who refused to give an inch on basic respect. I think the Brits in charge of production, who did the US portions in California with DC projected on screens behind, would have been amused. The savior of the world, with this huge blot.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.


Once again Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce deliver the goods in "Sherlock Holmes in Washington." I like this film from 1943.... A great cast that includes Henry Daniell, George Zucco and some other fine actors of note......

If I have any gripe at all about the series of 'Holmes' films that Rathbone and Bruce made is, they are all between 60 to 75 minutes long.... To me, that means rather short... I'd prefer longer scripts and films that run at least 80 to 90 minutes long.... For the 1940s, that is a normal run......

I love these old-time co-stars like "Henry Daniell, George Zucco, Lionel Atwill & Dennis Hoey." All them guys were pluses for the series of 'Holmes' films produced from 1939 to 1946...... Good quality there...

MR.BILL


Purist fans of Arthur Conan Doyle's legendary detective Sherlock Holmes usually heap scorn and derision on Sherlock Holmes In Washington as it is not based in any way on one of Conan Doyle's stories. It is clearly an inferior product and I'm by no means a Holmes purist.

But this was wartime and it would only be natural that world's most famous detective be called on to lend his services overseas when a British agent carrying a vital document disappears, but not before he passes it on to an unsuspecting Marjorie Lord on a train. Holmes and Watson go to America at the behest of British Intelligence to find out just what happened.

Holmes and Watson dressed in their Victorian/Edwardian attire seem dreadfully out of place in wartime Washington, DC. Still with the keen intelligence that Holmes has and Basil Rathbone brings to the role, those enemies of democracy had no idea what they were dealing with.

As a bow to current radio favorites, Thurston Hall plays a bloviating southern senator very much along the lines of Senator Claghorn from the Fred Allen radio show. Might have been even more interesting if Kenny Delmar who originated that character had been in Sherlock Holmes In Washington. Still Thurston Hall was quite good, possibly the best thing from this film.

After some wartime propaganda films, the Basil Rathbone-Nigel Bruce Sherlock Holmes movies got back to some of Conan Doyle's stories as the material for the films. Good thing too.


It seems to me that which ever Sherlock Holmes {Rathbone} film I watch there is always comments on the site stating it's one of the weaker in the series !!, it really just goes to show how we are all different as regards our love of the series because to me this entry is far from being weak. It has a very tidy plot that takes our delightful duo to America and contains one of my favourite sequences as we watch a (critical to the plot) book of matches go from person to person at a social gathering. Holmes gets to act up as an eccentric art collector and Watson does what he does best, comedy relief. The ending perhaps could of packed a bigger punch for me personally, but all in all it's yer above average detective drama acted out with the usual style from the regulars, 7/10.


Beginning with the usual explanation/apology as to why Holmes exists in the 'modern' day, the film has the character travel to Washington to help solve where a British Secret Service agent hid a precious microfilm. It's not exactly Conan Doyle but it's very fast moving and sharply written.

Unfortunately there are not many moments of atmosphere and the film is blandly shot like any other 40s movie and doesn't affect an air of mystery. Watson is a bit more of a comical buffoon than usual, but I find it entertaining even if it doesn't fit the original image of the character.

The patriotic speech at the end (typical of the modern, WWII Sherlock Holmes movies) does feel tacked on and is pretty damn unsubtle.


It is neat to share in Holmes' American adventure and Watson's observations of American life. A historic view of Washington buildings is also interesting. Can watch several times.

I particularly enjoy the scenes on the train in the US where Holmes determines the location of the various people while Watson acts out who they are.

I also enjoy the way the story deals with the aspects of the British courier/ secret agent, Alfred Pettibone, of Parlow, Nash, Parlow. The scenes at his apartment where Holmes figures out why they need to go to America, the scene where Pettibone is getting on the plane and when abducted on the train are well done and entertaining. I thought the story moves along better than most of the others in this series.


This movie has exactly the right balance between horror and humor and, more importantly, between revealing too much and revealing too little. Some questions are answered at the end, but some are not, and I for one like that some are not. It is not a pat, boil-in-the-bag horror movie. It is intelligent and requires that you pay attention, but it's not as if that's terribly hard to do, because it succeeds in being entertaining throughout. Those expecting pornographic vivisections will be disappointed; compared to movies like "Hellraiser," this film is more rightly classified as "psychological thriller" than horror. It remains an excellent movie, however, and if you don't get it maybe you ought to watch again. Pay a bit more attention next time.


'The Magus' meets 'Twelve Monkeys' meets 'Peeping Tom' meets 'No Such Thing.'

Give this film a chance. Sure it is clumsily produced, numbly acted and ineptly directed. Most films are, but the writer is working on something interesting here. What 'the Cube' was to staging, this is to plot twists. And unlike 'Memento' or 'Mulholland Drive,' there is no single 'explanation.'

Start with this thought: someone in the play wrote the play, but to everyone else, the pages are blank. Whose perspective are we following?

The simple answer is that some mysterious Dr. Ek is manipulating the situation with drugs and actors. But wait! The actors (and Ek and house) are imaginary because someone is manipulating the whole thing directly with noodles into the brain. But if there is manipulation or noodling, it is to get the book (the script) which has mystical powers of creation. But wait! If the book has such powers, probably the whole thing is a matter of psychic hallucination resulting from a ritual interaction with the book. In this case, the solution is simple.

But wait! The book comes with the house, the house forcing Trevor to write the book, then forming the basis of nearly all the vision and forcing him to write constantly to populate it. This is one of the two novel ideas: that the house is one of the possible powers behind the thing. Orson Welles worked with this. A few haunted house films. 'Belly of an Architect,' for instance. Few others, but highly intellectual.

The other clever idea is that several forces are at war to control and tell us the story. Trevor, Ek, the book, the house. No one in particular wins and the movie you see depends a lot on how you see the world. '2001' used this trick (HAL, the humans, and the aliens) but most famously in popular film : 'Children of Paradise.'

This is one of the few films I know which would have been improved with less nudity. Its just too clunky and unnatural and it distracts from the cleverness. But about that nudity: the second time I saw this was from a DVD rented from Blockbuster. As with many direct-to-video projects, Blockbuster cuts out some nudity in versions manufactured specifically for them. Still pretty shocking in one spot though.

This film follows 'Blair Witch 2' in sophistication of nested and warring narratives and makes me impressed by the ability of kids today to manage these abstract notions.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.


Trevor (Andras Jones from Nightmare on Elm Street 4 and Sorority babes in the Slimeball Bowl-a-Rama) kills his girlfriend and is sentenced to a stay in the half way house for loons by Dr. Elk (genre staple Jeffrey Combs). But things are not nearly what they seem. I wanted to like this I really did, and to it's merit it did start off rather well, but as it went on it became a casualty of too many twists spoiling the stew. The ending is anti-climatic as well and left me thinking "Is that it???" I read that this is a 'thinking persons' horror film. I'm sorry but that's pretty laughable as anyone with half a brain could follow it. Mindfu@k movies can be good, when they have a point to them (ie. Fight Club, the Twin peaks series) But this isn't one of those.And Seth Green isn't really the best actor in the world to put it diplomatically.

My Grade: C-

DVD Extras: both widescreen and fullscreen versions; behind the scenes featurette; and Theatrical trailer

Eye Candy: Beth Bates shows everything, Shannon Cleary goes full frontal


(SPOILER ALERT ...)

This movie is about the hero's (Trevor's) need to extricate his soul from a demonic/satanic ritual. That is, after killing Faith, he aborts said ritual (by not killing himself), putting his soul in limbo. The mad scientist somehow finds this out and kidnaps him to find the book used for the ritual. The (incarnate) earthly and trapped parts of his soul wake up from the mad scientist's implantation surgery (which is supposed to allow the mad scientist to read Trevor's thoughts(?)) at almost the same time. (To see this, note that the earthly part wakes up from the implantation surgery just before the one nurse says that her shift is over, while the tormented half wakes up two or three seconds later, just after.) Further evidence that they awaken in parallel realities is that the residents and principals of the "House of Love" introduce themselves to Trevor the second times he awakens, whereas Trevor already knows them. Trevor's knocking on both sides of the trunk (later on) further illustrates this point.

Trevor must reunite his ripped, tormented soul. Unwilling to relieve this tension by letting Faith kill him--to complete the ritual--he follows his dreams/visions. He therefore gravitates to the trunk in the attic. The significance of the trunk is revealed in the magic attached to it, which is revealed in the implicit inability of the mad scientist and others, and the explicit inability of Douglas, to open it; the trunk is controlled by a force which allows only Trevor to use it. Inexorably, the pieces of his soul meet (on either side of the opening to the trunk) and unify. Trevor's torment, and the film, abruptly resolve. His painful dreams evaporate and he regains his earthly existence.


I just finished watching the DVD and can't wait to see it again! Jeremy Kasten does a great job for his first movie. He creates an atmospheric, unsettling, and at times just plain weird journey into subjective reality. The film has a certain insecure tension -- just when you think you're putting it together, Kasten throws in another piece of the puzzle and you have to re-think what you thought you knew. I enjoy films that don't spoon-feed me the answers, but rather allow me to draw my own conclusions. I also like the use of the unreliable narrator...the last 20 minutes is a roller-coaster ride! Jeffrey Combs is absolutely perfect as Doctor Ek, and Seth Green is hilarious yet unnerving as the mysterious Douglas. Seth always brings multiple levels to his characters, and I rate this as one of his best performances. Don't be put off by the fact that this movie may be referred to as "low budget" - in my opinion, that fact makes the production all that more sincere. The DVD will give those with a home theater system a good workout and add to the overall experience...and watch it after the sun goes down with all the lights out too!


