Talk:Burn After Reading/Archive 1

William Macy?
William H. Macy (or somebody who strongly resembles him) features prominently in the trailer for Burn After Reading, yet neither Wikipedia nor IMDb show any connection between him and the film. Can anybody identify the "Macy lookalike" in the trailer? I thought it might be David Rasche, but it doesn't seem to be him either. DES (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The person you're referring to isnt Alan Arkin, is it? The guy that says "burn the body" at the end of the trailer? 124.182.212.206 (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The William Macy lookalike is almost certainly David Rasche. The actor who says "burn the body" is JK Simmons, Rasche is in the scene with him though. Yorkshiresky (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it has to be Rasche. I see he's listed on Burn After Reading's IMDb page now. DES (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why Harry is let go at the end.
In the movie, Harry is released from the detention center at the end because the CIA director explained to the official that the U.S. has no extradition (sp?) with Venezuela, a mistake made by the official. They let Harry go because they had no right to hold him, not because they needed them out of their hair. Someone fix the page with this correct information. 173.22.58.233 (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, what you wrote makes no sense. Whether or not Venezuela has an extradition treaty with the US has nothing to do with whether they can grab him before he boards a flight to Venezuela.  The point is that since there is no extradition treaty, once he is there in Venezuela, there is no official way for the US to get him back.  In other words, he is effectively "out of their hair".  So nothing needs to be fixed in the article.  --C S (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

plot description nit
The article as it stands reads:

''Katie Cox ... copies all his personal financial files off his computer ... The disk eventually finds its way to Hardbodies, a workout gym. An employee of the gym, Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) finds the disc and believes that the financial information is a government document. Along with his fellow employee Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), he intends to use the disc to blackmail Cox ... They call up Cox in the middle of the night, and when he hears that they are in possession of a disk belonging to him, he naturally assumes that they are talking about the memoirs.''

I think this is a little off. When Linda and Harry call Oswald, at one point Harry reads him something about a Balkan bureau chief who had a poor rapport with his staff -- Harry pronounces rapport as "report" and Oswald angrily corrects him. I think this is supposed to be from his memoir -- it's obviously not part of his finances -- and my assumption was that Katie had copied that file to the CD along with the financial information.

Anyway, I'd like to change this, but since it was a kind of confusing film plot-wise, I just wondered if anyone thinks I'm off base first. --Jfruh (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely correct and should change it by all means. --APDEF (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The descrition doesn't explain who Linda is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.52.29 (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Influences
The humor in the film reminds me of Hopscotch (film). Is there any evidence it was one of the Cohen Bros. influences? (DEL) Laughing at Harries dildo machine for example means a landlord joke. and so on, it has got no comedy structure and the satirecal play stile is the only thing which may legitimate comedy...--Danaide (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Was it really a hatchet that Cox used? I recall it looking like a big claw hammer but I only saw it once and I guess it would be hard to chop at the door with the claw... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.88.162 (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To me the whole movie appears not so funny. The so called ''black comedy relates to thriller structure in a difficult lining.

No, it was a hatchet alright. It can be clearly seen in several other scenes. --Darko Maksimović (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Дарко Максимовић (talk • contribs)

I know for a fact Philip Glass has not seen this movie.
...or there would be a lawsuit. I really, really want to say something about the music being obviously and overtly Glassian (multi-note arpeggios to which notes are added and taken away, as well as sequences when long notes in a solo instrument[s] are played over aforementioned repeating patterns like in "Facades" from Glassworks), but I don't have a source (critic[s] remarking on it), or am just too lazy to find one (probably the latter). I mean, I know the composer probably did it since, as I glean from this article, he wanted the music to be supposedly "self-important" and recall tense scores from serious films (which are Glass' specialties when it comes to film music). Sorry if I'm being bothersome or something, but I was distracted the entire movie because the music annoyed me so much since it sounded just like Glass but wasn't on for long enough and missed everything that makes Glass' scores so good.

