Review: ‘Bruno’
by John NolteOne of the great Hollywood con jobs of the last five years was in convincing a mostly indifferent American public that a film with fewer domestic ticket sales than “Click,” “Mission Impossible III,” “Over the Hedge” and “Superman Returns” was some sort of cultural phenomenon. Wildly profitable? Sure. But any reasonable analysis of a modest $127 million haul shouldn’t be described as anything nearing a “phenomenon.” Luckily for “Borat” (2006) the right people were on board to hype up this nonsense-machine.
The “right people,” naturally, are mostly coastal elites who loved watching the everyday folks they so loathe cynically set up and manipulated to a point where they could be edited into unappealing, buffoonish caricatures, which isn’t to say a few weren’t truly unappealing and buffoonish, or that when it wasn’t gross-out disgusting the adventures of Sacha Baron Cohen’s clueless foreigner didn’t serve up a few honestly-earned laughs. But just the thought of joining up with the superior, self-satisfied smugs imperiously chuckling from Hollywood Hills and Manhattan skyscrapers as their personal jester demeaned we peasants cast a mean-spirit over everything.
With “Bruno,” and to his eternal credit, the Jester has turned on his masters and as we’ve seen in all those “Does ‘Bruno’ go too far?” articles, not surprisingly, many of them find turnabout unfair play. Because it’s now celebrity culture and other protected classes (gays and blacks) also facing Baron Cohen’s withering fire, suddenly what was once so daring, illuminating, brave and hilarious – guffaws at the expense of others – must now be met with beard scratching over “false gayness” and heavy, solemn pauses due to a “nasty streak.”
If you define politically incorrect as I do – having the guts to satirize the Left’s sacred cows (or everything Stewart, Letterman and Maher don’t do) - ”Bruno” hits the mark with an across the board ambush which, because everyone’s taking fire, goes a long way to mitigate the mean-spiritedness that made “Borat” such an exercise in elitist cruelty. The downside, and it’s a steep one, is that “Bruno” is relentlessly smutty and lewd, packed with full-frontal male nudity (much of it in close-up), outrageous but explicit portrayals of gay sex, and most disturbing, a swingers’ orgy with only the smallest of black dots to avoid an X-rating. This is easily the most off-putting film in years.
A series of increasingly disturbing, ambush-style set pieces designed for uncomfortable laughter revolve around the thin plot of a flamboyantly gay Austrian television host who, with his faithful gay assistant Luntz, comes to America seeking fame, celebrity and to be the biggest “gay star since Arnold Schwarzenegger.” At first Bruno tries the conventional Hollywood route with an agent who helps to set up a pilot for a celebrity interview show. After this crashes and burns, Bruno starts to re-think the whole “gay” thing and hopes success can be found if he “man’s up” with, among other things, a stint in the National Guard, self-defense courses and a sexual re-orientation ministry.
There are some truly funny moments, dozens of them, in fact, and many of the situations are even inspired. Watching Bruno destroy a fashion show, take the adopted black baby he named O.J. on a Jerry Springer-ish talk show, get permission from degenerate stage mothers to put their young children in danger and criticize Osama bin Laden’s sense of fashion to one of his underlings, is to bear witness to moments of real comic genius. But for every one of these there are at least five seedy others that make you want to take a shower and go to confession.
There’s another comedy line breached that has nothing to do with the explicit content. Frequently the narrative gets lazy and asks us to consciously laugh only at the idea we’re being shocked – only at the idea of how explicit and revolting things get. You can almost hear the filmmakers bragging like children, “Can you believe we got an R-rating?”
No. I can’t.
Over time the relentless nudity and crudity starts to wear. Even though you’re laughing, at the same time you’re hoping the next scene gives it a rest. But as the film rolls on things only get worse until – even though you’re still laughing – you can’t wait for it to come to an end.
As far as all the talk about whether or not “Bruno’s” homophobic , the answer is absolutely not. Unlike Baron Cohen’s victims, those everyday people who mind their own business, the Bruno character is fictional and obviously satiric. The only possible “homophobic” moment comes from former presidential candidate Ron Paul who calls Bruno a “queer” after the Austrian Fashionista makes a crude pass at him. Personally, I think GLAAD should award Paul a medal for tolerance. Gay or straight, Bruno deserved to get knocked on his ass.
I think it was Andy Warhol who said that after ten minutes of watching porn he wanted to have sex with everyone, but after an hour he never wanted to have sex again. That pretty well sums up sitting through “Bruno.”








Subscribe via RSS
139 Comments
Silly me, I thought it was an homage to Nancy Pelosi!
perhaps we are a wee bit more conservative in our tastes than we'd like to be…
'Borat' was crude, vulgar and not particularly funny. 'Bruno' looks to be a like exercise- and we cannot remember a film that was to be avoided as much as this.
