Bruno v Borat

I admit that I watched Bruno and actually laughed a few times, though it's not a good movie. The laughter is often at the expense of the innocents who have been punked, sometimes undeservedly. Still, Bruno's attempt to negotiated "middle eastern" peace, his appearance on an Oprah-like talk show, the session with the gay converter all pretty funny - plus some more outrageous scenes as well, e.g., Straight Dave cage fighting. However: why is this movie so much weaker than the hilarious Borat? It's the character, really - Borat was somehow blundering and lovable and perched neatly on the edge of credibility. You could almost imagine falling for his schtick yourself - an awkward eastern European journalist filming a doc about America. Bruno is credible only as an over-the-top comic character. That is, not at all, except in the realm of the most exagerrated form of reality TV. He's not likable. And he has no clear mission (story line) to propel and control the narrative of the film. He wants abstractedly to be "famous." So what? The movie wanders from place to place and topic to topic with nothing holding it together. Not surprising to see on the credits that four writers contributed - probably more, actually. Would have been better and sharper to stay in one setting and theme: Milan fashion, Hollywood celebrity, sexual encounters. The documentary motif was a good idea and could generate many good films (Michael Moore meets Sasha Baron Cohen).