Movie Review: Bruno (2009)
There are plenty of moments for laughter, but the overall product doesn't work
Photo: Universal Pictures
It's strange to consistently laugh at a film and while you're doing so, lean over to the person next to you and whisper, "This is pretty bad," but that's exactly what I found myself doing while watching Bruno, Sacha Baron Cohen's follow-up to the highly successful 2006 effort Borat. This time around Cohen plays the title character, a flamboyantly gay Austrian fashionista who is outcast from the fashion world and decides to head to America in hopes of "becoming the biggest Austrian star since Hitler." The words are funny, the character is funny and several of the climactic moments of each situation are funny, but on a whole it feels like a mash-up of YouTube videos, most of which are never given the time to get to the good stuff with a narrative that never hits its stride.
The cast includes Sacha Baron Cohen. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Bruno" is a Universal Pictures release, directed by Larry Charles and is rated R for pervasive strong and crude sexual content, graphic nudity and language.
Borat was funniest when Cohen's character was poking fun at American insecurities and stereotypes, but Bruno finds common ground with Borat in this respect only a couple of times. The rest of the time his actions are so outrageous they approach the point of being in-your-face exhibitionism and by no means reflect the behavior of a person who just happens to be gay, which pretty much eliminates what appears to be the point of the exercise.
Bruno's sit downs with a pair of southern preachers dedicated to curing homosexuality are moments when the film finds its groove, pointing out the simpleminded nature of some people and using it for comedic effect. But a scene where he is walking down the street handcuffed to another naked man and happening on a "God Hates Fags" protest actually results in no reaction whatsoever — even after he tries to tackle one of the protesters, a move that would outrage anyone, never mind your stance on a person's sexual orientation. To put it plainly, Bruno tries too hard and even then ultimately comes up empty.
Perhaps the funniest moment in the film is a scene where Paula Abdul agrees to be interviewed by Bruno while using a group of Mexicans as furniture to the point Abdul even uses one of the men as a coffee table for her water. It's funny. You can't believe what you are seeing. Does Paula Abdul really have no problem using another human being as a chair? Unfortunately, before the scene goes any further Bruno has his assistant wheel in a naked man with a condom on his penis and a smorgasbord of food on his chest. Abdul is out the door and the scene is done. The moment is lost, whereas a bone-headed interview with Abdul sitting on a human for the duration would have been priceless. Anyone would have left after food was served on a naked man, but not everyone would have given an interview using a human chair.
Another funny moment includes a focus group watching a Bruno created TV pilot that includes a CGI'd talking urethral opening and enough material to shock (or bore) anyone. It's funny because the material is shocking and people are watching it as if it is legitimate, but its value to the film's overall narrative is limited.
Bruno simply suffers from an excess of shocking material and a lack of the comedic talent Cohen has proven he has, primarily how Borat used Cohen's sense of humor as both a social commentary and a comedic device. His one-time television show "Da Ali G Show" is the quintessential example and Borat was an out-of-the-gates hit, but Bruno doesn't even come close to living up to either of its predecessors. While some of the moments in Bruno may live on forever, they will live on forever on YouTube where they would have best been suited in the first place.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 16 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
"but on a whole it feels like a mash-up of YouTube videos, most of which are never given the time to get to the good stuff with a narrative that never hits its stride."
Disagree. This is actually fully intended, if you went ahead and used those universally necessary elements for a movie to be "Good" (good for a film buff like us that is), it just wouldn't have the same impact as the format used in this particular movie style.
"Borat was funniest when Cohen's character was poking fun at American insecurities and stereotypes, but Bruno finds common ground with Borat in this respect only a couple of times. The rest of the time his actions are so outrageous they approach the point of being in-your-face exhibitionism and by no means reflect the behavior of a person who just happens to be gay, which pretty much eliminates what appears to be the point of the exercise."
Agree, but. I understand your point at the beginning of the paragraph and do agree with it, mostly because that's perhaps one of the things I liked the most about Borat, but yeah, this might just be our personal taste, no?. Now the but, Remember this is not your every day gay person, Bruno is a "fashonista" from Austria and his personality "could" be accepted as such, the point of the exercise might just be very present.