Again, we see what could be a really good movie fail. This time a "new" director decides to "break the mold" and be "stylish" and "edgy". What does this mean? It means that someone will take a small budget, second rate actors and a horribly written script and make a movie that is a miasma of looks and scenes that confuse you. You will then be told how clever it is and that you didn't get it. You, however, are in the majority, as this thing runs, not walks, straight to video. So learn the catch words people "Edgy, stylish, innovative, clever" = "Not released in theatres because people would riot"


The Attic Expeditions was a superb film, from first time director Jeremy Kasten. I was first interested in this film because Seth Green was starring in it, but i got a lot more than i bargained for. I am literally speechless about this film. It is a wonderfully written script with characters that engulf you in their world. The plot is full of twists and turns, and really makes you think. Make sure to be awake when you watch! The movie doesn't make sense until the last scene of the movie, so don't give up. I wouldn't recommend the movie for younger viewers, considering it deals with adult themes. There is nudity, swearing, drug use, violence, gore, and sexual scenes, along with some things that would just freak a kid out.


The Attic Expeditions is filled with symbolism and hidden meanings. Each backdrop, costume, and film angle enhances the story-line of this rich film. It has a taste of everything from a slasher's gore to a drama's character conflict, all wrapped up in a web of instability and confusion that would make Hitchcock proud. From the moment the film started to its final scene, The Attic Expeditions had my rapt attention. I still see its scenes playing back in my mind as I try to wrap my thoughts around the plot. Finally, a horror movie in the classic tradition of unsettling fear that stays with you for months after you see the film. I can't wait to see it again.


I recently saw "The Attic Expeditions at DragonCon in Atlanta, Georgia.

Fans of the horror genre should definitely check this film out. It's not a "blood and guts" film, but one that takes your inner fears and smacks you in the face with them.

The movie is stylishly directed by first-time director, Jeremy Kasten. His work as an editor over the last several years gave him the eye that he needed to direct this film. I really liked his use of the camera as a character. Some directors tend to over-use it to try to make a point. Kasten takes you to that point, but pulls back before going over the top, a point that he deserves much credit for.

The script is very clever to say the least. With bits of humor spread throughout (mostly delivered by Seth Green), the story pulls you in unlike most of the genre pieces that are floating around these days.

With great performances by Green, Andras Jones, Jeffrey Combs, Ted Raimi, and a wonderful cameo by Alice Cooper, the film is exactly what the horror genre needs these days.


Kasten is a first timer. It shows. He has no handle on how to pace a story nor how to create sympathy with characters. Things happen in this film for no reason other than to further the plot. Characters themselves never rise above the one dimensional and the acting is wooden. A brief 30 seconds of Alice Cooper is the only redeeming feature. Having seen an advance screening at a film festival the words 'Straight to video' spring to mind.


A very stylish movie that takes a lot of themes and meshes them with some success. First time director Kasten shows that he is someone to watch in the future. The performances are generally good especially Jeffrey Combs & Seth Green.

I would like to see this movie again, just for the fact that I saw it as part of an all night film fest, and my brain wasn't functioning properly. I have the feeling that I might have missed some of the subtle points in the movie. But however, it kept my attention for the whole running time.

8/10


Circles within circles, metaphors for metaphors. Blood and gore. It is a joy to watch a film that dares leave things to the imagination. The Attic Expeditions refrains from explaining too clearly what is going on. The basic plot is obvious enough: magician has magic book, does bad thing, gets amnesia. Evil brain doctor wants magic book and orchestrates nefarious plot to drive magician insane.

There is more to the film that just that, and it is not always clear what is real and what is not. Cleverly revisiting plot elements and using circularity to great effect, The Attic Expeditions keeps the attention from start to finish.

Jeffrey Combs is perfectly typecast as the therapist with an interest in the arcane arts and Ted Raimi makes a very good counter-balance to him as his observer. The acting through-out is good - where it may seem occasionally woody, this turns out to be appropriate. Seth Green is great and his character gets some very good lines. Watch out for the scene in the play room, where Seth and Andras Jones walk round and round the sofa. It is one continuous shot.


I thought this might be funny going in, and Taye Diggs got a few laughs out of me, but I will never understand this whole "act black" thing. First off, I am black- I don't act like that. I speak well and I don't do hip hop and I'm not into rap. To shock you further, I'm also in my mid-twenties. However, so many people believe that all black folks are like that, and there are a lot of "posers" out there who try to act that way. It's not "acting black." It's "acting poor." Because that's how poor folks in the ghetto act, black, white, green, whoever. The trailer park folks aren't too far off, the accent's a little different and the lingo is a bit different. But riddle me this: go to the 'hood, and go to the trailer park, and write a list of things you'll see in common that have nothing to do with skin color: i.e. the Lexus outside the shotgun house vs. the Viper outside the trailer. And about the movie...well, it's kinda like hanging with Mary Jane, you lose a few brain cells, and forget the entire experience. King Kong definitely got something on this one.


I really thought this was a great comedy. It gave a great slap in the face to rich white kids who want to be thugs. It had a great cast,and a lot of funny cameo's. I think the writing was brilliant and Taye Digs and Anthony Anderson stole the movie. Too funny!


This movie is about as serious as 'Dude Where's My Car?' or 'Dumb and Dumber', if you didn't like those then you won't like this. On the other hand, if you have an open mind and like 'stupid comedy' films then you are in for a treat.

The acting in this movie is pretty good for the most part, Jamie Kennedy is extremly talented at being a homie g and he never lets up. I also liked some of the familiar faces I saw, like Anthony Anderson who plays an actor in this film and Kal Penn(the arab guy from National Lampoon's Van Wilder) as another homie g... they really helped make this movie worth watching.

All in all, I'd say this was pretty damned good for a lower budget film. A must rent movie, unless you're a boring old sourpuss.

I'll give it 8/10


This Movie was to funny , The trailers don't do enough justice for this movie , I didn't want to see this film but my niece dragged me and I'm glad that I went I laughed the whole time. So if you haven't seen it go see it you might be surprised!


I have a question for those negative reviewers out there. WHAT WERE YOU EXPECTING? JKX is a great show and Jamie's "Brad Gluckman" character is the best. The Movie gives us some background to Brad and supplies us with some good laughs. I am sure by now you know the plot summary so I won't go there. Taye Diggs and Anthony Anderson are hilarious and steal the show. Taye's character, with his Juliard training and trying to act ghetto black gave the audience I was in some big belly laughs. The only down fall was the Brad was too sweet. When he's on the WB, he is brash and at times harsh (Jamie, where was the "Gin and Juice"). Maybe it was the PG13 rating so the whole family can see it, I don't know. All in all though he and the rest of the cast made me laugh.


first of all I would like to say I thought the movie was hilarious and it's one of my favorite movies today. I think critics are taking this movie way to seriously ...its a movie a comedy made for laughter and ones personal enjoyment don't come on here bashing it and saying rude things just because you didn't like it...frankly, I really don't care if you liked it or not because it was a good silly laugh out loud movie...my friends and I still quote this movie and laugh about the crazy scenes If people just want a feel good movie that'll make you laugh and give you and your friends something to do this movie is perfect... Chyna*


Jamie Kennedy and the rest of the cast really hit a home run with this one. We laughed SO MUCH throughout this movie. It's so hard to find a movie that'll really keep you laughing. This one surely did. It's not high-brow comedy, but if you're looking for lots of laughs, see this movie.


this movie is hilarious! my friends and i couldn't stop laughing. and the way the professional actors try to learn how to be a gangsta from a book is even funnier! go and see this movie now! i recommend it totally! go, y r u stilL here? GO ~!!!


What can I say to this movie that is already been said? "Malibu's Most Wanted" is a very funny movie that stars Jamie Kennedy ("Jamie Kennedy Experiment"), Taye Diggs ("Brown Sugar") and Anthony Anderson ("Barber Shop"). It mostly involves "Brad Gluckman" played by Mr. Kennedy and what it is like to "be yourself".

I have never laugh so hard with so many funny scenes in this movie. The writers of Fax Bahr and Adam Small besides doing this movie and Jamie Kennedy's show, have also done "Mad TV", a comedy show. These writers are very very good.

This movie will do very good in the box office and depending on the box office receipts could be a possible sequel.

The Dark Gengar rates this movie from a single Gengar to ten gengars: Nine Gengars. The soundtrack is good. Aloha everyone and enjoy the movies.


Imagine watching a movie parodying the "hood" made by people who have never been to, met anyone from, or had any contact with the hood. That is this movie. I'm not just talking about Jamie Kennedy's character, who is supposed to be fake, I'm talking about the whole d**n thing. It was difficult to distinguish the actors who were supposed to be actors and the actors who were supposed to be "real gangstas", because all of the acting in this movie sucks. The first time I watched this movie I thought it was hilarious but the second time it just really rubbed me the wrong way... I don't know, maybe this just isn't my type of humor. The only reason I gave this three stars was because of the fight scenes, especially the Scarface-looking one where he was on the car screaming "AHHHHHAHAHAHAHA" like a nut... the one with all the gang members in the house facing that crew of Malibu people holding a f*****g whale harpoon and a rocket launcher was the only funny part of the movie IMO.


Nobody is quite there in this new bright farce by the Coen brothers. The plot is a smart excuse for a movie about nothing but appearing to be about a lot of things. Going backwards and forwards at the same time. Talk about "The Russians?" or planning to write a memoir. Brad Pitt is priceless and the innocence of his character is so believable that I wondered how many more surprises this actor has up his sleeve. He is a joy. George Clooney is also terrific and the Coens move through their crossed purposes with speed and elegance. I was totally immerse in their universe even if I didn't quite care what was going on. John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, Richard Jenkins and the unnerving Tilda Swinton complete the package of this movie that feels as if it was made for the sheer pleasure of it.