OK, maybe 'Redacted'… either way, this appears creepy and offputting and all these other adjectives and descriptive nouns. Humour is the most subjective form of entertainment and is generally critic proof.
This should prove no exception…
Bruno & Miss Perez Hilton make gays look bad
I didn't see Borat – even if I had been so inclined, the relentless marketing machine behind it guaranteed I'd be sick of it well before it hit the screens. Same is happening here.
While I need the laughs, I'll pass on this one. Besides, I already need to go to Confession, I don't need anything else to burden my priest with.
Thanks for honest review! If you got some laughs out of it, I wouldn't call it a TOTAL waste.
But that's just me.
I nearly peed myself laughing at Borat, sounds like I should wear a diaper to this one!
Mr.Nolte,
Are you going to do "Harry Potter"? I think it comes out around the same time.
Your comment "over time the relentless nudity and crudity starts to wear" pretty much sums up where I am in life. Maybe, I'm just getting old, but from your review, it doesn't sound like it would appeal to me at all.
I chuckled exactly once in Borat – when the kids came running up to the ice cream truck, the bear roared, and they ran away. And, while I didn't laugh at the wrestling scene, I suspect I would have if I'd been in an audience that was enjoying it – that bit certainly had energy and a commitment to the laugh.
I found the rest of it, however, just tedious. And I've no interest in Bruno.
This movie sounds wonderful! Thanks for the Review, DH.
I feel sorry for you to have to go through and review Bruno.
Thanks though.
John —
You should have written that the jester demeaned US peasants…" – nominative case. Otherwise, a good review. While I might enjoy the satire, I don't want to subsidize the porn or the ambushes.
I've got respect for what Cohen does…the problem I have is that I personally don't do well with the cringe humor. Not that I don't laugh at it, it just makes me uncomfortable watching people actually get angry at the comedians over whatever it is they're doing. I like anger better when it's scripted, LOL.
I did laugh a lot at Borat, though…mainly at the whole differences in his character's culture and ours. And I still laugh to this day whenever I think of him referring to pleasuring oneself as a "hand party".
Personally I have no idea who this guy is and don't care. I think of Jimmy Stewart, Clint Eastwood, Sean Connery, Clark Gable and on and on and this useless moron gets this kind of press? With this and the Michael Jackson debacle this society is hitting a low point that I thought I would never see. Sad.
I found Borat to be one of the funniest movies I've seen in years. But judging from the comments here, your review will serve this audience well. As one poster noted, humor is terribly subjective and Cohen's entire schtick is based on making the audience uncomfortable and embarrassed – in Borat I found myself dying of embarrassment for the characters but also laughing my head off at the scenes. As to how good Bruno will be, I don't know. But I am looking forward to it. Oh yes, and to those who don't like all the hype – don't watch so much media. I am reading a couple of very good books right now and neither of them mentions Bruno.
[...] is the original post: Review: ‘Bruno’ This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
hey guys we set up a chat for blog commenters, come check it out
the url is: http://wonkette.chatango.com
Will not go see this one! I tried to watch Borat,really! Never got past 20 mins. . Glad it is making him rich. Just do not get it . And full frontal male nudity does not entice me . Not very nice! Don't like it alot!
$127 million for Borat was actually very impressive considering it was based on a character from a show that not many Americans were familiar with. And if you ever watched Sacha as Ali G on said show you'd realize that he made buffoons out of Democrats too.
Somehow, I can't think that this kind of thing should be allowed to be made into a major motion picture no matter who gets ambushed and then offered up for ridicule. To me, I guess I just don't see the difference between what these movies, Borat and Bruno, do for footage and what several news agencies have done setting a flamboyantly gay couple in the midst of unsuspecting bar patrons with a hostile heckler there to provoke the patrons to "react naturally" because the news crew suspects that there may be hidden homophobia and what website parody trolls do coming to conservative websites and making the most vile posts imaginable to both make visitors cringe and to try to draw out our "true colors" as they believe them to be.
vatz: What part of "wildly profitable" in my opening paragraph was confusing to you?
Gee, I'm sorry I didn't waste a whole paragraph doing the math and breaking down the percentages and above-the-line and below-the-line costs, but I thought the term "wildly profitable" and a link to the numbers you mentioned would be enough considering my point was not only something completely different but one you agree with.
And I never said everyday folks didn't like the film but that it was the coastal elites who falsely promoted it as a a phenomenon.
You know, I don't mind disagreement but I do mind being either intentionally mischaracterized or criticized by someone who didn't bother to read the post closely.
vatz: What part of "wildly profitable" in my opening paragraph was confusing to you?
Gee, I'm sorry I didn't waste a whole paragraph doing the math and breaking down the percentages and above-the-line and below-the-line costs, but I thought the term "wildly profitable" and a link to the numbers you mentioned would be enough considering my point was not only something completely different but one, by the way, you agree with.
