SummaryAn ousted CIA official's memoir accidentally falls into the hands of two unwise gym employees intent on exploiting their find. (Focus Features)
Directed By:Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Written By:Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Burn After Reading
Metascore
Generally Favorable
63
User score
Generally Favorable
7.1
My Score
Drag or tap to give a rating
Hover and click to give a rating
Not available in your country?
ExpressVPN
Get 3 Extra months free
$6.67/mth
Top Cast
Metascore
Generally Favorable
68% Positive
25 Reviews
25 Reviews
30% Mixed
11 Reviews
11 Reviews
3% Negative
1 Review
1 Review
100
After the portentous "No Country for Old Men," Joel and Ethan Coen return to their trademark brand of cruel, misanthropic farce, and for dark laughs and hurtling narrative momentum this spy caper is their best work since "Fargo."
80
That's the paradox that makes this parade of folly so much fun: it feels as if everyone involved is having a high old time, and their enthusiasm is contagious.
User score
Generally Favorable
66% Positive
201 Ratings
201 Ratings
29% Mixed
89 Ratings
89 Ratings
5% Negative
15 Ratings
15 Ratings
Jan 21, 2026
10
The rhythmic machinery of a nihilistic circus: A 5.0-star sensational surge of sophisticated stupidity.2012(5.0)I watched "Burn After Reading" in 2012, and it delivered a visceral revelation that stands as a definitive 5.0-star pillar of high-tension absurdity in my archive. This experience **** the fourth wall of the stagnant spy thriller by infusing the Coen brothers’ raw, cynical genius with a rhythmic energy that felt 100% chewy and sophisticated. The narrative rhythm was far from stagnant; instead, it offered a rhythmic journey through the pathetic delusions of gym employees and the raw human distrust within the CIA, leaving me in a state of absolute hororong as the "intelligence" of the characters plummeted to sensational depths. Seeing Brad Pitt’s vivid and pathetic turn as Chad Feldheimer—a masterpiece of high-tension dimwittedness—provided an emotional payoff that felt both raw and sensational, proving that a story about "nothing" could be a vivid act of storytelling rebellion. The 95% preservation of my memory is dominated by the rhythmic, raw shock of the closet sequence and the vivid but pathetic confusion of the CIA directors at the end, creating a permanent, sensational scar of dark irony on my soul. Unlike the stagnant 2.0-star drift of "Austin Powers in Goldmember" or the pathetic execution of "Papa," this encounter possessed a rebellious soul that turned a pathetic string of errors into a sensational masterpiece of wit. It stands in my 2012 record as a powerful 5.0-star testament to the raw power of directorial control—a high-tension encounter with the vivid rhythm of the idiotic that remains one of the most chewy artifacts of my cinematic journey.
Dec 5, 2024
10
The Coen Brothers an all their acting clan in comedic top form. In one row with The Big Lebowski, Fargo or True Grit.
75
One of the Coens' more playful projects, much lighter and significantly slighter than "No Country for Old Men" or "Fargo," but it's put together with such perfection that you can't help but be won over.
70
Beneath its movie star clowning, its awful-but-relatable heroine and its lightweight gags, Burn After Reading poses an implicit challenge to its viewers: Can you figure out why this comedy isn't very funny? Could that be because its central proposition is that the people in the theater are just as stupid, just as gullible, just as eager to be deceived as the people on the screen?
63
The film has enough funny lines and weird situations - some comedy business with a sex chair lovingly constructed by the Clooney character is the highlight - that it could age into a cult film like "The Big Lebowski."
50
Clooney remains as game as ever, but the way he and McDormand push the energy here, you feel the strain. Pitt, just floating through, comes off best. He doesn't judge the moron he's playing; he just is.
30
Either the Coens failed, or I didn't figure out what they're attempting. I must be like Harry or Osborne, pretending to a sophistication I lack. Burn After Reading is a movie about stupidity that left me feeling stupid.
Aug 31, 2020
10
This wacky comedy-thriller is one of my favorites from the Coen Brothers. I tend to like their fun stuff more than their miserable stuff. Lively performances elevate it above the material, which involves some DC-based cheating and blackmailing foolishness. It is fun to see Pitt and Clooney in comic roles, and the supporting actors and camera work are all really good.
Nov 28, 2015
6
I can't say this film is not funny, it has some quite entertaining parts. It's not a bad film at all, but it's kind of messy, the plot just jumps from one character to another and nothing gets resolved. Plus a lot of characters are extremely stupid, annoyingly so. The part that John Malkovich played is an exception, his character is kind of a jerk, but the only person with a brain. Brad Pitt's character is extremely idiotic, but he is also an exception, because Pitt managed to make him hilarious.
Dec 26, 2010
6
I enjoyed Burn After Reading for it's unconventional plot and hilarious performance from Brad Pitt. So many stupid people played by a cast of awesomeness. But this movie was missing quite a few things. It didn't really have a great impact and I think I know why. The Coens found great success with their Best Picture winner No Country For Old Men and tried to re-create that success, and who wouldn't? They created some form of success, but this movie fell short of being memorable. The performances of the stupid people in Washington felt a bit overplayed at times and some of the jokes we admit are funny, but not very. Still, Pitt's acting shines in this one, so I'll say that this movie is okay in my book.
Aug 24, 2018
3
This movie seems to make fun of the secret world of spies, their agencies and secrets. The entire film revolves around an American spy who, after being removed from office, decides to write a memoir. But the CD-ROM where he put its sketch went to the hands **** employee who, with the help of an idiot coworker, tries to blackmail him. Then, the movie goes on to create a huge confusion about something so minor that, in the end, even the CIA are amazed at the situation. The biggest problem I've felt here is the fact that the film handles everything very lightly, as if none of it were really important. That fits the movie, but it creates a huge barrier between the audience and the film, as if we were watching a movie that doesn't want to catch our attention. This gets even worse if we consider that no character is capable of reaching the public. There are only people, much like any human being we meet outside but we do not have the interest to know, and for whom we do not look more than once. The result is to become invariably boring, sometimes very difficult to keep up with. In the end, except for the action scenes, we don't care about the movie anymore. The best of this film are the performances of the main actors, usually very good but unable to truly shine in a film that did not allow that (they are good actors but they don't perform miracles). Clooney was very good, Pitt was convincing in the idiot character they gave him, Frances McDormand was pleasantly futile (something that her character demanded) and John Malkovich was OK, in a character without major difficulties but Which also never allowed him to have much space to show talent.
Jul 12, 2021
2
"Charade" was good, this movie was not. Cast members are not enough to carry hackneyed writing.
Production Company:
- Focus Features
- StudioCanal
- Relativity Media
- Working Title Films
- Mike Zoss Productions
Release Date:Sep 12, 2008
Duration:1 h 36 m
Rating:R
Tagline:Intelligence is relative.
Awards
Golden Globes, USA
• 2 Nominations
St. Louis Film Critics Association, US
• 1 Win & 3 Nominations
Gran Premio Internazionale del Doppiaggio
• 1 Win & 3 Nominations
