The question on the tip of so many blogs (Ist Bruno bad for Gays?) presupposes that the purpose of the film was to expose latent (and not so latent) homophobia among Americans, much the same way that Borat exposed racial and religious prejudice.

Was it?

Fans of the Da Ali G show would likely say no. As one the show's 3 faux protagonists, Bruno's role was mostly to unveil the vacuousness of the fashion industry. Like Borat, Bruno's main talent was not in shocking those around him but rather in gaining their assent for his outrageous claims.

Take for instance a scene from the show, where Bruno interviews a celebrity tabloid journalist who must decide the fate of stars in a game called "Leave them in the ghetto or Train to Auschwitz?" Here, unlike Borat, the point is not so much to expose anti-Semitism on the part of fashionistas but rather to show how dumb they are, and how important they consider their trite business. 

However, in the Bruno movie, much of the satirization of the fashion industry that dominated Bruno's role on Ali G is missing. My guess would be that the success of Borat made it impossible for Sacha Baron Cohen to travel incognito among the gliterrati. It just wasn't going to be possible for Bruno to go unrecognized at Milan Fashion week or a NY runway show.

So what are we left with?

A big gay mess. But a hilarious one.

As a film, Bruno lacks the focus or consistency of Borat. His aim is not clear, rather he takes chip shots at a range of targets: celebrity culture, fashion, talk shows, Christianity, homophobia, charity and hypersexuality. Some of the most enjoyable pieces are focused on celebrities, like his interview with Paula Abdul that takes place while sitting on Mexican furniture (mexican workmen acting as chairs), or the presentation of his faux TMZ show to a focus group.

Bruno's attacks on homophobia are hit or miss.

I thought the best of these took place in Bruno's attempt to become ungay. He sees two different Christian ministers who specialize in degayification, and in short time makes them seem both like ridiculous bigots and closet homosexuals. Also fun to watch (if a bit frightening) was his hosting of "Straight Dave's Man Slamming" a mixed martial arts and hetero pride event that turns ugly when Straight Dave begins to have not so straight sex in the cage with his opponent.

Where the movie fails in this regard is when Bruno gets agressive with unsuspecting victims. Like Borat, he can also shock from time to time, whether with physical comedy or by assaulting an unsuspecting victim with a supercharged homosexual come-on. The scene where Bruno attempts to make a sex tape with an unwitting (and unwilling) Ron Paul is tough to watch, and I felt sorry for Ron Paul (though I wished he hadn't run out screaming "Queer!"). There are a couple other scenes like this one, where Bruno crosses the line with his guests and we are supposed to laugh at their discomfort or condemn it as homophobia, and they just don't work.

In the end though, this is a comedy. The fact that Sacha Baron Cohen's movies give rise to such analytical examination is testament to the originality and brilliance of his work. The ultimate question however, is not who his movies or good for, but whether or not they're funny. And Bruno ist funny. Not a funny as a Borat, but damn funny.

If one group really gets sold out in this film, it's people with naturally light and hairless anuses. From now on, people will suspect we're having them professionally waxed and bleach. Bruno, it's a nicht nicht to divulge our fashion secrets mienen friend.