And I never said everyday folks didn't like the film but that it was the coastal elites who falsely promoted it as a a phenomenon.
You know, I don't mind disagreement but I do mind being either intentionally mischaracterized or criticized by someone who didn't bother to read the post closely.
I have to say that I thought Borat was one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. This coming from a full-fledged conservative. I'm not sure if the point of Bruno is to expose the politically correct left for the hypocrites they are, but it sure seems to be doing the trick. Liberals have no sense of humor when it comes to themselves and will silence and destroy anyone who doesn't toe the line. It will be fascinating to see how this all develops in the coming weeks.
I love the look on the little boy's face!
I dunno…Borat kicked off a lot of catchphrases that hung around for quite a while, and made Cohen a mainstream name & star. (and as I recall the movie opened with Borat in Manhattan, and closed in California, pretty much making fun of those 'coastal elites' along with everyone else. Remember the circle of feminists? He didn't bring poop out, as he did at the etiquette dinner, granted, but he made them look like humorless hags.) I would call it a legitimate pop culture phenomenon. Bruno looks like fun, if one is prepared for the crudity, of which I now consider myself warned. Not for the faint hearted, but it looks like he's even handed on his targets. I think it'll crush "Beth Cooper" this weekend.
I get tired of filmmakers trying to bend and mold our sense of humor and sense of decency to suit them. I know it's gone on as long as there has been a Hollywood, but how far is too far?
[...] be described as anything nearing a “phenomenon.” Luckily forRead more at http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/07/08/review-bruno/ Tags: the « Michael Jackson’s…. Gigi Levangie Grazer: Perilous Isolation: [...]
I don't know if "Borat" was a good film or not, but 127 million in ticket sales is NOT modest. "Click" and "Mission Imposable III" where big movies with big stars that did not perform as expected (not to say they didn't make money). Borat on the other hand was a smaller film that cost less to make with no start so yes it's a bigger phenomenon.
The more the left rages and screams homophobe, the more deeper value this might have? Maybe?
Doesn't sound too funny otherwise. There's worse on the web and you don't have to pay for overpriced seats and overpriced candy while you're at it.
This man is wasteing time in the movies.
Please Mr. Cohen run for Senator in the United States. Just look at newly elected Sen. Franklin's qualifications. None! You would win, I know, and fit right in with most of the standing Senators. I know there would be some opposition form the Califorina Senators: Boxer and Finstein, they are extreemly ugly and your youth would make them very angry.
If "Borat" seriously cost between $18-$20 million to produce, then that was the most wasteful spending by a production company EVAH.
And I think we can all agree that "Superman Returns" SU-U-U-U-UCKED.
Sounds like you speak from experience! ;-D
Why would I pay money to be made to feel "uncomfortable and embarrassed"?
My tastes in comedic entertainment are obviously not as sophisticated as yours.
I get what you mean. Jackass I found funny as long it just involved members of the cast, but when they did those rare sketches where they got unsuspecting private citizens in public situations involved (in the sense that they were being pranked and weren't let in on the joke), I got uncomfortable.
I basically said, "This is still funny, but I don't know whether I should be laughing at it."
I didn't see "Borat". I won't see "Bruno" either.
I've got enough crap in my head as it is…
Let's not forget the true victims–the citizens of Kazakhstan and Austria!!
The Proposal; Weather Girl; Soul Power; I Love You, Beth Cooper; Yoohoo, Mrs. Goldberg, Moon… All movies coming out soon that would have been more worthy of a review than this bizarre time sink of a film. (Especially Moon. I don't know how "conservative" it is, but it struck me as a damned well-made and well-acted film; I'm surprised JN hasn't seen it yet.)
I wish this Bruno guy would just go away. He seems like an attention W H ore to me.
Interesting Warhol quote…
I think Cohen is a talented performer (see: Sweeney Todd) and I'm no prude but I don't find this kind of humor (ambushing people, taking advantage of someone's hospitality) funny at all. I will have to politely decline this one.
Borat is an average film…
HOLLYWOOD ACTRESS PHOTOS
Please remove his picture. You demean your site by showing him. This person is no better than perez hilton. He gets laughs by being cruel to others. Please don't contribute to that.
You know, if Americans didn't have the cultural and geographical awareness of an infant, Borat would have never happened. Yes, lets pity the people who signed a consent form, and who couldn't tell Borat was a painfully obvious exaggeration. They were just trying to live their lives.
By the way, who are these fictional elites who are so offended by the film? Are they critics? No, the film is pretty well reviewed. Are they Hollywood suits? No, Bruno has an even bigger budget than Borat. Is it the media? No, I've been hearing stories of Bruno's exploits for the past six months. Is it even the gays? Certainly not, the vast majority of them aren't offended in the slightest. There may be a few advocacy groups that display reservation, but no one is protesting the movie like advocates for the mentally challenged protested Tropic Thunder over a word.
