Brüno

I just saw it and I was a bit let down. I am gay, I love Cohen, and was ready to laugh. But the problem was he didn't expose any under-the-surface bigotry like he did in Borat. He overdid his "gayness" to such a violent extreme that he forced reactions out of people, some of whom are probably plenty openminded. You ended feeling sorry for these people.

Especially Ron Paul, who out of all the politicians Cohen could have chosen, deserved it the least. He's no champion of gay rights, but he is certainly not an enemy either and he reacted like any normal person would in that nightmarish situation. There were also some genuine bigots in the film, but Cohen goes to such an extreme to provoke them, by the time it gets to that point, who cares?

There were funny moments, of course, Cohen is a funny man, but this movie lacks the bite Borat had. This was just an exercise in bad taste (which is fine, if that's what you're looking for).

As a child of the age of Aquarius, I found myself liking this movie. I thought it was completely hilarious in an unusual way. When Brüno puts himself in various situations (and some dangerous situations), and finds himself speechless; it almost makes you think that Sascha Baron Cohen couldn't possibly come up with any semblance of a clever retort. But exactly at those times is when he wows you with his virtuoso-like skill of improvisation. If I wasn't when I saw Borat, I am now completely convinced that Cohen is a genius. I highly recommend watching the DVD for its alternate, deleted, and extended scenes; and a highly pertinent interview with Brüno's unknowing agent after the fact. I highly recommend this movie, if for his skill at making a story into the various peoples he meets.

Granted, the DVD I rented began to skip about halfway through the film and I didn't see the whole movie, I believe that the only reason that this movie doesn't get the same reviews as Borat is because the American audience is too uptight. Yes, the movie is gross and at times cringe-inducing. Some of the more extreme scenes could have been hampered down, but I believe at the expense of the humor. Posters say they have never met anyone like Bruno, however have they ever met anyone like Borat. Neither exist in the real world and that is why the movie works. Cohen is a brilliant improviser and always two steps ahead of his targets. Some of the pranks don't deliver, but that's okay. I admire his audacity. For all the people who say it was too gross, imagine if the film was filled with explicit heterosexual sex, I'm sure the reaction would be much different. The aversion to this movie is primarily because there is a deep seated disgust to homosexual activity within the American psyche and even the most tolerant liberal is likely to be disgusted at some point. That's okay, that is why the movie works, it asks us what it is and why we are appalled.

In some ways, this movie is Sacha Baron Cohen's best work. His ability to completely and utterly humiliate some of society's worst people is absolutely on point at times, not least with the abhorrent talent show parents. On the other hand, it also contains some of his weakest and most off-putting material and many scenes are tedious and ridiculous. Overall, I think there is enough genius in here to consider it a success, but it certainly won't be everyone's cup of tea.

Saw the film last night in Munich/Germany. Although I found the movie quite funny (especially the first part) and the audience even applauded at the end, I am damn sure, that a lot of the scenes where staged and performed by actors, which somehow ruins the film. Unlike Borat, where Cohen pretended to be a reporter, which made cameras around him an obvious thing, Brüno is shot in a different way, with a lot of cuts, very clear pictures, from several ankles and most of all with no real reason, why the scenes should be taped by a camera team. This was most obvious in the swinger club scene. Consequently I am certain that a lot of scenes are played by actors. That dampens the fun tremendously; at least for me.