The point here is that this movie is for adults, with adult themes and adult situations. As with all Coen brother movies, there are going to be people who love it and people that hate it. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground. I loved this movie. It was entertaining, dark and very funny. I really liked "No Country for Old Men" but I have to say, "Burn After Reading" was a more enjoyable film for me. Some of the reviews here have said that the film rambles around pointlessly, without any clear direction; well I have to disagree, if you are paying attention and you are an adult, you should have no problem understanding what is going on. The best part of the movie is watching this great cast perform brilliantly with the odd-ball material they are given. They are all straight men for the Coen brother's antics. There is violence, bad language, and everyone is sleeping with everyone else, especially George Clooney. But the movie is very funny and while the rest of Hollywood seems to have lost there way, the Coen brothers continue to put out intelligent, entertaining and thought provoking material.


There's a point in this movie that George Clooney's character, Harry Pfarrer shows Frances McDormand's character Linda Litzke something that we've seen him working on for about half the movie. It was so surprising when I first saw it, that at first, I didn't even know what it was.

Once again, the Coens have created wonderful characters, including Clooney, who is a womanizer and paranoid that people are following him, and McDormand, who just wants plastic surgery in order to look better. Also, there's John Malkovich as Osbourne Cox, who "doesn't have a drinking problem," and maybe the best in the movie, Brad Pitt as Chad, a clueless gym employee who is pushed along by McDormand.

The only character that isn't up to par with the rest is Tilda Swinton's character of Katie Cox, Osbourne's wife. She doesn't get as many laughs as the rest, and it seems like the Coens just needed her as a plot device rather than an actual character. However, she may not be funny, but she does play the character well.

The writing is brilliant and the Coens weave the story in such a way that it reminds me of their previous movie, The Big Lebowski. In the end, as J.K. Simmons character sums it up himself, nothing really happens, but while watching it all unfold, you can't help but laugh at the absurdity.


Norman Cousins would have loved the Coen Brothers' "Burn After Reading." The late great Saturday Review editor had treated his illness with Marx Brothers movies, having "made the joyous discovery that 10 minutes of genuine belly laughter had an anesthetic effect and would give me at least two hours of pain-free sleep."

I have never felt healthier than after 96 minutes of explosive and grateful laughter at the "Burn" screening, also marveling at the array of British-stage caliber acting from "Fargo"-invoking Frances McDormand, witchy-icy Tilda Swinton, a more-manic-than-ever John Malkovich, and a dozen major players, such as J.K. Simmons as the deadpan CIA boss and Richard Jenkins as the former Greek Orthodox priest, now running an upscale gym.

Others may lead the cast list with George Clooney and Brad Pitt, but to me, their performances were just a bit on the self-conscious side, trying too hard. At any rate, it's a great cast, and while the plot might have turned into a dud in somebody else's treatment, the Coen Brothers' writing is hilarious, their zingers deadly.

A critic, probably with bad digestion, has decried this "very black comedy set in a blanched, austere-looking Washington, D.C.  an uninspiring and uncomfortable place in which everyone betrays everyone else, and the emotional tone veers from icy politeness to spitting rage and back again." If I had a chance to think, instead of enjoying "Burn," I would have contemplated Molière and Evelyn Waugh, their comedies of manners, psychological insight, and unbridled great humor.

Yes, there are betrayals (none better than the totally unexpected one at the end of the film), and there is rage, but all contained within a glorious bubble of writing-directing-acting excellence. "Burn" grips and holds, surprises and entertains, it is a virtuoso piece.

Don't be misled by the a "action-trailer" on TV, saturating the airwaves; it says nothing of the film. Malkovich punching Pitt over a compromising CD of spook stuff is not at the heart of this - the McDormand character's pursuit of cosmetic surgery is, what with her self-examination, a lengthy session with the surgeon (Jeffrey DeMunn, in a brilliant turn), her desperate quest for a way to pay for it. Funny and going deep at the same time, "Burn" presents a series of character studies (hence the thought of Molière), in the context of mannered yet true social interactions (Waugh).

Skip descriptions of the plot, reject self-righteous denunciations of smart skepticism and charming evil, go and wallow in life-affirming laughter.


It makes me sad that, with such great actors to work with, the best the Coens could do is make a mish-mash comedy/drama/horror that was lukewarm at best and boring at its worst. I felt sorry for the actors; they had so little of interest to say or do. I almost fell asleep about 20 minutes in. Where was the madcap screwball comedy? Where was the dark ironic humor? It was all just one-dimensional darkness. Where was the good editing? (i.e. we never saw Clooney holding the gun but we know he shot Pitt in the closet.) Instead we get pointless, morose and dull. This movie coulda been a contender. These characthers coulda been somebody. Instead they're really just forgettable. And that's just a waste.


After their Oscar winning turn last year, The Coen Brothers are back with the new film, this time comedy/crime/spy story which is very funny, very dark, quite angry, at times surreal, always ironic and to put it simply a must see for any Coens' fan which means a fan of great movie making. Comparing to the last year's Oscar Winner, No Country for Old Men, their new film may seem much lighter and provides many laughs. But keep in mind, it is comedy: Coens' style and it means that not always the most likable characters get what they look for. As much as the film is funny, it actually paints very disturbing picture about stupidly, idiocy, incompetence, inability to see one step ahead of your actions that keep filling every aspect of our existence with dangerous speed. I loved it - from the very first scene to the end. I laughed a lot, enjoyed the dialogs and the acting. How could I not with the dream cast that include John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, George Clooney, Francis McDormand, and very funny and deliciously clueless, Brad Pitt, and many familiar faces in the small cameos. George Clooney who has made three films with The Coens got the funniest scenes, and gave IMO one of his best performances. John Malkovich has got to come out of his semi-retirement and act more. His every appearance in the film as forced to quit his job, very angry CIA Analyst who then decided to write a memoir, was a blast. Tilda Swinton as an arrogant icy cold professional woman, and Frances MacDormand as Linda who would stop at nothing in order to "re-invent herself", both added to the film's multiple delights.

This time, Coens' usual collaborator, Roger Deakins was not director of photography, instead, Emmanuel Lubezki, four times Oscar Nominee (for Children of Men, The New World, Sleepy Hollow, and A Little Princess) took care of camera-work. The film has very beautiful look to it, and I was happy to recognize some of my favorite places in Washington, DC and George Town.


After thoroughly enjoying Fargo, I came to this well reviewed movie with as lot of expectation and left very disappointed.

I remember seeing the "Trouble with Harry" which seems like a million years ago but still remember laughing my head off. It had characters that seemed real, a ridiculous but interwoven plot that somehow was hilariously credible and side splitting humor all the way though.

"Burn after Reading" had none of that. Some of the overacting was atrocious especially from Pitt and McDormand and to be honest Pitt's exit from the film came none too soon. There was little plot structure and some branches ran off into in-explicable dead ends. The only characters I found worth watching were Malkovich who tried to inject some life into it, the sincere gym manager who contrary to Pitt deserved some more lines and the dry humor of the intelligence agents. The Coens really love violence. Maybe they should try making a movie without it. I felt in this one it was only there to relieve the boredom.


This film will not be to everyones taste, and I wholly understand the polarised responses.A star studded cast enjoy a knowing, wordy script, where dialogue counts, a Coen brothers trademark.However not very much happens, and the narrative is disjointed, so the pace of the story is very staccato.But once again the result is something very wide of the Hollywood mainstream and is all the more satisfying for it.

A 95 minute running time,, and several separate but interwoven plots, mean that screen time for individual actors is limited. Consequently each shines in their given roles, relishing the word play and eking the maximum out of each situation.No scene is dwelled upon, and the occasional bloody outburst of violence, or titillating appearance of a Sybian machine , is shown then moved on from before you have time to work out exactly what is going on.

The script is littered with double entendres, "running gags (pun intended)and lines aimed straight at the audience from the screen. No-one knows what is going on, or what has gone on, or what is going to happen, and is all the better for it.A mini-masterpiece.


I saw the film at the 65th Venice Film Festival yesterday. The red carpet was a huge attraction of course with Brad Pitt and George Clooney. I'm not surprised to tell you that the Coens will not disappoint any fans with Burn After Reading.

Two gym employees(Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand) find a computer disc containing Osbourne Cox's (John Malkovic) CIA informations and they try to get money from him.

Original story, awesome cast, great direction, many hilarious moments, marvelous acting and highly unpredictable actions are at the rendez-vous.

Though the movie is a bit short (95min.), Burn After Reading is a very enjoyable film that you won't soon forget. **** out of 5


"No Country for Old Men" directors Joel and Ethan Coen's uneven, overwrought, misanthropic comedy of errors "Burn After Reading" (* out of ****) should have been burned after they made it. Remember, the Coen Brothers won the 2008 Best Picture Oscar for their inspired but violent account of an indestructible hit-man who methodically tracked down his victims and killed them without a qualm. As their first feature since "No Country for Old Men, "Burn After Reading" radiates barely a modicum of the customary Coen luminosity. The fourteenth movie that the two brothers have helmed together struggles to be as side-splitting as either "The Big Lebowski" or "Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou." Instead, this forgettable farce turns out to be as mirthless as two previous Coen misfires "The Man Who Wasn't There" and "Intolerable Cruelty." "Burn After Reading" opens like a Tom Clancy techno-thriller. An orbiting spy satellite camera zooms into the Chesapeake Bay area on the East Coast, penetrates the cloud cover and pinpoints C.I.A. Headquarters in Langley, Virginia. A bow-tied, bald-headed, Princeton-educated, career C.I.A. analyst, Osborne 'Ozzie' Cox (John Malkovich of "Being John Malkovich"), explodes with rage when his boss (David Rasche of "An Innocent Man") relieves him of his duties on the Balkans desk and shuffles him off to a lower security grade State Department post. The volatile Cox spews profanity when his colleagues attribute his inferior job performance to alcoholism. Cox quits the C.I.A. rather than being reassigned. As he storms out of the room, he vows to pen a tell-all memoir. Later, every time we see Ozzie working on his memoirs, he clutches a drink in his fist.