Greetings – terrific take – just wanted to let you know though that is was Erica Jong who said the thing about porn – to wit: "My reaction to porn is a follows: After the first ten minutes, I want to go home and screw. After the first 20 minutes, I never want to screw again as long as I live." Pretty much sums up my thoughts, too.
I think I'll Skip this one Ladies and Gentlemen . After All I've witnessed in our Culture for the last 40 years, to tell you the Truth I'm Homo-ed Out.
Goodness, a refreshing review!
Most reviews I read praised Cohen for being the seeker of homophobes, and dissed Paul for calling Cohen a "queer." As if that was the worse thing he could have done.
Counting the Borat trailers and about 45 seconds of Ali G, I've seen a total of less than five minutes of Cohen's "work." I plan to keep it that way.
If Bruno proves anything, it's how really tolerant people are. Everyone from a supposed terrorist to Ron Paul gives this moron a chance to ask questions and have them answered. Cohen has to push, push, push and literally drop his pants in the case of Dr. Paul to get a negative reaction and "prove" how closed-minded they all are. It's amazing that people who were tricked into an interview and confronted with this ridiculous character still gave him a chance, thinking maybe he was a real person who they felt deserved some respect.
Bruno is "gayface" and that's all it is. A Minstrel Show for people who think "Punk'd" is genius. If you think ambush humor is funny, you will like it. If you think making fun of gays is funny you will like it. If you think anything that is obnoxious is funny even if you don't understand it, you will like it.
The feminist scene in Borat reminded me of the Islam scene in Maher's RELIGULOUS. A little — very little – cover of "fairness" for the real agenda, which was to trash everyday, working class Americans going about their business, bothering no one, just like Maher was all about trashing Christianity.
One scene filled with awkward pauses with feminists does not mitigate all those scenes cynically and with a lot of manipulation going after everyday men and women who just want to be left alone and allowed to live their lives.
What I respect about Bruno is that the cruel elitism is gone. He's making as much fun of his own world as the rest of us. I'm fine with that, even though its the elites complaining about a "mean spirit" now — even though the satire is spread out pretty evenly. But of course they hate that.
Cohen was awesome in Sweeney Todd…still in a humorous role but he is not just a one dimensional performer.
(Like you I don't care for his brand of comedy at all…it's too crude for my taste.)
I thought "Borat" was the funniest film I've ever seen. I laughed my guts out. I was, however, put off by the male nudity and will skip this one because apparently that's the main focus of the movie. Still, the clip I saw of him skewering Madonna and Angelina (the former copying the latter) and their African children were/are hysterical.
I think Cohen is a comic genius and by "adopting" a black baby, puts into perspective how the elite Left use blacks in any way they can, from getting votes to appropriating their children.
Mindless movies for the summer..
I'm with you Growl.. I saw Borat, and was expecting the worst.. but was dying in laughter through 95% of it… then they got to the hotel scene, and it just turned my stomach…. If Bruno is more of the latter, then I'm definitely going to pass on this one.
Da Ali G Show was a consistently brilliant satirical program because Cohen didn't just go after easy targets. It actually was bold and compelling at 30 minutes. The problem with Borat is that it was 90 minutes long, and therefore resorted to lowest-common denominator gags just to keep the audience interested. Now, I have to admit that I laughed all the way through, but the film is nowhere near as smart as it thinks it is.
I will see Bruno but it will probably be more of the same. Let's go into the heart of Middle America and find all the homophobes and make them look really stupid. Yeah, like that's a challenge.
BTW there's a film coming out on July 24 called In The Loop. I saw an advanced screening of it and it's hysterical, intelligent, and twice the satire that Borat wished it could've been. Look out for that one.
As for the $127 million, wasn't Borat made for $2 million? It's no Dark Knight but that's still incredibly impressive. I've noticed that the writers here love to gloat about films with left-wing agendas not doing financially well, as if that's why they were made in the first place. Like The Hurt Locker. You can't call a film a flop if it's only in 5 theatres in the entire country. Especially when its per-screen-average was greater than any film that weekend, including Transformers!
…Me neither – I don't like to look at my own, much less a bunch belonging to other guys!
Come on now! As a Jewish conservative I laughed my @#$ off at Borat!!
Baron Cohen is a genius, literally his family is made up of geniuses. And he is not your typical liberal, he is decently religious and descended from a Rabbinic dynasty. He even had his Australian girlfriend convert to Judaism. He also DID take shots at gangbanger culture in Borat, and poked fun the entire time at stupid anti-semites.
I am really looking forward to Bruno- when is the last time the left was actively mocked in a huge movie?!!
No list of recent mega-flops is complete without "An American Carol", a movie which John Nolte and everyone at Big Hollywood gave gushing thumbs-up reviews. Cost $20 million to make, opened nationwide, and made a mere $7 million total before it was mercy-killed.
