--- title: "Burn After Reading: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/burn-after-reading/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/burn-after-reading" critics_score: 63 critics_reviews: 22 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Burn After Reading (2008): what the critics said Critics' score 63 from 22 reviews: 14 positive, 4 mixed, 4 negative. Most critics come away amused, if not quite satisfied. The praise clusters on the cast: Brad Pitt’s clueless gym employee and John Malkovich’s irascible Osborne Cox are singled out again and again, with Frances McDormand’s comic turn and George Clooney not far behind. Several reviews admire the precision with which the farce escalates into violence, and a few find the bleakness oddly cathartic, a portrait of paranoia and grasping foolishness with a political sting. The spread is wide. The middle of the pack calls it slight, second-shelf Coens, with a loose plot, no strong protagonist and characters who are difficult to love. The dissenters go much further: The Guardian finds it a strained, chaotic failure, The New Yorker thinks the misanthropy freezes the comedy, and Paste complains that the actors play quirks rather than people. Even the harshest reviews, though, stop to admire Malkovich or Pitt. ## Little White Lies — Kevin Maher Rating 5/4/5. 16 October 2008. Maher finds the film funny, cruel and faintly depressing, praising its thrillingly barmy ensemble farce. He singles out the characters’ desperate emptiness and the precision with which the plot spirals into grisly violence. [Read the review](https://lwlies.com/reviews/burn-after-reading) ## Radio Times — Stella Papamichael Rating 4/5. The critic praises the Coens’ skill at blending sophistication with silliness. John Malkovich’s over-the-top performance is singled out for praise. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-0nt9r0/burn-after-reading/) ## Time Out — David Jenkins Rating 4/5. 14 October 2008. The review gives the film four out of five stars. The visible text calls it another Coen brothers concoction, but the article body is unavailable, so no specific praise or complaint can be identified. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/burn-after-reading-1) ## The AV Club — Keith Phipps Rating B. 11 September 2008. Phipps finds the film funny but a second-shelf Coen comedy, with its loose plot and lack of a strong protagonist holding it back. He praises the cast’s broadly comic performances, which are almost uniformly funny. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/burn-after-reading-1798204850) ## Empire — Ian Nathan Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 25 May 2007. Nathan finds the film initially abrasive but ultimately rewarding, with its offbeat wit lingering after viewing. He particularly praises the precision of its escalating farce and the performances, especially Brad Pitt and George Clooney. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/burn-reading-review/) ## Los Angeles Times — Carina Chocano Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 9 October 2008. Chocano finds the bleak farce bitterly cathartic. She praises its mordant portrayal of paranoia and the grasping, murderous foolishness of its characters. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-oct-09-et-carina9-story.html) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 3/4. 11 September 2008. Ebert found the film amusing but less satisfying than the Coen brothers’ strongest work. He singled out its comedy of ineptitude, while finding its characters’ foolishness less compelling as the joke continued. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/burn-after-reading-2008) ## Evening Standard — The Standard Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2012. The critic finds the comedy entertaining, though slight and without much to ponder. The performances and broad character drawing are singled out as its strengths. [Read the review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/brothers-at-play-in-burn-after-reading-7438819.html) ## The Hollywood Reporter — Kirk Honeycutt Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 26 August 2008. The critic finds the Coens’ spy-thriller send-up goofy and delightfully lunatic, though its anti-thriller rhythms may take time to settle into. He praises the cast’s comic riffs on their screen personas, especially Brad Pitt’s performance as a clueless gym employee. [Read the review](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/burn-reading-review-movie-2008-126159/) ## Screen Daily — Lee Marshall Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 27 August 2008. The page identifies this as a review, but the text is behind a registration wall. The critic’s verdict and specific praise or complaint are not visible. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/burn-after-reading/4040429.article) ## The New York Times Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 29 August 2008. The blocked page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. It provides no verifiable praise or complaint about the film. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/arts/29iht-fmreview29.1.15706969.html) ## Slant Magazine — Bill Weber Rating 2.5/4. 11 September 2008. Weber finds the film a tonally uneven but ambitious farce, with an undertow of sadness that gives its state-of-the-union punchline weight. He singles out Malkovich’s astonished reaction to the blackmailer as especially funny. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/burn-after-reading/) ## Total Film — Sam Ashurst Rating 3/5. 17 October 2008. Ashurst finds the film an entertaining but slight Coen brothers comedy, short of the siblings’ best work. He praises Brad Pitt’s comic performance and the film’s nimble plotting, while faulting its anonymous visuals and characters who are difficult to love. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/burn-after-reading-review/) ## The New Yorker — David Denby Fi1m's normalised score 25/100 (inferred from the text). 7 September 2008. Denby finds the film bleak and unfunny, with its misanthropy ultimately freezing the comedy. He praises John Malkovich’s finely calibrated performance as the irascible Osborne Cox. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/09/15/storm-warnings-david-denby) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 27 August 2008. Festival review. McCarthy finds the comedy overplayed and fundamentally silly, with the film ultimately a failure. He singles out Brad Pitt’s performance as unexpectedly endearing, alongside the Coens’ visual sense. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2008/film/awards/burn-after-reading-3-1200507465/) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 16 October 2008. Bradshaw finds the film a strained, chaotic failure and a major letdown after the Coens’ previous success. He singles out John Malkovich as the strongest contributor, praising the seriousness and emotional force of his performance. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/oct/17/burn-after-reading) ## Den of Geek — Ron Hogan Rating 4/5. 21 September 2008. Hogan calls it a wickedly funny, brisk return to form, though it falls short of The Big Lebowski and its plot can feel aimless. He especially praises Brad Pitt’s goofy performance and the film’s sharp editing. [Read the review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/burn-after-reading-review-2/) ## The Playlist Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 5 September 2008. Festival review. The headline signals a positive review, describing the film as delightful. It singles out the foolish characters as the source of its appeal. [Read the review](https://theplaylist.net/league-of-morons-rule-delightful-burn-20080905/) ## Collider — Steven Weintraub Rating B. 9 September 2008. The review finds the film smart and sharply acted, though its technical elements feel deflated. It praises the sharp screenplay and performances, especially Frances McDormand’s comic turn. [Read the review](https://collider.com/burn-after-reading-movie-review/) ## Eye for Film — Anton Bitel Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 14 October 2008. The critic finds the Coens’ dark comedy highly effective, even as its familiar chaos carries a political edge. He praises the filmmakers’ unmatched knack for comic crime-gone-wrong stories and highlights the characters’ blinkered idiocy as a troubling reflection of their world. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/burn-after-reading-film-review-by-anton-bitel) ## Digital Spy — Stella Papamichael Fi1m's normalised score 72/100 (inferred from the text). 12 October 2008. The critic finds the film a memorable, finely crafted black comedy, though at times its plot is too nutty and reliant on coincidence. Pitt’s phone call to Cox is singled out as one of the film’s most memorable scenes. [Read the review](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a131948/burn-after-reading/) ## Paste — Robert Davis Fi1m's normalised score 15/100 (inferred from the text). 12 September 2008. Davis judges the film a pointless, disappointing misfire whose promised comic payoff never arrives. He complains that the actors play quirks rather than characters, despite their energetic performances. [Read the review](https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/joel-and-ethan-coen/burn-after-reading) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/burn-after-reading.md