71.65.36.225 (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Glass and Wikipedia fan


 * I'm not a musicologist but I can't hear anything especially Glassian about the score and without a learned reference to Burwell ripping off/quoting Glass I think it's just your opinion. If you can be bothered Burwell discusses the inspiration behind the score here http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117997562.html?categoryId=3275&cs=1 yorkshiresky (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The music doesn't work as atmo but in a certain montage function. It#s ethno like and describes the scenes danger like out of another world, a grounded one.It may one remind on Glass ...--Danaide (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the "plot" too long?
This has the same problem the Hancock page had : the "plot" part is an almost scene by scene description of the movie. Is that okay ?FILMPLOT FiP Что вы думаете? 11:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a warnin "the plot is revealed" or something? I thought I was reading a synopsis and I almost got the ending, luckily I stopped in time... -Davide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.17.106 (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A plot is generally known as what happens in a movie. Obviously it will contain the ending. MegaZega93 (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not neccessarily. A plot summary does not need to contain the ending. And most other movie articles have spoiler warnings if the summary spoils anything significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.121.75 (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Read: Spoiler. Basically Wiki is an encyclopedia. All relevant plot details should be included. Information should not be removed because you think it spoils the plot. And the so called spoiler tags for other movies you are talking about no longer exists.24.190.34.219 (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. 84.176.60.3 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The real plot has to be just one sentence. But I think to line the story of "Burn after reading" in the longer way, so like a neutral way of storytelling, is nescessary, because otherwise none would understand nothing.It would be better to call this topic story, so it is what it is..... --Danaide (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

are the negative reception comments too much?
for a movie with a 79% fresh rating, I would expect a lot more praise coming from that section. although i sort of agree with most of the reviewer comments cited, the quotations are rather one sided. --Pengutron (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto that. It seems like we have lots of cites for pithy critical reviews, but the movie was pretty highly regarded by the critics, so it's weird to spend 70% of our review space trashing it. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The negative comments are not too much. This movie was absolutely horrible and I'm utterly shocked anyone gave this a positive review. This movie is blight on the Coen Brother's resume. (72.181.137.196 (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Whether or not you think the praise is justified or not is irrelevant. What it should do is reflect the critical reception of the movie and at the moment it reflects the minority view of the movie and not the bulk of critical thought.yorkshiresky (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. It's an encyclopedia, so it has to reflect what actually happens, not just one person's opinion, because everyone has a different opinion. For example, I loved the movie and thought it was hilarious. I haven't seen a Coen movie that I haven't loved. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ozzie's father?
I can't find any reference to the actor who pays Cox's father (on the yacht in a wheelchair). I think that it could be Terence Stamp - can anyone throw some light on this? Many thanks.--TraceyR (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Chad escapes?
I have corrected the plot about the fate of Chad. As far as I know the characther played by Brad Pitt is shot by Pfarrer not only in the 'UK DVD Version' but also in the theatrical version shown everywhere. American clips from the movie always show Chad's death. IMDB doesn't list any alternate version of the movie. Only wikipedia mirrors have Chad's escape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.41.39.75 (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Burn After Reading. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010003958/http://www.startribune.com:80/entertainment/movies/11551181.html to http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/movies/11551181.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117041518/http://www.monacome.com:80/2009/01/2009-golden-globe-awards-winners.html to http://www.monacome.com/2009/01/2009-golden-globe-awards-winners.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Burn After Reading. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913202320/http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/11/the-coen-brothers-interview-burn-after-reading-toronto-2008/ to http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/11/the-coen-brothers-interview-burn-after-reading-toronto-2008/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/movies/11551181.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/awards_festivals/fest_reviews/article_display.jsp?JSESSIONID=nhdpL1VLywL5kZQyH8PWPZmfJ5TM1KD0KTpJg8fzwnm0mBpTLvJF%21329093835&&rid=11547
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.monacome.com/2009/01/2009-golden-globe-awards-winners.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Country tags and national categories
Thank you Yorkshiresky for adding references; I'm rather embarrassed that it took reading the referenced page to finally realize the significance was in the production companies - with StudioCanal and Working Title being French and British, respectively.

Just thought I'd add this here for future clarification, seems like it's a running point of contention on the article. - Centerflag982 (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

QMUL Film Studies Project
We will be editing this page as part of an assessment piece for our film studies. Our group members are Sallyfosterx, alicepalm, jhj2125. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallyfosterx (talk • contribs) 16:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome and looking forward to the group's contributions. When posting here in talk, add four tildes ( ~ ) to sign your posts. Barte (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Opening encapsulation is wrong
Malkovich's character's (Cox) memoirs were NOT found. Rather, what was found was a CD with Cox' financial records, which had been left in the gym's LADIES' locker room by the secretary of his wife's divorce lawyer.Mwidunn (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)