"An American Carol" is the best example of how a doctrine of rampant political correctness rules at Big Hollywood. First they decide if a film is liberal or conservative, then they declare it's good or bad based solely on the perceived ideology. Their only concern is whether a movie matches the party line, so even an epic stinker like "An American Carol" gets declared best movie evah.
yikes, what a thought! If I had to be subjected to relentless nudity, I certainly agree I would prefer it be be the ladies
actually, mammooth.. as I recall, John stated.. "Great Message, horrible delivery" in terms of American Carol?
We got into this big debate about movies with a conservative message actually need some thought put into the production of the movies, which conservative movie makers didn't seem to do..they just thought "put out message and that'll bring 'em in"… (unlike Taken (or to a lesser extent "The Kingdom"), which put some effort into their movies.
Won't even make my Netflix list. A mile wide and an inch deep. The whole thing just seems so desperate.
Perhaps he has misjudged his calling. As stated, his performance (both acting and singing) in Sweeny Todd was well done. Maybe he should seriously think of switching from Comedy to Broadway (so long as he's not the writer).
John, God Bless You for exposing Cohen as the fraud he is. Borat/Bruno is the biggest scam perpetrated on the American public since Yahoo Serious.
Puts on cowboy hat, chaps and starts dancing and singing
it's fun to stay at the Y M C A
now can I have a million dollar movie deal?
AMEN on SR! They did to that franchise what that horse did to Chris Reeves.
you can thank the Crab People for that.
he's got that "Whatchu talkin bout Willis" face.
You've got that right Brother.
*quickly hides his website window under a spreadsheet with a deft Alt-Tab stroke*
Huh? what? no, I'm just sitting here working…
*quickly hides the website window under a spreadsheet with a deft Alt-Tab stroke*
Huh? what? no, I'm just sitting here working…
Not the most tasteful analogy. But, you made your point. However, the SR reboot was average, at worst, IMO, much like Brett Ratner's "Red Dragon" was average (another film I can't hate, because of some decent elements involved). They were both films told in a very similar tone to its main successful progenitor (respectively, the 1978 Superman and "The Silence of the Lambs"; NOTE: even though "Red Dragon" is a retelling of the novel post-"Manhunter," it was more a companion piece to "Lambs" and was only made because of the success of "Lambs" and interest in the franchise that "Hannibal" proved still existed). And, though there was plenty bad about SR reboot, the introduction to Lex Luther was fun and campy. Parker Posey also did a good job. I'd give the SR reboot a C-. The only two things that I can think of that sucked were Kate Bosworth and the length of the film.
Which explains why I called "Che" a masterpiece … on this site.
Your dazzling insight also misses the point of this review where I've declared BRUNO fairly conservative in who it targets, admit to laughing my butt off but still give it a pass because the content is too often nauseating.
I wouldn't mind the "relentless nudity" so much, but apparently, it's all dudes?
Why would I pay money for something I can see for free at my local YMCA locker room?
for too long we've been inundated with movies about gay cowboys eating pudding. No Longer I say!
ah, Silence of the Lambs. Now there was one very good thriller indeed.
"The only two things that I can think of that sucked were Kate Bosworth and the length of the film"
-And the fact that Superman did a total of two super-heroic things in the whole movie (saving an airplane and throwing an island)
-And the fact that Lois Lane was so tough and indestructible (surviving falls and hits in the plane sequence alone that would've sent vintage a '89 Steven Seagal character into a six year coma) that she had to save Superman twice near the end of the movie
-And the fact that an hour was wasted on the ridiculous super-kid/jilted lover subplot
-And the fact that Superman's #1 criminal adversary's only idea for world domination across two movies involve overly complex real estate scams
Yeah, but other than that I agree with you on the whole $200 million "average" movie with a fun and campy intro and an aging C- former indie "It" girl thing.
Dude, if only I could give you +1,000,000,000 for that reply
LoL. Brother that's one of the Funkiest expressions I've heard in awhile . Gave me a Good Laugh so I say Thanks.
Thank you. a bit on the tasteless side? Indeed, I stand guilty as accused. But then we are commenting in a post about Sacha Baron Cohen. Besides, we knuckledraggers are not known for our social graces.
I had preconceived notions about Borat, long before it came out. You see, I am from Alabama. Do you remember the scene where he interrupts the dinner party in Birmingham? One set of those couples is a college friend's parents. They were terribly upset about this, and nearly didn't let them put it in the movie, but pressure from the other ppl present, and the fact news of it had spread alll around town made them give in. They felt the movie would be a dud, no one would really see it, and it would blow over quickly. Didn't happen. They still get crap about it, and still hate the movie and Cohen. Not sure these movies are worth it, myself.