The scene shifts to Hardbodies Fitness Center. Personal trainer Linda Litzke (Oscar-winning Frances McDormand of "Fargo") plans to have a number of surgical cosmetic procedures performed on her flabby physique. "I have gone as far as I can with this body," she whines to her plastic surgeon. She is looking for somebody to date on the Internet and she hates her appearance. When her company insurance refuses to cover these elective operations, Linda blows a gasket. Although she isn't pleased with herself, her Hardbodies boss Ted (Richard Jenkins of "Step Brothers") drools whenever he is around her. Linda calls him her friend and then all but ignores him. Another Hardbodies trainer, bimbo-brained Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt of "Ocean's Twelve") who wears his iPod like jewelry, discovers an anonymous computer disc left in the ladies locker room that contains Ozzie's C.I.A. secrets. Against Ted's wishes, Linda and Chad blackmail Ozzie for $50-thousand dollars so Linda can pay for her four procedures. Meanwhile, Ozzie's ice princess of a wife Katie (Oscar winning Tilda Swinton of "Michael Clayton") indulges in an extramarital fling with a married but philandering U.S. Marshal Harry Pfarrer (a bearded George Clooney of "Leatherheads") who constructs mechanical sex machines in his spare time. Pfarrer is married to a successful children's author, Sally (Elizabeth Marvel), who hates the dinner parties that Harry takes her to at Katie's house. Not surprisingly, Ozzie refuses to pay Linda and Chad a dime so Linda approaches officials in the Russian Embassy. Meanwhile, Katie locks Ozzie out of their house and begins divorce proceedings.

Ensemble piece that it is, "Burn After Reading" meanders from one quirky character's complications to another in a haphazard manner. The Coen's erratic script for this farcical but violent yarn about a group of largely unsavory dimwits that make moronic fools of themselves seethes with irony. Surprisingly, the Coens seem to have taken leave of their comic senses because their sophisticated humor falls flat on its face. Moreover, in their efforts to drum up laughs, co-stars Brad Pitt and George Clooney deliver performances that verge on epilepsy. Tilda Swinton is particularly rude and hostile as a pediatrician with the bedside manner of a crocodile. She has no problem bossing around either Ozzie or Harry, but she cannot get a child to take its medicine. Pathetic, selfish, delusional cretins populate "Burn After Reading" and they refuse to accept reality. For example, Linda believes that if you think positive thoughts that positive things will happen. Indeed, this eclectic gallery of characters qualifies more as caricatures. Since we feel little sympathy toward them, the trials and tribulations that they endure to attain their goals rarely prompts anything more than a smirk or two.

Ultimately, "Burn After Reading" devotes more time to infidelity rather than of espionage. This hyperactive but less-than-hilarious hokum qualifies as a failure on multiple levels. Ham-fisted performances, poor plotting, labored jokes, and sudden lapses of violence spoil what might have been a neat little bit of nothing.


The one pet peeve I have is when the writing is bad they start throwing in bad language hoping it will get a laugh. I'm sorry but I think if you took out every "F" bomb dropped in this movie... there'd be no dialogue.

The movie was disjointed... I know some movies are meant to be avant guard... but even those weird artsy movies make SOME sense. There were too many things going on, it seemed at times even the actors didn't know what scene they were involved in.

The plot between the Linda and her boss was just stupid and misplayed by the writers. And just when you think there's FINALLY going to be something amusing... they "SHOCK" you back into realizing the movie sucks.

The whole movie was a boring yawn fest. I'm not sure what so many people saw in this film. I felt like burning the movie projector after watching! And the ending, don't get me started... definitely not worth even the matinée prices.

The only thing I liked about this movie was Sledge Hammer star David Rasche, and only because it gave me a Sledge Hammer flashback.

I love George Clooney and Brad Pitt, and I usually like the Coen brothers... but this is one movie I wouldn't even wait till it came on DVD for. Just avoid it.


This has to be the lamest attempt at a movie plot in the Cohen brothers' career. This movie attracted viewers solely on their name alone. Brad Pitt was the shining jewel in this travesty and he gets the ax, BY ACCIDENT!!! Who the puck cares about Linda's 4 part surgery. It's just to make herself feel better? She was obviously too ignorant to realize that she looked beautiful to those around her and it wasn't like it was a necessary or life saving procedure. Ozzy Cox was totally on the rebound after the shyt hits the fan with his wife divorcing him and what does he get? A COMA. Nice. He could have dished out some vengeance on those succeeding in make his life hell but NO. Everyone is sleeping with everyone which connects people unknowingly yet no one really gets found out. Thank you for movie tension that goes nowhere. The Russians waste even more time by telling the dimwitted protagonists that their information on Cox is ultimately useless. Scenes of Clooney building his "Mystery Machine" kills you slowly when its only to find out that its a "Sit on it and Go Puck Yourself" Machine. Literally!!! The chair he secretively builds has a pucking dildo in it that goes up and down as the occupant, I imagine, moves back and forth while seated. OM-F-G HILARIOUS!!! If I'm gonna shell out 10 clams i should walk away from the the theater going, "Dam, that was a good movie!! I can't wait to talk about it with my friends!" Not, " Why the did i pay to see that? It might as well have been a movie length commercial." To be Honest, I happened to thoroughly enjoy the Cohen brothers work and they had yet to disappoint until i saw this skid mark of a film. Watching this is like "peeling your bark" without "falling a tree". You sit there, hacking away at waves of build up and tension, waiting for the climax to make sense of all this and NO. All you get is a cramp in your hand and a hole in your wallet where a 10 spot used to be. Meanwhile, The Cohen Brothers are laughing all the way to the bank. I know some of you reading this may totally disagree. Fair enough. All I know is that I wasn't the only one NOT laughing in the theater. And yes i know it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. But that's the only thing this movie had going for it and even that was scarce. Comparatively, No Country For Old Men was fantastic. If they were gonna do drama, do it like that. And The Big Lebowski was hysterical! If they wanted to do a comedy, they nailed it right on the head with that one. Even that movie had awkward situations that involved bumbling idiots who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and yet everyone walks away a little wiser and a lesson learned. But mix the 2 and you get an abortion of a film that is the one I'm trying to save you from watching. The point of a good movie, no matter what genre, should be that the viewer walks away WITH something. In this case, Run the hell away cause you ain't getting shyt. Now go buy a dime and thank me for helping you make a better investment than a ticket to this fecal filled feature of phucked uptitude. NEXT!!!


i know a lot of people say that this movie was great and all that. Maybe it is just me but after i watched the film i felt unclean and distressed. The whole movie was a mess of unbelievable sub plots mixed within a ninety minute film. There are only two parts i found funny and actually laughed out loud. The problem i was dealing with was the direction of the whole puzzling movie. Brad Pitt s character who was the most outstanding character and the star of the film gets shot in the head and dies after one hour... after that, i lost every interest of the film. Too much going on and the ending was very inconclusive. There are one or two good points about the film is the acting. Acting was well done. The character use, well, maybe too much character use making the whole film confusing. And it was a funny in some occasions. I know the Coen brothers can do much better than this. I loved their film No country for Old Men and Burn After Reading was a huge letdown for me.


Inevitably an excellent filmmaker or in Joel and Ethan's case, filmmakers will make a bad film. Joel and Ethan have enjoyed so much success and have made so many great films that they would be allowed a poor film. 'Burn After Reading' shook my faith in the Coen Brothers whom I greatly admire. It isn't just bad it's jaw droopingly awful. It's 'I want my rental fee back' bad. It's maybe I forget 'Big Lebowski' or 'O, Brother Where Art Thou?' and skip your next comedy bad. Skip this film at all costs. Forget the name Coen is on the box, because the Joel and Ethan Coen I've seen must have shut themselves off when they made this piece of work.

What could be unfunny? Everything. I laughed maybe once in the film and it was more of a "Really?" laugh (I think you'll infer that the scene was where George Clooney's Harry showcases his "chair") I didn't necessarily find it all that funny but it was a curve ball laugh. The Coen Brothers have always had droll humor. I've greatly enjoyed their earlier comedic efforts. Here it is just sad to watch. It gets to a point where the film seems downright pretentious. That's a low that the Coens never reached before. Their films have always been very smart but they included the audience in it. I just couldn't go with them with 'Burn After Reading'. I knew all the punchlines the Coens were setting up and where the laugh track might sound but none of these scenes were very funny. Joel and Ethan are brave enough to set up a scene where the 'punchline' is Brad Pitt getting shot in the head. It isn't funny. There are two instances of quirky humor being supplied with violence. I laughed at this in their 'Ldaykillers' (which many did not like but I really enjoyed), but here it just seems grim and depressing. Everything in the film is far too tongue in cheek but when you have people getting killed and a serious tone it doesn't work.

The biggest problem with the film is it's characters. I don't think the Coens have been given a better cast to work with in terms of talent. None of the characters are allowed to be given life because there is no detail to them. We get very broad ideas about them but nothing to engage us. The character who suffers the most from this is George Clooney's Harry. I think he had the most potential but he is really given an inadequate amount of screen time. He is obviously a sex addict but we don't know why or how he got these insecurities about having relationships. Clooney is eccentric sure but it would have gotten more response from the audience if we knew why. Frances McDormand's performance is the best in the film and it is so despite the script. She is obviously aging and insecure but the Coen Brothers don't really tell you this in their script. McDormand has to bring it out in the subtle of her performance. All the Coens give us is that she is single and concerned about her looks. What McDormand does is carry this character on her own in a decent performance.

