Shock humour is a funny thing (mind the pun). It is genuinely funny since we often ask ourselves “what would happen if…” or “what would people do if…” followed by something that would defiantly make a few heads turn (often having to do with sex or other social taboos). The problem with shock humour is that once we get our answer, it’s no longer really shocking to us, so the humour goes with it. For that reason, shock humorists (did I just make up a term?) have to keep coming up with new ideas. In other words, a movie like Borat is only really funny once. So Sacha Baron Cohan had to basically reinvent it to keep it funny, which is what he did in Bruno. But, I think someone should have told him that it’s not just the jokes you should reinvent in a movie…

The plot behind Bruno is copy and pasted right from Borat. They both start out with our title character (both with names starting in B) as a popular TV personality in their own country, but then suddenly end up not being popular anymore, so they seek fame by going to America with one assistant. Here, they find trouble fitting into society due to having no knowledge of American culture, so they find becoming famous a chore. (They also say a lot of offensive stuff at the expense of the Jews, but that’s less important to the plot and more about character.) Eventually, this creates friction between the title character and his assistant, so they abandon them. Our title character then faces a moment of depression, but then a sudden uplifting moment while remembering their original goal, so they continue to struggle towards it alone. They eventually meet up again with their assistant and soon after, our title character realises what he’s been chasing all movie long has been under his nose all movie long (we saw it, but he’s too self-centered). Standard happy ending with a return to their home country and credits roll. Unless my memory of either is a little faulty, this can describe both movies.

What Bruno does do differently then Borat, and better for that matter, is linking each unscripted moment. In Borat, all the interviews and such are pretty much only explained by the fact that he’s a reporter and does that. In Bruno, he goes from place to place seeking fame, but we get a clear explanation to why he went there. It’s not just random; a little stretched sometimes, but still believable.

Sacha is obviously a great actor; it’s so hard to believe that the same guy that played a 30 something year old, homophobic man from Kazakhstan is now playing a 19 year old gay Austrian. Though I was trying, I honestly couldn’t see an actor; I just saw Bruno. This is especially challenging with unscripted scenes, since you don’t know how the other person/people will act, so you have to be prepared for every reaction. In short, you have to almost literally become the character, and Sacha did a perfect job at becoming Bruno.

Bruno essentially has 4 kinds of scenes in the movie, and this affects the humour at the particular time. The first type of scene is the real ones. These often include Bruno interviewing someone unknowing it’s for satire or Bruno just doing something offensive publicly. These are the scenes people talk about when they say “It’s funny because it’s real!” Then there are scenes where I’m not sure if it’s real or not. These are scenes that if they’re real, they could have been well pre-planned, but seem a little too exaggerated to be real. My example for this one is when Bruno is “attached” to his assistant and asks the hotel managers to help out and then goes out in public: their reactions seems real enough but with all the camera angles, the set-up and the fact that they never question or notice the cameras, I’m still not sure. These scenes are funny if you think their real, but if you don’t then you’d have to admit, everyone in it is a pretty good actor. The third type of scenes is the ones that are fake, but you wish were real. These scenes are so exaggerated, over the top and funny that they have to be scripted, but you wish were real so that it would be funnier because someone actually did that. Let me give you an example: at one point, Bruno goes on a talk-show with his adopted African baby with the audience composed entirely of homophobic African-Americans. To boot, he shows proof of unsafe living conditions for the baby and unintentional racism, so he offends everyone in the audience. If this scene were real, “Bruno” would have gotten beaten up in the parking lot after the show. It’s just so over the top, too exaggerated and fits too perfectly with the plot that it can’t be real. But man, if someone actually did that... Then there are the fake scenes. Not much to say about these except that they pretty much move the plot along and are funny on a hit and miss basis. The big hint for these scenes is when Bruno is speaking fluent German.

Sacha is coming off as a one trick pony in Bruno: he used the same plot for two movies, and just did some more shock humour. Putting this aside, he’s an excellent actor and the jokes are defiantly fresh. Bruno was an enjoyable movie, but so was Borat. For these reasons, I can’t say Bruno is bad, but it’s defiantly unoriginal and continuously offensive as possible. I have to give this movie 7/10, and recommend that, if you liked Borat or shock humour in general, and aren’t offended by gay or the occasional holocaust joke, that you might want to check it out. And Borat, if you haven’t seen it naturally (which I give a 8/10 cause it’s the original).