Indeed, I am happy to do so for you. I cannot take credit for that one though. I'm channeling Cartman from South Park's episode about the Sundance Film Festival comming to town. And curiously, that one aired several years before the release of Brokeback Moutain.
I don't think Borat made buffoons out of anyone who wasn't a buffoon to begin with. When he tried to make buffoons out of people who weren't buffoons (i.e. the driving instructor), the humor was that Borat was the buffoon.
There are no Accidents.
Well said. Critics never represent 'real' people. Most people don't need them to know what's offensive or not, or even a good movie or not.
Exactly. Also the car salesman. The humor was watching them try to do their jobs politely while saddled with such a crazy man.
"What some see as coincedence, I see as providence" ~ Morpheus
"What some see as coincidence, I see as providence" ~ Morpheus
I like it. Lets keep it in the Script.
I think we have oscar material here.
I was so disappointed that Morpheus didn't use some Bullet Time(tm) to dodge the shots fired at him from the car trunk during the "CSI" season finale…
To turn a Movie into a conservative/liberal discussion is only done by the watertight frog pop-schutters on the right.
Get over yourself man, Borat was a movie about stupidity. And it was hilarious! The stupidity of Borat and the Stupidity of the people he so called ambushed. These fools agreed to be on camera……ALL OF THEM…….so get a life and learn to laugh.
Oh wait, this site is a Republican rimjob giving blog that eats the corn of the poop out of anything the Right squirts out!
LoL… Lets do it I can use the work.
did they at least let him use a Katana to slice up one little car?
Got the independant film crew I work with here in Michigan ready.
wow, witty, wiity stuff there.
Yeah, conservatives and their robust sense of humor. mmm, let's see….hilarity from the likes of "Red-Eye" and the crusty Dennis Miller? At least Jon Stewart pokes at both sides of the issue. Name one conservative who can poke fun at himself? V
yawn….by the way…John Stewart only exposes lunatics for being lunatics…like glen beck and the dude who think we need bin laden to nuke america so we can get back to the good ol' bush days…..if it comes from the right it's probably wrong.
Glenn Beck. Tony Snow (RIP). Both Bush presidents….should I continue?
I think he just wanted to shave off all his body hair and get paid for it. But his wife is a super nova talent, at least.
re. your "biggest scam" comment- I respectfully disagree…OHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Agree big- time on Isla Fisher (even though they've yet to marry), who deserves to be a bigger star than most of the actlesses out there (like Goop Paltrow and Kate Hudson, both of whom were born into the industry *big surprise* )…
Word from HuffPo's sniveling posters is that they think the Bruno character is "homophobic" and (indeed) "goes too far", making this a must-see (with NO apologies to I Love You, Beth Cooper)!
This movie goes too far? Didn't Nolte give a rave review to 'The Hangover' which had a picture of one of the characters getting fellated in full graphic detail? At least this movie has black bars!
Glad to know this movie takes on everyone, as I too was a big fan of Borat. Looking forward to this one.
As for one (1) conservative-themed "stinker" getting favorable reviews (presumably you watched it and can confirm its stinkiness, because I just know that anyone who lectures about perceived ideology wouldn't judge a film w/o watching it), maybe it's that some of us get over-excited by anything that is not openly contemptuous of things conservatives hold dear. I never saw the film, so I'm guessing An American Carol flopped for the same reason all the recent liberal hate-films about the war have flopped, which is that Americans are saturated with politics and go to the movies to, you know, escape. It's certainly why I didn't bother with AAC, but I appreciate that someone — anyone — in the entertainment industry had my views in mind.
Who said anything about mega-flops? But since you brought it up, Nolte reviewed An American Carol on his old solo blog. (A search turns up only one mention of the movie at BH.) So apparently you were reading Nolte's stuff at his old blog, where you must've been very selective in your reading, otherwise you would know that he has "gushed" about a lot of liberal films. It's only when ideology is gratuitous or trumps artistic quality (and that's almost always from the liberal POV) that a film is declared bad.
I tried to watch it, too, but just couldn't. It seemed so mean-spirited.
This particular scene is the one that really bothered me.
I felt so bad for that couple. And then to edit it so that it would look like a racial issue was the worst kind of cruelty.
I can laugh at myself, but I also know when I'm being laughed at.
Check out his review: <a href=”http://www.nypost.com/seven/07072009/entertainmen…” target=”_blank”>http://www.nypost.com/seven/07072009/entertainmen… — talking about how mean-spirited BRUNO is when nothing in BRUNO comes close in mean-spirit to what was done to that couple.
But the left doesn't like it when the tables are turned. When their culture takes a hit. BRUNO is far less mean-spirited than BORAT because it targets everyone and that makes all the difference in the world.
Right. Just what we need. Another pervert in Washington.
A Bruno by any other name is still a Borat. Ick.
Pornography takes no acting talent, and comedy based on pornography takes no comedic talent, therefore your wasting your time on two fronts watching this movie.
