There are three lines in the film: the sudden layoff of Markovic, a consultant from the National Security Department, the affair of the security guard of the Ministry of Finance played by Clooney, and the desire of a middle-aged woman in her forties for full-body plastic surgery. The various characters on the three lines are involved from the very beginning. One of Clooney’s affair objects was Ma’s wife, and the memoirs written by Ma, who was depressed after being laid off, fell on the woman’s fitness center... and this relationship became more complicated due to the development of the plot. Rooney reached a climax when he heard the woman's horrified expression after uttering the address. It should be said that the story frame is okay, but the problem lies in the details and character creation.
The relationship between McDormand's heroine and Clooney is suspected to be a fake. Although the film has made a certain preparation: a woman is cheated by a married man on the Internet, but Clooney hides his wife and lover (Markovich’s wife) for another one-night stand. But this does not mean that we can accept the arrangement of two people walking together by accident. Because while a woman thinks this man is what she dreams of, did the Coen brothers think of another logical relationship: if the forty-something looks mediocre, heavy eye bags, upper arms and lower abdomen can attract a dandy like Clooney Handsome guy, does she still need plastic surgery? And if she doesn't need plastic surgery at all, then why should she participate in blackmail?
In contrast, the behavioral logic of the other party in the blackmail incident, Blatt Pitt, is more vague. This person is very handsome and doesn't need plastic surgery, and there is no pressure on housing supply caused by subprime mortgages, and he works very passionately. In addition, Markovic’s exhortation (about his serious violation of the law) when the two were connected was rude and piercing, but quite convincing. But none of this prevented him from going his own way. why? We don’t know! Many people praised Blatt Pitt for his comedy performance in this film, but they did not agree. Although Peter himself had deliberately kept a low profile, he still couldn't conceal the heroic star that was revealed between the corners of his eyes and eyebrows. Therefore, no matter how you look at it, it doesn't look like a LOSER that has decayed to nowhere.
It is not uncommon for the characters in the play to die because of their stupidity in the films of the Coen brothers. For example, in "True Love and False Love", the pistol was mistaken as a professional killer for asthma spray. But that is more to highlight a kind of black humor, and does not violate the psychological expectations of the audience (Clony, who played the divorce lawyer, escaped for this reason). And can the bloody scenes in this film achieve a similar purpose? Is Clooney's role as the security guard of the Ministry of Finance really stupid, or is there a black humor component? Anyway, I didn't feel it. In addition, the appearance of a big star makes this plot unacceptable. Of course, the problem with big stars cannot be understood solely from the movie itself. Perhaps, the Coen brothers are using this to imply that their position in the Hollywood power list has been greatly improved? Because usually directors with a certain level of influence dare to do this—just like Hitchcock did to Janet Lee in "The Cry."
As for Clooney's performance, it is not much better than his friends. In the opening scene of eating cookies, the exaggerated facial expressions are obviously imitating the weird comedies of the golden age, but they are somewhat out of date. The comedy passages used to express their quirky self-made sexual organs are also more vulgar because they are separated from the entire storyline. The mysterious car following him is the only suspenseful element throughout the film. But when the truth comes to light, you will definitely feel like a big mistake.
What is even more failure than the mediocre plot and comedy style is that there is almost no idea what the Coen brothers express in this film.
Say it seeks to expose the bureaucracy that criticizes the power sector? But judging from Markovic's final crazy behavior, can you say that the superior department did something wrong? Who else can such a lunatic lay off? Or want to insinuate the current international political landscape of the new Cold War. In the film, there is indeed a portrait of Russian President Putin, who is at odds with the United States, and Venezuela, which has no extradition law with the United States, is also mentioned in the dialogue. But how is that? Markovic’s memoirs are like "nonsense" that the Russian embassy official who received the heroine commented. Or are the Cohen brothers insinuating the collapse of modern Americans' money worship and patriotic ideals? The street pickpockets in Fuller's "South Street Adventure" in the 1950s would stand up and fight against the "Red Party" when faced with classified films related to national security. But now those Americans with legitimate occupations first thought of blackmailing under similar circumstances, and even sold it to the Russians? ! ...But unfortunately this inference that seems to be the closest to the plot is the least in line with the facts. As we all know, Americans are always the most "patriotic" among Western countries!
View more about Burn After Reading reviews