Much is made about everyone being unlikeable in the film. The fact is I couldn't care one way or the other if the characters are unlikeable, in fact I'd prefer that they weren't. The problem is these characters have no real personality. These very talented actors are playing for emotion and mood. I can't describe the performances. They are over the top in a surprisingly restrained way. I can very easily imagine the Coen's telling George Clooney and crew to "quirk it up". It seems like that. If the Coens had written better characters I have no doubt that this excellent cast would have organically gone and created the kind of characters the Coen's love. Joel and Ethan take a gamble and expect their great cast to save a garbage script, they don't collect.

I don't hate the Coen Brothers, on the contrary it is because of my great respect for them that I am so hard on this film. The last thin any filmmaker needs is blind praise. It seems like 'Burn After Reading' received a great deal of blind praise.


The only thing funny about this movie is when Brad Pitt gets punched in the face and the chair George Clooney makes in his basement! Other than that this movie is slow going and has no point what so ever. Why the hell is Ozzy's wife important. other than the fact she's a b*tch? A lot of the boring crap could have been cut out and you would have had the same result but then the movie would have been a half hour long. It was supposed to be a comedy but all the funny stuff was shown in the previews. They wasted a great cast on a crap movie! I will say that George Clooney was the best one in the movie. Take what you want from this and leave the rest. I didn't like it but you might.


Coen Brothers did it again... I loved "O'Brother Where are Thou" made by the duo so much and "No Country for Old Men" was terrifying yet entertaining.

The latest offering "Burn After Reading" falls in league of dark comedies with smart presentation. The Director duo rightfully presented a chain of events due to leak of a secret CIA data. One thing that lead to other was really engrossing and so much fun to watch. The background score was awesome. The beginning and ending of the movie with an aerial view of earth from space was really really innovative for this visual effects lacking movie.

In performances, Francis Mc Dormand as Gym worker, online date searcher and looking for cosmetic surgery was simply stand out. Without pretending, her unhappiness with loneliness and growing age was clearly reflected on her performance. Brad Pitt as macho gym instructor was convincing. Tilda Swinton and John Malkovich as frustrated husband-wife pair is fun to watch. What disappointed me was the role of George Cloony. His role was interesting but some how he did not manage do justice with it. In some scenes he had gone over the top.

All in all, a healthy comedy with realistic approach. Two thumbs up to Coen Brothers.


Following their hugely successful and equally brilliant No Country for Old Men the Coens have returned to their all too familiar territory: the black comedy. The good news is that their approach was different than in case of Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers, which were in my view lesser works for their mass appeal oriented humor. With Burn After Reading the biting satire is back: plastic surgery, internet dating, body building/shaping, the marriage-adultery-divorce triangle and even the CIA are all targets that get their fair share of the Coens' poisoned arrows. As always, a terrific cast supports this endeavor. First and foremost Brad Pitt has to receive special credit, not only for being the funniest of the lot but for willingly making a complete fool of himself for the role and doing it brilliantly. Actually this shouldn't come as a great surprise since he was equally hilarious as Mickey in Snatch and also as Jeffrey in Twelve Monkeys but this time he's funny in a completely different way. And this is a quality great actors share: always showing something new, something we haven't seen before. As for the rest of the cast it seems that the males got the funnier parts, Malkovich is great, Clooney is good (somewhat reminiscent of the character he played in O, Brother), while Frances McDormand could've been funnier (hear name is spot on though). Other highlights include all the scenes that take place at the CIA (the concluding dialog between JK Simmons and David Rasche is a killer) and the first phone conversation between Pitt and Malkovich is deadly, too. So, what we get is a true Coen-style black comedy that provides numerous laughs and altogether great entertainment. And if you want to search for something meaningful beneath all this fun, you'll find that the movie is about how egoistic, lonely and lost we are when we elbow each other out of the way to accomplish our petty goals. It may not be as strong as The Big Lebowski but nonetheless proves that when it comes to sarcastic humor the Coens still stand way above the rest.


I say seven but really I mean seven and a half.

This movie is great. It is a dark comedy that follows the fall of five stupid people and how they manage to destroy themselves morally, emotionally, and physically. Nothing happens that the government cares about. No breaches in National Security or plans to attack anything, but the belief that something big is going on destroys the people involved.

The best part is that these idiots manage to surprise and confuse the CIA. That a simple nonevent between five people in Washington could completely catch the CIA off guard.

Overall I would say that it is a funny movie that is not for those who don't like to lose characters unexpectedly and without consequence.


I heard one reviewer say that this film is a "Bubby Movie," yah know one of those films where every actor is friends with every other actor and the director (or in this case directors) and they all basically just dick around on camera for 2 hours and call it a movie. I wouldn't call it that necessarily call Burn After Reading that but I would call it a "Hollywood Indie." A Hollywood Indie is a mainstream Hollywood film with a big budget and a huge A-List cast, but whose script sounds like it was written by a struggling Brooklyn artist who previous experiences in film consisted of making Pods for Current TV about how great Barrack Obama apparently is.

The Coen brothers seem to be the kings of Hollywood Indies, since they directed half of the ones I can name off the top of my head. Burn After Reading will most likely be counted among the lesser of the Coen Brothers films, and rightly so since it does seem to lack the aesthetic appeal of their previous films, but I don't think this film should be counted as one of the their funnier films. Most of the Coen Brother's "Comedies" aren't really comedies, their more like movies that are weird in a kind of funny way. Yet the Invisible Pigeon Holeing Society must assign these films a genre, and since their not weird enough to be labeled surrealist or experimental, they get the title comedies simply because a few people in the theater may giggle a few of the "Jokes" in the film.

The point I am desperately trying to get to here is that, I didn't laugh at either The Big Lebowski or O' Brother, Where Art' Thou despite the fact they are rather funny, I laughed several times at Burn After Reading, and I laughed rather hard to. Burn After Reading is weird, as are all Dark Comedies, but it's not quite to the level as most Coen films, weather this a complement of an insult is a matter of interpretation.

What really impressed me in this film was Brad Pitt's and Frances McDormand's performances, everyone else's performances were "take it or leave it." Brad and Frances are like some kind of weird Fitness Center Employee Duo who stumble upon CIA secrets somehow and try to milk to cow for what it's worth. I knew Frances was a good actress, but Brad Pitt acting well is something new to me. I mean I always through his performance in Fight Club was good only because he really was playing the same character he usually does but this time in a quality film. I don't know if the Coen Brothers did something to him, or maybe he's been hiding something from us, but his character is by far the best in the film. But then again his character is a dribbling idiotic health nut with some mildly homosexual personality traits, so maybe Brad wasn't even acting, maybe he was just being himself (Ha Ha Ha).

What makes Burn after reading less of a film then most Coen Brother's work is that there is not any real thought involved. The second I pressed the stop button on my DVD I almost totally forgot about the movie, a good film is one can't get out of your head for a week after watching it, and most Coen Brother films do that. Listen, Burn After Reading is out on DVD now so it's defiantly worth renting, especially if you have Netflix. It's good for some laughs, and it's still rather Coen-y so go pick it up.


I did not have the fortune of being able to view Burn After Reading in the theatre, but having watched it on DVD, I can say that I'm glad that I waited. Its not that the movie was bad, but there were several scenes that I had to go back and re-watch a number of times because they were just so damned funny. The trailers and TV spots for the film would have you believe that this yet another goofy Brad Pitt film where he runs around like a pretty boy for ninety minutes, but don't be fooled, this film is far more gruesome and much funnier that I believed. Like any typical film by the Brothers Coen, the film is very aesthetically pleasing, the visuals are great, but what makes Burn After Reading an enjoyable film is the dialogue. About 60 minutes into the movie, one finally realizes that this is not a spy-thriller, or a mystery film, but rather a depiction of what happens when a bunch of self-centered morons are turned loose and run around like chickens with their heads cut off, so to speak. The problem is that it really works in this movie, I didn't not expect this to be so good. Even though Burn After Reading touts an "all star" cast consisting of George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Tilda Swinton and John Malkovich, the two stand-out scenes that completely elevate the movie are scenes with J.K. Simmons and his CIA underling. These two scenes are without a doubt the best scenes in the entire and its worth renting the DVD for those two scenes alone. Be not deceived, this is NOT another "No Country for Old Men", but this is more in vein of The Big Lebowski, but its not *quite* as good Lebowski. All of that being said, rent the film its easily an 8/10 film.

-J.


a movie filled with good drama, great twists and an unexpected death. Burn After Reading will make you Keep After Watching.

good-a good story. a very good serious adult like comedy. amazing twists-certain characters death, the discovery of who is following George, etc.

bad-first of all, i know that every film (must) introduce the characters before getting to the point of the film. but in this film, it seems like it takes forever to get to the point (the CD) and all the time up until that point seems kinda boring but at the same time entertaining.

summary-a good film if you enjoy twists and are willing to accept its adult like comedic.


I just read the prior similarly titled review and disagree with that opinion. This was a very interesting and entertaining movie, but should have been titled burn BEFORE reading for a different reason. The lack of communication between most of the characters is impressive and leads to many of plot twists in the movie. This is especially evident in the CIA's handling of the fallout from the firing of their analyst. This leads to a cascade of events which make up the bulk of the movie. The interpersonal dishonesty between most of the characters further complicates this leads to a very complex turn of events. Overall this is what makes the movie a complex collage of darkly humorous events that the Coen brothers have been known for. This is done without repetitive plot forms. Overall I enjoyed viewing the movie and would recommend the movie for at least a rental, and a possible purchase for true Coen brothers aficionado's.