There weren't any actual anti-semites in the film, aside from the fictional Borat. Baron Cohen constantly invoked the phantom of anti-semitism but didn't expose any real anti-semitism (though he probably thinks he did). And no, not responding to Borat's outrageous statements doesn't make you complicit with them.
The "shots" at gangbanger culture were mild at best. In fact, it's instructive to examine which few real people in 'Borat' don't get disrespected: The black prostitute is shown to be sweet and down to earth, the elderly Jewish couple are presented as kind and innocuous, and the black teenagers are treated very mildly. Everyone else gets mud rubbed in their faces.
Rather than a right/left or elite/non-elite, that film was more about the minority/majority dichotomy, with Baron Cohen positioning himself was the defender of minorities in the face of the bigoted majority. Probably the director Larry Charles, who also directed 'Religulous', influenced this perspective.
I'm NYC myself . I'll take a rain check. If Providence dictates we'll meet on some set somewhere. Hopefully where there's an Open Bar and Very Friendly Ladies. Till then Take Care Brother.
There was an enormous debate in the discussion threads for the AV Club's review of the Goode Family pilot. The reviewer clearly couldn't divorce his political beliefs from his judgment of the show.
http://w ww.avclub.com/articles/the-goode-family-pilot,28504/ (Couldn't post the link. Remove the space in "www.")
Your review of "Che" here was used to great effect there as an example of how it is possible to set aside one's politics and judge a movie on its merits. Just thought you'd like to know!
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I'm sure I read somewhere that Cohen is a very strict, Sabbatth observing, orthodox Jew. (Okay, the name is a giveaway to his ethnicity, but the strictness of his faith surprised me.)
I may have mis-remembered that fact, but if true, it would seem there's a diconnect between who he is and what he does. Sure, he is an actor. Playing a role. I get that. But a role so crude and widely offensive?
For all the misgivings I have about others of his ilk, I can't imagine the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens checking his Muslim religion at the door, to take part in a musical event that would seem at stark odds with his faith.
Curious to know what others think. Feel free to point out to me the errors of my ways/thoughts.
The most memorable part Parker Posey had in that movie for me was her first close up. I'll never forget thinking: "Wow, in high def you can really tell that this chick is O-O-O-O-OLD"
If Singer wanted indie "It" girl movie cred for his $200 million franchise fiasco, he would've cast Stevie Ryan… but he'd probably screw that up too and cast LisaNova.
[...] Review: ‘Bruno’ [...]
My hometown! Actually I grew up across the river (and a little north) in Rockland County, but spent alot of time toolin around Manhattan.
Will look forward to that bar!
Don't get me wrong, I love cheesy horror schlocks as much as the next person (fun brain candy), but a good intense thriller like that one is hard to come by.
Nope. Most industry sources had the film budgeted at around $20 million, and Box Office Mojo has it at $18 million. Still, it's an impressive return on the investment.
Yes, and Nolte commented on that in his review. Did you read the whole thing?
" I never saw the film, so I'm guessing An American Carol flopped for the same reason all the recent liberal hate-films about the war have flopped, which is that Americans are saturated with politics "
I Netflixed it and saw about forty minutes' worth, and I can tell you that it flopped because it was simply awful. I wanted to like it, but it just didn't work, wasn't funny, and seemed to assume that its audience was a pack of submorons who would applaud wildly at the most obvious and trivial cliches.
"Borat," on the other hand, is hilarious. Anyone who got no laughs from that movie needs to rent a sense of humor, stat. It was cruel, but it was funny. Even the deleted scenes are funny – take a look at Borat's visit to the animal shelter, where he checks out a potential pet by inspecting its rectum, then happily declares that he and the dog will have "many sexy times."
That one scene, which didn't even make it into "Borat," is funnier than the entirety of "American Carol."
[...] John Nolte’s review of “Brüno,” a film I haven’t yet seen, tackles Sasha Baron Cohen’s previous film “Borat,” a film I have seen about twenty times. That being said, Nolte is dead-on in his appraisal of the film: it found favor with the left-wing elitists because it poked fun at us regular folk. But in praising “Borat,” they revealed something about themselves, something I’ve known to be true since the summer of 1994. [...]
Sounds like Borat redo. I got half way thru that movie on DVD and laughed a few times, but got bored with it and turned it off.
To paraphrase Lincoln, as I would not be made fun of, so I would not make fun. Is there a more grievous sin than one against charity? No, Cohen is not on my 'must see' list.
[...] I said in my review, the only thing that mitigates the mean-spiritedness of “Bruno” is that, unlike [...]
