|
Bruno was highly amusing. I started laughing during the studio logo that starts the film, and didn't stop for 90 minutes.
But I'm curious about something. The movie mostly hinges on the Sacha Baron Cohen tradition of punking people. I don't know how that worked in this case.
In Borat, if memory serves (and that film did not imprint itself on my memory), the character was a sort of media correspondent who was interviewing people - and thus had a pretext for a camera being present.
In Bruno, most of the scenes are not "supposed to" be being filmed, and yet they are. How does the presence of the camera interfere with the "punking" process (for lack of a better term)? Clearly these people know they are being filmed. Just as clearly, the movie is funny only to the extent these are unscripted and somewhat honest reactions to the outrageousness of Bruno.
I liked the movie way better than Borat. On one hand, I saw this at the cinema, so that gives an advantage to a comedy. But mostly it's because I saw some larger "point" being made about teh gey and all that. I didn't sense anything like that in Borat.
I also found Bruno more consistently funny ... but maybe that's just my personal sense of humor.
Anyway, I recommend it. But I really want to know about the filming circumstances and how "in on it" some of these subjects were.
|