"To put it plainly, Bruno tries too hard and even then ultimately comes up empty."
If this is true, I'll probably walk out of the movie sightly disappointed :(
"The Paula Abdul stuff."
Well, remember Paula Abdul is a public figure, she might have been caught off guard at the beginning and didn't process the human being as a chair and sat down without thinking about it, but she has an image to keep regardless, I assume that the interview was carried away and they do have the footage, but when Paula signed the release, her public relation people or w/e might have asked to remove the interview (it was probably a short interview anyway) and just show the beginning and the end, which wouldn't paint Paula as a person who would actually sit on a human during an entire interview. Would the movie had been better with the interview? maybe, maybe not, your point on why it would have, makes a lot of sense but you'd really have to see the whole movie with and without it. Then again this whole paragraph is an assumption, quiet logical if you ask me, but an assumption nevertheless.
"It's funny because the material is shocking and people are watching it as if it is legitimate, but its value to the film's overall narrative is limited."
Same as my first paragraph. Borat's narrative was necessary, Bruno's maybe not so much.
"but Bruno doesn't even come close to living up to either of its predecessors. While some of the moments in Bruno may live on forever, they will live on forever on YouTube where they would have best been suited in the first place."
Well the predecessors are ironically no joke, they are really good no questions. But, remember Bruno was on youtube, I believe Bruno's popularity as a matter of fact raised a lot more on youtube than on the alig show, some of the elements of the movie do intend to relate to what you see in youtube and what you would concider youtube material but this is not necessarily coincidence.
Don't talk during a movie, Brad. Cardinal sin. :P
Overall, I think if you've got a comedy where you've been laughing pretty much non-stop…it's worked. I was laughing non-stop, so I'd say it works. Now… whether it excelled or not is another matter. Bruno didn't, frankly, but I still thought it was absolutely worth the money and the permanent mental scarring that was incurred.
I imagine that someone like Fred Phelps will see this movie, or just the promos for it, and say *not an actual quote*. 'See, I told you! Fags are obnoxious, egotistical, indecent, and the world would be a more righteous place without them.’
Then the more extreme supporters of GLAAD or End H8 will watch Bruno and say *again, not an actual quote*. ‘See, I knew it! Bigots are annoying, self indulgent, intolerable, and the world would be a more peaceful place without them.’
I have not seen Bruno and I do not plan to. My reason being that Cohen’s work breeds a cultural divide, an Us vs Them mentality with little room for understanding or acceptance. At a time when the President of the United States is traveling the world in an attempt unite people despite fundamental differences in belief, lifestyle, appearance, and a whole bunch of other issues; I find it difficult to see Bruno as anything other than an unfortunate step backwards.
I think you are wrong. With 74% on Rotten Tomatoes, this movie will be funny. If Borat and Ali G were funny, then this will be funny
I agree with Brad. Really not much to this one.
I just saw this film and I do not think that you approached it the right way. It seems as though you wanted it to be a movie that highlighted America's homophobia and showed how conservative Americans can be. A more subtle version of Bruno (MUCH more subtle) definitely would have done the job. However, I don't think that that was ever this Cohen's intent when making this film. Comedy was the first goal for this film, not social commentary. I believe that Cohen was 100% successful in creating a hilarious character with Bruno. When I reflect on Borat, I can't really say that he was any more of a believable character. He released chickens on a subway and ran through a hotel naked with another man. Are these situations appropriate for a film that is trying to make a social commentary about the bigotry of America? No, they would outrage anyone, just like most of Bruno's antics would! For those who have not seen this movie yet, do not walk into it expecting to laugh at conservatives (although it does give you the opportunity to do so). If you want that, see "Religulous", where Bill Maher goes out of his way to find fringe right wing folks to simply laugh at. Go into Bruno expecting a funny character who puts people in funny situations. That is what this movie is all about, and it's what Borat was all about, and I believe Cohen was successful in creating a funny film with both characters.
This film is awesome, dont let a bad review put you of a film! Accept Transformers 2, that film realy is s**t!