Demi Moore was 28 when she did "Ghost" and was never considered to be anything more than a hot TV soap opera dayplayer that's only in movies because she "knew" the right people. Parker Posey was about 40 when she did "Superman" and was always fawned over by critics as "THE MOST TALENTED ACTRESS NOBODY'S EVER HEARD OF BUT SHOULD BECAUSE SHE WAS SO GOOD IN HOUSE OF YES WHICH IS A MOVIE FROM 15 YEARS AGO THAN NOBODY EVER WATCHED!" Yet the indie it girl Parker Posey didn't do anything with her character in "Superman" that was too far off what Valerie Perrine did in the 1st "Superman." That should be disappointing to her fans…
Now that I think about it, Singer should've just gotten Valerie Perrine for the Parker Posey role. It would've kept continuity with the 1st "Superman" and Perrine's probably had so much plastic surgery that she only looks about 50 rather than her real age of 136.
An old topic, but since the writer did do a review on 'The Stoning of ~" I thought I'd give out my remarks about the movie. It has just went wide and so I could watch it locally. A truly powerful movie indeed… But.
It ended in one of the most tactless ways I ever seen! Having that womans' last scene be a climbing crane shot with arms striking out towards the skies while making proclamations that would of probably got her shot at that spot (by the actions of those behind her, I wager a fast murder) was awful. Just awful. I believe this type of scene is called "breaking the fourth wall" and that really took me way out of this now sorta masterpiece. Perhaps a directors cut will rid itself of that embarrassment.
What part of "wildly profitable" was confusing in this review's description of Borat?
And I would love to see where any writer on this site mentioned THE HURT LOCKER grosses as disappointing.
You sign up as a commenter, take the time to post obviously under the mistaken belief you can just make stuff up site and then criticize what you made up.
Noah, think about actually reading the site. No doubt there's plenty of real stuff to criticize.
Ye-e-eaaaaah… I keep pointing out Parkey Posey's age because the content you keep pointing out her being so good in is from 10-15 years ago.
"Moon" opened by me today and I caught it's first showing. Amazing film, and one of the better science fictions movies I've seen in a while.
Borat was not for the cultural elite, but is a pop culture phenomenon in all parts of the country. Its still a very quotable movie and many Midwestern twenty somethings love it. Yes, it was popular in flyover country.
With that being said, Bruno was awful.
When a movie opens number one first weekend with 26 million dollars on a few hundred screens to then gross $128 million, its a big deal. I'm 27 years old and Borat is comedic icon for my generation. Males around my age impersonate him all the time. We enjoyed the movie not because people in NYC and LA told us too, but because it was witty and funny. I do agree with you and Cam Cannon about Bruno; its horrible.
what a pig welcome to a womens world you idiot
[...] The Big Hollywood review is here. [...]
In my review (<a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDy5d98kfFo)” target=”_blank”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDy5d98kfFo) I note that the experience of watching Bruno will be dependent on your tolerance for gay humor. I think this is correct – although I must alter it slightly by saying, your tolerance for SMUTTY gay humor.
Personally I'm all for the dirty dirty smut – I laughed all the way through Bruno. Granted there was a section toward the end where I felt it was a bit thin but overall i loved the film.
And as a political statement…. I believe this of Borat and Bruno. It is a great compliment to Americans that we will tolerate differences where so many other cultures would not.
Bruno walks to an Anti-gay rally being chained to his lover clad in S&M leather. The FACT that he DOES NOT get stoned to death is a powerful message about the people of this country.
Though these homophobes might be asshat morons, at least they're not violent.
Don't try that in Iran.
Gay was boring Bruno brought Gay back to life.
You people take yourselves way too seriously and do not know what the definition of comedy is.
The people who didn't like it was because they have NO SENSE OF HUMOR. Having a sense of humor entails being able to laugh at the world and it's current events (that includes laughing at yourself for you are either seeing the world through Bruno's eyes or the homophobes). Laughing at serious, touchy matters is a way of not only bringing some "relief" to a tense situation but can also broaden one's point of view and bring tolerance and peace to a situation, even only for a moment. We have to chose to live and let live and laugh at all the crazy stuff in our beautiful planet if we don't understand it. It disarms the threat or nervousness we feel towards something "foreign" or that which doesn't sit quite right with us and brings a bit of lightness to our discomfort, if we allow ourselves to see how absurd our world can be.
You probably could find someone who teaches the value of laughter and comedy. You might just want to enroll–I think there is a whole lot of life passing you by while it's eating you alive…
Good luck!
PS. I am a COMPLETELY straight person, in case you are wondering. Far straighter than you will ever be for it was you who made the absurd statement and is feeling threatened. Think about it.
I haven't seen that one yet, but I will most likely rent it when the DVD is available. I always did enjoy Raimi horror.
[...] Read the whole thing at Big Hollywood. You do not have to register. [...]
[...] an editor. An ‘in Chief ‘ one too. Awesome.) John Nolte has a bone to pick with that Sasha Borat Bruno-Cohen guy: One of the great Hollywood con jobs of the last five years was in convincing a mostly [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.