Rolling Stone
3 stars out of 4 -- "[T]he brothers have conjured a crazy-quilt comic thriller that takes on our growing national stupidity in the form of a sex farce. The result is wildly funny." 09/18/2008 p.116USA Today
"This latest offering from the Coen brothers is an outlandish dark farce/spy spoof with some hilarious characters and quotable lines." 09/12/2008 Los Angeles Times
"Pitt, a newcomer to the Coen's world, is completely at ease with this material....The actor matches McDormand laugh for laugh playing a doltish accomplice who means well but is not really cut out for the espionage game." 09/12/2008 Total Film
3 stars out of 5 -- "BURN AFTER READING has some outstanding comic highlights -- many of them courtesy of Pitt himself. Loose-limbed and absent-minded, his hyper performance stays the right side of mannered." 11/01/2008 p.47 Sight and Sound
"[T]he dialogue pops as usual with musical idiom....[The] perfectly shifting plot mechanics hold appeal in an era wanting for screenwriting basics." 11/01/2008 52-53 Empire
4 stars out of 5 -- "This is precision-built madness. Beneath these chattering lunatics and the pinballing plot lies an intricacy worthy of Kubrick." 11/01/2008 p.57-58 Entertainment Weekly
Included in Entertainment Weekly's 2008 Films Of The Year -- "[T]he Coen brothers' richest caper since FARGO. Like that film, it's an acrid thriller in which ordinary people commit desperate crimes." 12/26/2008 Total Film
3 stars out of 5 -- "Pitt amuses, Clooney gurns, McDormand crinkles and Malkovich steals the show." 02/01/2009 ReelViews 8 of 10
After watching the Coen Brothers spend years mowing their way through genres and upending conventions, one question comes to mind: Is there anything these guys can't do. Common wisdom suggests "no" and, after winning Oscars early this year for No Country for Old Men, expectations have gone from modest to high. However, those anticipating another searing drama/thriller with Burn After Reading may be disappointed. The Coens, as is often their style, have elected to go in another direction. This is a thriller with a high quotient of comedic elements or, if you prefer, a comedy with a high quotient of thriller elements. As is always the case with a production of Joel & Ethan, it's difficult to classify, but that doesn't make it any less enjoyable...The movie's plot involves so many threads and contains so many intertwined layers that it effectively defeats any summary with fewer than about 1000 words...The tone is a little like Fargo, although Burn After Reading isn't as nuanced. As comedies go, it's a definite notch below Raising Arizona, The Hudsucker Proxy, and even Intolerable Cruelty. So, in the Brothers' oeuvre, this would have to be considered a minor work, and it may look even more insignificant in the wake of No Country for Old Men. But if there's one rule that must be applied here, it's that lesser Coen works are often the equal to superior films by other directors. - James Berardinelli
Chicago Sun-Times 8 of 10
The Coen brothers' "Burn After Reading" is a screwball comedy that occasionally becomes something more. The characters are zany, the plot coils upon itself with dizzy zeal, and the roles seem like a perfect fit for the actors -- yes, even Brad Pitt, as Chad, a gum-chewing, fuzzy-headed physical fitness instructor. I've always thought of him as a fine actor, but here he reveals a dimension that, shall I say, we haven't seen before...No need to describe the plot. It goes around and around and comes out here, there, everywhere. All nicely put together, of course, but as an exercise, not an imperative...Frances McDormand is wonderful. Here she channels a little of the go-getter determination of her state trooper in "Fargo." She's innocent of deep thoughts, but nothing can stop her. From the first time I noticed her, in a great scene with Gene Hackman in "Mississippi Burning," she has had that rare ability to seem correctly cast in every role...This is not a great Coen brothers' film. Nor is it one of their bewildering excursions off the deep end. It's funny, sometimes delightful, sometimes a little sad, with dialogue that sounds perfectly logical until you listen a little more carefully and realize all of these people are mad. The movie is only 96 minutes long. That's long enough for a movie, but this time, I dunno, I thought the end felt like it arrived a little arbitrarily. I must be wrong, because I can't figure out what could have followed next. - Roger Ebert
|