@Dan: But that's pretty much what I said in the opening paragraph, "The words are funny, the character is funny and several of the climactic moments of each situation are funny, but on a whole it feels like a mash-up of YouTube videos…"
It sounds like we have a disagreement on intent, which is sort of hard to argue since neither of us can really say, but I do think Borat had a much larger social commentary than you are giving it credit for… especially compared to Bruno.
I'm catching this one tomorrow. There's several things in your review I can't quite get a handle on. Not the least of which is the Paula Abdul scene. You DO realize she was in on the joke, right? "Does she…no problem…chair?" I mean, it's an act. Just like Pam was an act in Borat. They've admitted that one I read, and there's no way Abdul doesn't know who he is. She isn't Ron Paul. She lives in pop culture. Also, I can't think of anyone who actually watched every episode of Da Ali G Show, who didn't get bored of it pretty fast. It's just a blend of Punk'd and ambush journalism, which wears on the nerves like Jesse Waters on O'Reilly at times. Borat was essentially the same. It had a weak narrative, at best, and I can't imagine this is any different. But, I'm really curious what the reactions of the people he encountered playing a faux gay were, and if THEY were authentic. I've seen nothing in the trailers, nor in your review, to indicate he encountered the kind of bigotry (from the tone of your review and subsequent "social commentary" statements and the obvious subject matter of Bruno) that I think you WANTED him to encounter. I apologize in advance if I'm inferring wrongly from your review/statements.
this reviewer obviously has never stepped foot into real production. you can call it bad, but no one in the world can do what this guy does so you have to respect that originality. anyone who appreciates good film-makers and artists would see that.
This movie was pure filth. Half the theatre walked out and got a refund because it was so disgisting. Originality…yes, good film-making…NO!
@BR: Wow! I thought my theater was the only one to experience walk-outs. However, while I do agree that many parts of the film approached "gay porn" (particularly the swinging member scene), I don't believe the film was particularly disgusting or repulsive. I from the American South, so I had a very different response to the film, especially the scenes involving people from Alabama, Texas & Arkansas.
I found it quite interesting that people didn't walk out until the South began to be parodied. In fact, when Bruno encounters Southerners holding signs saying "God Hates Fags," I heard a couple of people shout "that's right" at the screen before storming out yelling "this movie is for fags."
In my mind. The parody of homosexuals and the response of bigoted Americans was a very real commentary on our times. Good/Should Cohen cut down on the "filth"? Possibly. Still, I found the film shocking, extreme, timely, astute, disturbing and a lot of fun + more importantly, I laughed my ass off for about 70 of 82 minutes.
@The Jackal: I also live in the south and i was expecting people to walk out and my suspicions were correct. I feel Cohen reached his goal of offending as many people as possible, and also making them laugh (i admit i did laugh), but I could not convince myself to sit through another minute of the movie after the "swinger" party scene.
I also had some rednecks scream at the screen, "Why are they showing the penis' but not the tits." It was extremely funny..just wanted to put that in there.
I think some parts of the country just are not fully prepared for this type of movie.
@BR: so which is it? filth or not? When you say "…some parts of the country…not prepared…" you're indicating the problem is with the audience, but your own review of the movie indicates the problem is with the filmmaker. If it's truly just "filth," then you should be applauding those parts of the country for demanding more than just "filth" paraded as a movie in order to make a dollar. Being "prepared" in this instance, would be the same as having lowered expectations.
@kdogg: Personally, i find the film filth. I actually gave credit to the filmmakers for accomplishing their goal of insulting everyone possible. I think they might have some moral issues, but they definitely did their job. The southeastern part of America, i believe, does demand more than filth. Milk was coveted at the Academy Awards last year, but it did not sit well with people in the south. I honestly dont know how it did up north, but i know living in the south, homosexuality is not usually something that is accepted. Its a sad thing that people judge others in that way, but reguardless that is how things are, and I think many audiences here in the south did not take to Bruno because of the homosexual agenda associated with this film.
Homosexuality not the issue here. It is the blatant nastiness of this film. I understand wanting to make a point, but when it's done in bad taste, it can ruin the effect of the point being made. Disgusting.