Critics singe Burn After Reading

That possible "Burn After Reading" booing and hissing we mentioned earlier today? Gee, that didn't take long.

Critics turned out for the Coen brothers' follow-up to their Oscar-laden "No Country for Old Men" at the Venice Film Festival today, and they didn't much like what they saw.

THR's Kirk Honeycutt calls "Burn After Reading" "a minor piece of silliness with all the trappings of an A-list studio movie." That would be the Oscar-heavy cast of George Clooney, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton and past nominee Brad Pitt. For them, the decorated brothers have created "looney-tunes roles" in "an anti-spy thriller in which nothing is at stake, no one acts with intelligence and everything ends badly."

But how do you really feel?

Variety's Todd McCarthy is even harsher:

"Nothing about the project’s execution inspires the feeling that this was ever intended as anything more than a lark, which would be fine if it were a good one. As it is, audience teeth-grinding sets in early and never lets up."

Even the not-so-brutal Guardian thinks that the Coen brothers film that "Burn" most closely resembles is "Intolerable Cruelty." Ouchie!

Unrealistic to think that the Coens, here wearing all the writing, directing and producing hats, could come up with back-to-back Oscar contenders? Maybe so. They don't look so hopeful in this photo, and it was taken before the screening.

Much shuffling of early Oscar predictions will now commence. And just think of it this way, if Clooney and Coens are out of the picture, there's more room for Leo and Sam Mendes!

 

Comments

[Harry]

Did you even read the Honeycutt review? It was pretty positive. Probably not awards worthy positive but positive nonetheless and not even close to being categorized in the same light of McCarthy's rant against the movie.

[cc]

"Even the not-so-brutal Guardian thinks that the Coen brothers film that 'Burn' most closely resembles is 'Intolerable Cruelty.' Ouchie!"

Since when is a four star review "ouchie"? Since when is a four star review "not-so-brutal?"

As I recall, four star reviews are near-raves.

What's "ouchie" is your intentional decision to not mention that the "not-so-brutal" review was a four star review, which then raises questions about your credibility, and also leads one to wonder if whether you didn't see the rave review from trade paper Screendaily and the four star review from Britain's The Independent, or you did and decided not to mention them for some personal reason of your own.

An unfair theory? Maybe, but it wouldn't be so way out. I mean, the best adjective you could come up with for a four-star-review was "Ouchie!"