When I first saw the trailer for "Burn After Reading" last week, it struck me right off-the-bat that Brad Pitt's acting appeared to be stilted and that he was miscast in his role as a trainer at a local gym.
But, I reserved judgment on his performance, until I took in the feature last night at the Grove in Hollywood.
Well, the verdict is out.
Pitt's wooden performance was so off-the-mark, that it forced me to consider the possibility that a couple of plum acting assignments that he carried off in the past, were outright flukes.For starters, his external approach to the characterization was all wrong.
In fact, the acting choices he made in "Burn", were of the amateurish kind that inexperienced actors (who don't know much better) engage in the first-time-out the starter's gate.
Brad, the character should "bubble" up from inside to the surface.
Not the other way 'round.
Get it?
I surmise that part of the problem was due to fact that neither Pitt or the director bothered to research all the particulars part 'n parcel to the locale.
You'd think that a guy with chiseled abs and a muscled bod would have an inkling about what goes on in a professional gym. Or, at least an idea about what a trainer's thought processes are, while going through the paces with a client at a work-out facility.
In "Burn", however, Brad futzes about with a lot of silly schtick that simply doesn't work because it is not grounded in truth.
In a review for US Magazine, Bradly Jacobs was quick to rave.
"Brad Pitt gets big laughs."
Not in the theater environs I was shifting uncomfortably in.
In fact - I am inclined to surmise that a couple of critics must have gotten some payola or something from the producers to boost up the black comedy - 'cause their reviews were way off, too.
For example, Ben Lyons opined,
"A hilarious comedy from an all-star ensemble cast."
Hilarious? No, not by any stretch of the old funny bone.
In fact, when the audience filed out after the abrupt screwball ending, there was a noticeable silence among the throngs.
Yeah, me-thinks many theatre-goers were under the distinct impression that they got "burned", alright.
The ensemble cast?
Well, at times it appeared they all had a touch of "burnitis".
Frances McDormand (usually a competent actress) got pulled-down a notch or two in her scenes with Pitt, for instance.And, it appeared for all-the-world, that George Clooney couldn't fathom which way or that his character should go.
Although Clooney demonstrated his ability to subtly shade a character in the past - in award-winning roles - it boggles the sensibilities to encounter him trying to pin down a part on screen that should have been a snap for the talented seasoned pro.
Even, Ellen Chenoweth managed to miss the mark, when she cast a handful of supporting players in roles they weren't suited for from the get-go.
There was one noteable exception, though.
John Malkovich was all fire and spit. Single-handed, the skilled thespian not only underscored what good acting is all about, but - in the process - triumphantly stole the film out from under the rest of the high-profile performers.In fact, in "Burn After Reading", Malkovich is a one-man tour-de-force.
Even still, he couldn't save the producers from disaster.
The script was poorly written, after all. And, the direction, pedestrian.
At times, "Burn" struggled to achieve that Fargo off-the-wall correctness.
But, none of the magic of that earlier Coen Brother classic, materialized on the silver screen.
I could go on and on.
Why bother?
Rotten Tomatoes has been reporting favorable reviews.
And, there was a flurry of ticket sales over the weekend, which enthused an industry that has been languishing in the doldrums of late.
But, I expect that once the "word of mouth" is out about this little "stinker", audiences will - as Samuel Goldwyn would have quipped - stay away in droves.
In this tough economy, who wants to waste 12 bucks on a dismal night of lousy entertainment that leaves a bad taste in the mouth?
A few die-hard Coen fans, at most, I expect!
No comments:
Post a Comment