For me, "Blood Simple", "Fargo" and "No Country..." live in a special Coen stratosphere. Then "Barton Fink", "Raising Arizona", "the Big Lebowski" and "the Man Who Wasn't There" belong in the next class. I'd have to put "Burn After Reading" somewhere in the lower to mid second-class group, but above "Intolerable Cruelty" and "Oh Brother".

I think that after making a such a serious and dramatic effort last year, they're just goofing off this year, and that's fine, they're allowed to do that. They've earned it. But it's not like this movie is really that good or anything. It's screwy and fun, sometimes works, sometimes doesn't quite. I especially liked Brad Pitt, probably because he's the only one showing some new colors here. It's like he started from scratch and built this guy from experiences he once had in high school.

"Burn After Reading" passes the time, but don't build this up too much, because it's mostly just a whole lot of goofing around that just holds itself together because of the talents of the Coens.


This is by far not the most interesting production by the Cohens, but it is worth watching on a variety of levels. First, there is the pleasure of seeing a bunch of good actors working together with great chemistry, some of them (like Pitt and Clooney) certainly not in their "traditional" roles. Second, the story is actually wacky enough to hold up in terms of internal logic, as strange as it may seem. As usual with the brothers, do expect some unexpected turns, of the violent variety. And yet, somehow, the movie retains the character of a light comedy. Pay particular attention to the very last words spoken in the film, they may be the best summary of the whole thing I've heard so far.


Certainly this Coen brothers comedy "Burn After Reading" will not be no Oscar winner like their previous effort "No Country for Old Men", but still the direction and over the top funny story makes this offbeat film one to watch. Many may see this as a spoof crime caper type and in many ways it is as it involves a plot of hidden info and the CIA. Plus for commercial success the all-star cast makes it watchable as each portray interesting characters with different attitudes who's lives intersect with a CD-ROM. John Malkovich is Osborne Cox a recently canned CIA agent who's down on his luck as his relationship with his pediatrician wife the classy and elegant Katie(Oscar winner Tilda Swinton)is about to go up into flames. As on the side Katie is seducing womanizer and federal government employee Harry Dfarrer(George Clooney).So the film has already introduced some complex characters now enter the big plot and theme of the movie two dim-witted fitness gym employees(Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand) come across one of Mr. Cox's old CD-ROM disc of classified information from his CIA days. Then one by one this film presents a fun to watch hoot of mishap and adventures as you see how each conflicted character is drawn together over a simple little disc of information as in the end each life has been shaped differently. Pretty good work from the Coens as the theme and concept was neat and funny even though it may not be a critical success the star power of Pitt, Clooney, McDormand, Malkovich, and Swinton will make it a commercial success. So to sum it up it's a pretty good feel good film to watch that you will have fun with.


An alcoholic, terminated CIA agent (John Malkovich) decides to write his memoirs. His wife, who is cheating on him with another federal agent (George Clooney), accidentally steals the memoir when she is retrieving the couple's financial records. This disc, due to the negligence of a law clerk, then falls into the hands of two fitness trainers (Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt), one of whom is also sleeping with the adulterous federal agent. From there, mayhem and blackmail ensue.

Can the Coen Brothers make a bad film? I mean, I suppose the answer is yes. But I have yet to see one. Without skipping a beat, they go from a serious Oscar-winning drama ("No Country For Old Men") to a silly, effective comedy. And they excel in both genres equally well. I think some people may have been let down by "Burn" because they expected another Oscar film, but these people missed the point.

The plot is so intertwined (not unlike past Coen films, like "The Big Lebowski") that trying to figure out what's going on and who is working for who is half the fun. And every character has their idiosyncrasies, making them each unique and funny in their own way. Being able to write such a script and plot is a gift, and the fact they've done this successfully multiple times really makes me feel that the Coens are going to go down as some of the greatest creators of their generation.

Fans of "The Big Lebowski" will like this one. The style is similar, and the cast is amazing: Pitt, Clooney and Malkovich? You really have to be a cynical person to not be interested in this one.


The Coen Brothers never cease to amaze me. I must admit, you have to be a Coen Brothers fan to get a Coen Brothers movie, but once you get their style/message, it's PURE BRILLIANCE. Modern day Voltaire's

"Burn After Reading", gives us a Dim Whit Personal Trainer played by BradPitt (note: If you're a fan of Brad Pitt because of his Character in Fight club--you're in for a rude awakening in this one!). STUD he is NOT!

A Lady who only cares about fixing her physical appearance.

Clooney, who plays the goof-ball, will sleep with anyone he has a chance to sleep with---(f.y.i. the "back pillow" scene is CLASSIC).

Essentially, this is a movie where the audience gets to drop in on the (unlikely) interconnected/intersected lives of nothing BUT Self Serving Idiots, all of whom meet their "demise" because of their own self serving interests.

GREAT SHOW! Worthy of Voltaire--"The aptitude for quick, perceptive, cutting, witty and often scathingly critical repartee" (WikiPedia)---describes "Burn After Reading" exactly.

P.S. When watching, take special note of each Characters Hair. Nice Plot Device! :=)


the acting in this is remarkable. George Clooney, Brad Pitt, John Malkovich, Frances Mcdormand and Tilda Swinton are flawless in this. directed and produced by the Coen brothers, so knowing all that you all know your in for a treat. the brothers have made better films but this is far from there worst. now for everyone of you that have seen the trailer to this and got the impression that its a laugh a minute film that you can watch with all your friends, its not. yes it is pretty funny but it has a fairly complex story to it. now i hope by saying that i don't give the impression that i'm discrediting the film but the funny parts in the trailer are about the only funny parts in the film. but i didn't want to watch this film for the humour. i wanted to watch it for the big cast in it plus the directors. this film is very well made by them. everyone should see this film .......8/10.....j.d Seaton


I felt like I needed to review this movie because it has been largely misunderstood by many of the reviewers on this site. First off, this is not a movie that is going to show you everything and baby step you through the plot. (Children please leave now, this is an adult movie)

Part of the reason why I enjoyed this movie so much is because it engages you as the viewer by forcing you to consider all the event that are happening. Trying to piece all the randomness together and make sense of all the events unfolding in front of you is one of the best aspects of the movie. (shocking as it may be we are forced to use our brains!). Even though the majority of the characters appear to have nothing in common and no real relationship with each other, their true connections lie in their actions. George Clooney's invisible threads for instance touch pretty much every single character in the movie even if there is no real interaction between them. There is a deep underlying theme of betrayal and a "big brother" complex which many of the characters develop or exhibit throughout the movie.

As far as the acting goes each actor plays their role very well and I think that some viewers were disappointed because they were expecting a more developed Brad Pitt / George Clooney relationship as is the case with most of their movies. As for the humor, it lies in a darker corner underneath the character dialogue. This film makes best use of what I would like to call "situational comedy". (Like taking the "classified information" to the Russians (The embassy!) so that they could collect some sort of reward). The brief scenes with the CIA are quite amusing as they mostly sit on the sidelines throughout the movie and clean up after the mess which is left behind after the seemingly simple firing of one Mr. Cox.

I am always pleasantly surprised by how original this movie was and how it almost makes fun of all the stereotypical Hollywood bull**** that is filled with most movies today. One of the ways you can tell a movie is good is if you watch it multiple times and still find something new or amusing in the story each time.

Bottom-line: If you are looking for a story that is more than skin deep (which the Coen brother are notorious for) then you have come to the right place. For everyone else where thinking hurts your head, go watch the new Transformers Movie.

** On a side note** To the one reviewer who thinks Clooney shoots Brad out of no where, if you had actually bothered to pay attention during the movie you could see that when Clooney opens the closet the first thing he grabs for is his gun hanging on the wall. Then because of his yeeaars of service as an air marshal his training kicks in and out of instinct he shoots before he thinks. (This may be also partly due to his paranoia of being followed by spooks)


With their droll, cynical humour, the Coen Brothers have made this triumphant satire on what in the script they call 'the idiocy of this world', which they clearly view as a Ship of Fools. John Malkovich in the latter part of the film screams at someone: 'You are one of the league of morons against whom I have been struggling all my life!' Every character in the film is a member of this League of Morons, and the film itself is an attack on the League of Morons who clearly run the world, especially its governmental so-called 'intelligence' services, which according to the Coen Brothers' view of things should be renamed the Idiocy Services. The only characters in the film who are not total morons from the beginning are John Malkovich and his wife Tilda Swinton. But Malkovich is progressively reduced through unbearable frustration to a state of total idiocy himself, and as Joel Cohen drily remarks in a bonus feature to the DVD: 'Malkovich has embraced his inner knucklehead'. ('Knucklehead', for those unfamiliar with American slang, means 'idiot' or 'fool'.) That leaves the cold and calculating Tilda Swinton as the only person in the film who is theoretically a non-moron, but she has herself been reduced to a parody of an intelligent person who, in order to cope with the welter of idiocy surrounding her, has entirely lost her humanity and become an engine of devouring and despairing egotism. Which leaves no one and nothing to admire, a view of the world apparently held by the Coen Brothers and graphically portrayed in their revolting and disgusting recent film 'No Country for Old Men' (for which see my unfavourable review). This new film, because it is a black comedy, is wholly admirable despite its unremitting cynicism, and it provides many hysterically funny situations and lines of dialogue. As usual with Coen Brothers films, it is brilliantly made, since they are a pair of dark geniuses who flicker eerily like a couple of coal fires glowing side by side in the half-light, chuckling impishly, perhaps devilishly, to themselves. All the actors are spectacularly brilliant. Brad Pitt as a stupid 'jock' with a head of solid bone is simply amazing. Frances McDormand really outdoes herself this time, portraying the insane logic of a total fool hurtling towards  in this case not doom but, ironically, what she wants. It is the others in her path who come to sticky ends. John Malkovich not only embraces his inner knucklehead but does a lot of brilliant acting as well, and leaves us feeling as frustrated as his character is, and ready to stalk along in our underpants too, holding a hatchet with intent to kill. Tilda Swinton is the Ice Queen of All Time, and we really don't want to meet her. George Clooney is a befuddled moron with a coarse beard which surely would have scraped Tilda's face off (?). They are all having a great time, and you can sense the teamwork at every turn and in every scene. Everybody is betraying everybody else, with glee and no conscience or even awareness of what conscience might be. As for the story, well, where does one begin? It almost defies explanation, because it is such a parade of idiocy from beginning to end, but we are rapt with attention and glued to the screen because it is all so amazing, and can people get any stupider than that? The answer is unhesitatingly 'Yes', they can get stupider than that, and even stupider, and the downwards spiral of total idiocy is so devastating that one wants to look away but cannot. What a compelling vision, this time of a side of hell which is hysterically funny, although it portends the doom of us all which a world run by fools will inevitably bring. Can't the Coen brothers do a remake of 'Polyanna' or 'Sound of Music' or something, to dispel their unremitting gloom?


When I first saw the previews, I was expecting a bourne supremacy/bond film with whoooohoooooo action that makes you say "kill, kill, kill" and gets you all worked up. But this film is more drama/realistic and made me actually think about life instead of tuning it out. The action parts are very satisfying. Don Cheadle was great. If you are expecting something along the lines of The Marine, you will probably be disappointed. It is a little more mature than that. The movie surprised me in its creativity/originality with certain scenes. overall, it is a drama/thriller/action/spy that I found very satisfying. some people on IMDb were complaining that it was slow, which it was, but don't take that to mean that the film is bad. the movie is just more of a drama film than action at times. Go see it!!!


I was offered a ticket to a screener last Wednesday, and when I heard Don Cheatle was in it, couldn't pass it by. I am not a huge fan of action/suspense/spy movies, but this one was a cut above the normal. It was more intelligent, and delved a bit into motivations, beliefs, etc. of terrorists. I went into the movie cold, with no idea of the plot, and I recommend that. Most write ups I have read give away too much of the twists in the plot, which I was glad I didn't know beforehand. Don Cheatle was excellent, and so was Saïd Taghmaoui. It was also refreshing to see Hollywood recognizing the breadth of Muslim philosophy for once!


A few years ago, Don Cheadle rose to the top of the acting world with dynamite performances in Hotel Rwanda, the Ocean's series, Crash, and Traffic. He even got to fight in Rush Hour 2! So it should come as no surprise that Cheadle is electrifying and deep in this film, and it is his performance that makes the film what it is: a deeply engrossing political thriller that will definitely make the audience think about the movie, and of course, the current state of affairs in our world.

Traitor did a very good job of stepping on the audience's toes with some lines that could've been considered prejudiced, and then catching themselves with actual truths about the war in the Middle East, in addition to religions themselves. This obviously takes place in the dialog of the characters, particularly those of Cheadle and Guy Pearce. The film's dialog is well written, making up for the sometimes slow pacing scenes that take awhile to transpire.

I've already heaped my praise on Don Cheadle, but I'll do it a little bit more. One of the crucial plot points is the true allegiance of his character, and it is the subtlety of his performance that will keep you guessing what side he is fighting for, though when the answer is finally revealed, you'll think you knew all along. Some call this 'predictable'. I call it great acting. Guy Pearce delivers a winner of a show as well as the straight edge FBI agent chasing after Cheadle, though his character has been done to death, to be honest. Neal McDonough is somewhat annoying in a supporting role as Pearce's partner (though I think Neal is annoying anyway...), while Jeff Daniels is a nice addition to the team. I thought another great performance came from Said Taghmaoui, as Cheadle's terrorist partner. After one of the better villainous performances of the year in Vantage Point, Taghmaoui delivers a performance just as deep and riveting as Cheadle's. This guy is one of the more underrated performers around, and he should get more work outside of being a terrorist.

I like the character development within the script, but I have some issues with the pacing of the film, which I'll take up with our director. The film seemed slow at times, as I was constantly waiting for a particular moment to happen, while 5 pacing scenes would come in the way like a roadblock and just aggravate me a bit. It's nitpicking, but some of the action was a little nauseating because of the camera. STAND STILL, YO! A decent plot twist within the ending of the film doesn't hurt at all, and adds a great element of surprise and depth to some characters.

All in all, Traitor is definitely worth a watch if you're looking to see something different to escape what is usually the graveyard for films...August. Cheadle's performance alone is worth the ticket. Taghmaoui's as well.


i was lucky enough to be part of the "first audience" to catch this at a pre-screening, and i have to say that i really enjoyed this film. i don't know anything else i could really say. it was suspenseful, had great twists, the acting was superb, and was a great story. Don Cheatle was amazing as ever, but i don't want to give away any spoilers at all so i wont say anything about the characters. what i will say is that Jeff Daniels for sure needed more character development. of course Guy Pierce was great, and what came as a semi-surprise was Saïd Taghmaoui's performance. very well-done by the cast and if Steve Martin is really the man who came up with the idea, he needs to keep churning 'em out. Traitor was a fit name for the film, and i would recommend it to all of you reading this.

9 1/2 out of 10


For the life of me, I still can't figure out why Traitor is getting such poor promotion, but if I were the studio I'd be trying my damnedest to get people into the theatre to this. It has got a great cast in Guy Pearce, Jeff Daniels and the lead role by Don Cheadle. Don't be fooled by the commercials that say that "Traitor is this year's Bourne Ultimatem", because this is clearly not true. While there is plenty of mystery and conspiracy to go around, this is a completely different situation that really makes the viewer think at the end of the movie. The great thing about Traitor is the fact that politics aren't heavy-handed or one-sided a la Syriana or any of the other cookie cutter political thrillers out there. The film really allows the viewer to draw their one conclusions based their own individual moral compass. I would say that anyone who is NOT looking for just another Michael Bay-esquire popcorn flick should totally love Traitor.

-J.


I usually go to Malco's reviewers and then Rotten Tomatoes, to see what the consensus on a movie is. Well after going to see this movie with some very hardcore friends/critics, we all agree, the professionals are getting paid off! If it wasn't for the good amateur Malco reviewers, I would have missed a very good thought provoking movies. I disagree that this movie stereotypes its characters, they are anything but. The acting is rich, the character's are memorable, very great acting on all levels, especially the main characters, and respect is paid to traditional Islam as opposed to its radical splinter. About Cheadle's character, you may have heard his performance is wooden, that is untrue, he delivers a moving portrait of a tortured soul subjected to a traumatic past and exposed to soul rending choices. If you follow it, Traitor will offer an excellent, thoughtful, journey into the heart of a complex issue.


Don Cheadle selected another excellent role for himself in a movie that tells the tail of Jihad from the Western and Muslim perspective. If you are expecting an action flick, this is the wrong movie for you. Traitor focuses more on personal relationships than high-tech weapons. The movie makes good use of the actuals tactics and methodology of present day jihadists. But some of the terms, such as the halawas, could be better defined. The way the movie portrays interaction between American security agencies is interesting, but better represents the Cold War era than modern day. The limited information presented about Cheadle's past also leaves just enough for the imagination to wonder. The one negative is that Archie Panjabi's character was not developed enough. She did a solid job with the few lines she was given. However, a more developed Panjabi character would have added more depth to Cheadle. Overall, very good movie that makes you think.


This is an excellent movie. This was evident by the fact that while the movie was playing the audience stayed absolutely quiet. Usually when a movie is a clunker the audience starts fidgeting and becomes restless. This movie kept the audience's attention. The star of this movie was Guy Pearce who gives a compelling performance as a government operative. Of course, Don Cheadle gives another excellent performance, this time playing a character whose loyalty is put to the test under the strangest circumstances. The story immediately grabs the audience's attention and dramatizes the dynamics and issues relating to the government's response to terrorism and provides an interesting take on the challenges associated with police work and undercover infiltration.


This was an excellent movie, a very intriguing and topical story involving terrorism with the basic message that there are good and bad people everywhere, of all races, religions, sects, whatever. The question in this film, for at least half of the movie, is: "Is Samir (Don Cheadle) a good guy or a bad guy?"

I don't want to say too much in fear of spoiling anything because that could easily be done while discussing this film. Suffice to say that this will keep your interest for the full running time and is a thinking person's movie more than most.

Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Neal McDonough, Said Taghmaoui and Alyy Kahn are all fantastic in the lead roles. The direction and photography also is top-notch. Those who pick apart this movie are nit-picking because it's a very entertaining film while not overdoing the action or the stereotypical characters.

One thing that's odd about this film: it has very strong statements which will please both liberals and conservatives, both devoutly religious folks and atheists. It pretty much covers the field.


Back in my youth it was always the case that movie bad guys were pretty much an uncomplicated bunch. The enemy used to be either Red Indians or The Germans. Then came the IRA (for us Brits ) and the Russians . Sinister foe's who were willing to go that one step further for their cause. Since 9/11 a far more fearful enemy has appeared on the scene. A brain washed enemy that is willing to die in the name of religion - The fundamentalist Muslims . Because of the terrifying prospect of what they have done and what they could do again , Hollywood have jumped on the band wagon and profited from a string of movies about the subject . None of which have been outstanding yet most have been entertaining. Traitor fits perfectly in that bracket .

When straight arrow FBI agent Roy Clayton heads up the investigation into a dangerous international conspiracy, all clues seem to lead back to former U.S. Special Operations officer, Samir Horn. A mysterious figure with a web of connections to terrorist organizations, Horn has a knack for emerging on the scene just as a major operation goes down.

The inter-agency task force looking into the case meets with Carter,a veteran CIA contractor who seemingly has his own agenda and Max Archer, fellow FBI agent. The task force links Horn to a prison break in Yemen, a bombing in Nice and a raid in London, but a tangle of contradictory evidence emerges, forcing Clayton to question whether his quarry is a disaffected former military operative--or something far more complicated.

Obsessed with discovering the truth, Clayton tracks Horn across the globe as the elusive ex-soldier burrows deeper and deeper into a world of shadows and intrigue.

I like Don Cheadle. I can forgive him for one of the worst ever English accents in the Ocean's films because despite that he is normally very good at his trade. He was brilliant in Boogie Nights and i loved his performance Reign Over Me. His performance is probably the best thing about Traitor.

Although thoroughly entertaining , this film has nothing new in it to recommend it any more than say - The Kingdom or Body of Lies - and if you have seen either of those films you have seen Traitor.

It's good to see Guy Pearce too . A highly underrated actor who has hardly put a foot wrong since his days in the extremely naff Australian Soap Opera "Neighbours". His best performance to date being the lead in the stunning movie "Momento".

This film reminds me a lot of the US TV series " Sleeper Cell" . Don Cheadle's character is asked to basically do the same thing in this as Darwyn Al-Sayeed does did in that show.

To sum up traitor is 2 hours of fast flowing predictable fair that is hard to criticise but is also difficult heap praise on.

7 out of 10


As a suspense-thriller about Islamic terrorism, "Traitor" is tautly-scripted and well acted by Don Cheadle and a cast of mostly unfamiliar names and faces. It takes place in a breath-taking array of locales, shifting countries and continents with nothing more than a skyline and a subtitle to tell the viewer where the characters are now. The beautiful Archie Panjabi shows up all too briefly as the girlfriend of Cheadle's character and is provided with little back story, as is also the case with most of the other players. It is difficult to become fully invested in characters about whom you are told so little -- but the story carries you along and certain of the mysteries are left hanging, even when the film ends. But, although it came and went without much notice, "Traitor" is well worth seeing.


Samir Horn (Don Cheadle) is an African-American Muslim who was born in Sudan and witnessed the death of his father in a car bombing when he was nine. He's raised by his mother in Chicago and spends some time in the Army in Special Ops. Eventually he sees action in both Afghanistan (with the Mujahideen) and fellow Muslims in Bosnia. Samir shows up in Yemen posing as an arms dealer and trying to infiltrate a terrorist network for a rogue CIA operative. Through the recommendation of a mutual acquaintance, Samir hooks up with a terrorist named Omar but before you know it they both wind up in prison after being captured by Yemeni government soldiers working in conjunction with the FBI.

After Samir and Omar escape from the prison aided by terrorist sympathizers, they escape to France where Omar introduces Samir to Fareed Mansour, Omar's boss in the terrorist network. Fareed is no Mohammed Atta (fanatic ringleader of the 9/11 terrorists) but rather an urbane yuppie-type who thinks nothing of drinking alcohol in front of Omar and Samir (supposed devout Muslims). Fareed justifies drinking of alcohol (a sin in the Muslim religion) by stating that it's necessary to blend in to achieve victory as the ends always justify the means. Somehow Aly Khan, an actor of Indian Muslim ancestry, seemed more like a stock Hollywood villain than a representation of an actual terrorist.

Even less convincing is Samir's ideological disagreement with Fareed while they're having dinner at an outdoor café. Samir makes it quite clear that he feels that Fareed has misinterpreted the Koran to justify violence. It's obvious that the film's screenwriters are trying to make the point that Samir represents the MAJORITY of Muslimsthat is, they are peaceful people who reject the methods of terrorists. Nonetheless, would Samir have risked blowing his cover by getting into an argument with the very man who he must prove his allegiance to? Omar ends up making excuses for Samir so he gets bybut the screenwriters cannot help but continually remind us (in the character of Samir) that the majority of Muslims reject violence (whether you agree or not with that idea, it just feels the point is made ad infinitum throughout the film perhaps in order to 'soften the blow' or 'balance things out' since the films' antagonists are indeed Islamic terrorists!).

Samir is depicted as a man who totally abhors the killing of innocents. However (and here is the big problem with the movie), he is willing to hook up with a lone rogue CIA operative (an intelligence contractor as he is referred to in the movie), a person who he knows virtually nothing about, and plants a bomb in the US consulate in Nice at the behest of this shadowy figure, which accidentally kills eight innocent people. It just seems that there are too many action-thrillers today that trot out the tired storyline of inter-agency government squabbling, especially between the FBI and the CIA.

How does this CIA guy pull off the bombing of the US consulate in France no less? To my recollection, most US embassies and consulates are pretty well-guarded. And why Samir would even take a chance in conducting an operation such as this when he knows that something could go wrong is beyond me.

While the rogue CIA operative must end up getting bumped off precisely because he is amoral and unprincipled, the FBI fares better here. The two agents, Clayton and Archer, are your typical good cop-bad cop characters. Archer is the bad cop and punches Samir a few times in an early interrogation scene in Yemen. But Clayton (Guy Pearce) is the 'sensitive' good cophe majored in Arabic studies as an undergraduate and ends up receiving important information from Samir via email at a critical point in the film's story.

I'm not sure exactly how Samir pulls it offand this is probably a first in the history in the fight against terrorismhe manages to arrange for 50 would-be suicide bombers to be on the same bus and they all blow themselves up at the same time. Then he also manages to shoot the two terrorist masterminds without any bodyguards being present (Note that the main boss, Nathir, again is no scary Mohammed Atta-typebut rather an ordinary businessman).

Traitor does a disservice in the fight against international terrorism. It makes it look all too easy with the good guys easily outwitting the bad guys. But in reality, terrorists such as the 9/11 conspirators were no pushovers; to remind everybody: they beat uswe didn't beat them! Some say that Cheadle's performance here was excellent. I would have to disagree. He comes off as too middle-class, too intellectual to be a former Special Ops guy who is able to infiltrate a gang of terrorists. All the preaching throughout the movie reminds me more of a college professor trying to convince a bunch of undergraduates that his cause is just.

In the end, 'Traitor' tries hard to be as politically correct as possible, arguing that the war against terror is not antithetical to the teachings of the Muslim religion. But it makes its argument in such a heavy-handed and obvious manner that the film becomes overly didactic. Coupled with a wholly implausible plot, 'Traitor' fails to convince us that we're watching a story that mirrors something that could have come close to happening in reality.


Most spy/espionage/terrorist films are so unrealistic as to be almost laughable albeit entertaining. The good guys are always totally good, and the bad guys are always totally bad, and no matter how much physical contact they have, they never show even as much as a bruise in the next scene. Traitor is not your typical film of this genre. The good guys are not all good, the bad guys are not all bad, and they bruise and bleed as do normal men.

The film begins with a young Samir Horn witnessing the bombing death of his father. It is never known why his father was murdered but one assumes the motive was either political or religious. Time has passed and Samir has become a black market dealer in the Middle East. He is arrested and imprisoned with several members of a terrorist group. They escape, and Samir joins the group. Because he has lived in the United States for most of his life and speaks with no accent, he is chosen to be sent to the US to help organize a massive terrorist attack using suicide bombers - members of sleeper cells who have been embedded in the country for many years. Samir has come to the attention of the FBI, and the security community is attempting to track his movements.

Viewers of Traitor are treated to a realistic and insightful look into the actions and personalities of all of the participants in this international conspiracy. One of the elements of this film that impressed me is that there are no duplicitous characters lurking in the background. There are spies that have worked themselves into all the organizations, but none is one of those cookie-cutter characters that show up so often in films of this ilk - the megalomaniac who performs acts of treachery due to his overblown opinion of himself.

The superior acting and excellent script make Traitor a film to be thoroughly enjoyed and pondered. You actually have to think about the characters' motives and actions in order to gain the full benefit of viewing.

Don Cheadle as Samir the traitor, and Guy Pearce as the FBI agent searching for Samir are needless-to-say, first-rate in their portrays of two strong-willed and intelligent men. These two actors never give the audience less than sublime entertainment in any of their performances, and the ones in Traitor are no exceptions. They are mightily supported by a number of other excellent actors. Saïd Taghmaoui plays Omar who is Samir's contact man amongst the terrorists. He shows us a man who would generally be painted as totally evil who is actually just a man dedicated to a cause in which he believes. There is also a rewarding understated performance by Neal McDonough as the assistant FBI agent. McDonough has lately fallen into the trap of playing a total nut case hiding behind a handsome face and those extraordinarily piercing eyes. He is a, somewhat, loose cannon in this film, but under control. It is a very good part for him.

It seems more reasonable to classify Traitor as an exciting drama rather than an action flick. There is action, and the climatic scenes bring you to the edge of your seat - one a rewarding dose of very black humor. But it is the drama and insight into the complex characters that make Traitor a highly rewarding film.


As an Arab Muslim, I am mostly impressed at the effort that went into researching various verses in Quran, the understandable Arabic spoken by Mr. Cheadle, and the 'correct' way that he did his prayers. I am used to people not praying correctly and putting in a show for the Camera. Mr. Cheadle was praying correctly. He has researched his role very well.

The movie itself was excellent. The views presented of a more moderate Islam that abhors the violence on civilians and that does not support the more radical version is greatly appreciated. We are the silent majority.

Well done to the team.

AND thanks for a researched movie, and a balanced view.

Thank You.