Anyone see Thank You For Smoking?
 

After seeing the trailer, reading some reviews and listening to some NPR interviews, I am really looking forward to Thank You For Smoking. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait until Apr. 7 until it reaches my neck of the woods (But that's good, in a way, since that gives me time to read the book before I see the film).

Big Tobacco is certainly ripe for satire, as are lobbyists and Hollywood execs. Nice to see nanny staters in the mix, too. I've heard "the great state of Wisconsin will not apologize for its cheese" line numerous times, but it still makes me laugh.

Has anyone here seen it? Your thoughts?

I actually quite enjoyed this film versus DVDTalk's review of the film - which basically states 'skip it'

I thought Aaron Eckhert was perfect in the role. Most of all the other characters seemed a tad underwritten and are reduced to almost cameo roles - a small quibble.

Best movie of the year so far for me.

I got an email from Fox Searchlight, here are a bunch of free screenings, unfortunately not in Boston, but in a lot of other cities..just click on "View All Screenings"

http://rsvp.foxsearchlight.com/RSVPS...x.php?movie=36

Indiewire noted that LA, NYC and DC opened last week only - it opens in more cities this Friday.

Fox Searchlight will take the film to 50 theaters this weekend, adding multiple runs in existing markets and moving into Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Phoenix and Toronto.

You should be careful with those FOX free screenings. They don't have a cut-off for how many people can download passes. I went to the screening of "Nightwatch" that FOX held, and while there were about 200-300 seats, about 600-700 people showed up.

i saw it at the second screening at sundance this year. i thought it was a very entertaining movie. i was a bit surprised by the dvdtalk review.

Damnit. I missed this at South by Southwest, and I'm going to this on the night that it's screening in Austin. Guess I'll have to wait until it opens wide.

-JP

I agree. I'm looking foiward to seeing it again.

I found this to be a witty, satirical and engaging film about a tobacco lobbyist who is very good at his job. Aaron Eckhardt plays Nick Naylor, mouthpiece of big tobacco in a roundabout way. Plenty of laughs and plenty of reflection of personal consumption vices (of things we know are bad for us, but we still indulge in them anyway).

Nick also balances his lobbying activist side with trying to raise a son after a divorce, and is shuttled between mom and dad per their parental settlement. The son, played by the new Haley Joel Osment of this decade, Cameron Bright, is actually not all that annoying (or cloyingly mysterious) and does his best to listen to what his father shows him in presenting the "facts" to also get his way when dealing with his mom and school.

The film is lean and mean and runs with a really good pace that never bores the audience and just rolls along effortlessly to its satisfying conclusion.

I give it 3 stars, or a grade of B.

I thought it was very good, 4.5/5 stars. So obviously, I totally disagree with the DVD Talk Review.

i saw a press screening for this about two weeks back and really enjoyed it. Funny in alot of ways, and drives home its point.

i also heard the NPR interview and it was pretty good

TYFS is already the best movie of this year.

Brilliantly sharp writing and excellent performances by Aaron Eckhart, Cameron Bright (who's finally losing his creepiness), and Maria Bello.

I saw it last week, and thought it was great. I caught it in Pasadena, it was showing on 2 screens, both were damn near sold-out on a sunday morning. ( I caught the second showing, 1st had no good seats )

" Rock on, candy. "

Just saw it, and it is without a doubt the funniest movie I have seen all year and probably the best one content wise along with V For Vendetta. Every actor played their role to perfection, and I hope it gets remembered about ten months from now when it comes to awards time. I was especially impressed with Aaron Eckhart, whom I have never seen in a lead role to himself before. Even though his character did stuff of which I didn't really approve, he was still likeable.

I hope more people catch it as it manages to stay funny throughout without getting too serious at some points, which many of today's comedies have a tendency to do.

EDIT: This movie also seems to be in the favor of many critics (84% at rottentomatoes). I'm actually kind of disappointed that the DVDtalk review wasn't favorable, as those are pretty spot on with my opinion. Individual must not have understood its cleverness or be against the fact that it was most likely a directing gig landed through nepotism of some sort.

Just read it, and he did feel the need to bring up nepotism. Turns out this reviewer gave good notices for Basic Instinct 2 and Bench Warmers, so I put little to no credence to reviews written by this individual.

I saw it last night. meh.

I thought the acting was great and there were a few funny moments, but for the most part it just didn't deliver. The jokes were obvious and not very creative. And talk about a slow-moving target! I would rent it, but wouldn't pay ten bucks to see it.

i saw it. it was decent, but it wasn't as funny as the trailer led me to believe. many times the audience was laughing, i was like "that isn't really that funny." but the movie was good, but probably worrth watching once.

FWIW, I snuck into BI-2 and thought that beyond the sex scenes, which I could tell were watered down, the movie was little more than a lame attempt to milk a dry cow. Stone still looks decent, but it was obvious this movie was past its time. They should have made it direct to video.
I caught a free advance showing of Benchwarmers and while the Jon Lovitz character was amusing (mostly because I am a fellow geek/nerd), I just find Spade and Schneider annoying beyond all belief; so much that I don't even watch Spade's show on Comedy Central, which I have heard is amusing. Maybe I need to be more tolerant of this stuff, as this movie holds the honor of only one I have walked out on with little more than fifteen minutes left, and it was free!!! I'm more about movies that rely on dialogue for the humor as opposed to physical comedy and crude humor. But again, it's just personal taste.

I actually really liked Benchwarmers and Thank You For Smoking, so there is some crossover territory.

I saw this several weeks ago, but the thread didn't seem to be going anywhere then. I loved it, its really funny, both in obvious and subtle ways. It delivers a bad guy whom isn't entirely bad, but when placed against the "supposed" good guys, the roles begin to equalize, leaving you to the main point of the movie, its all about selling, and Aaron Eckhart sells himself better than the good guys who all mean well.

I was totally surprised that Aaron Eckhart could carry the role, ad if he hadn't, the movie would have collapsed on itself. The only thing I had ever seen him in was The Core and Suspect Zero (only my freaky memory for useless occurences lets me recall that I actually saw these two pieces of drek) and he wasn't so hot in those.

Five stars for Awesome; I Fuckin' Shot That, but Brick only gets two? Four stars for ATL, one and a half for Lucky Number Slevin? A higher score for She's the Man than for Inside Man?

Eh, I think I'll still give Thank You For Smoking a shot whenever I get a chance...

-JP

Folks might want to check out Aaron's earlier work in "In The Company of Men" to get a glimpse of promise he had at the start of his career.

I saw some of that about ten years ago. Since then and until now his only notable role was as Julia Roberts' boyfriend in Erin Brockovich. I would say he still has promise, he just now got a role to once again show it.

For those who have seen this,

I'm not ragging on your taste, man. I write DVD reviews for a different website, and I know all about people whose tastes don't line up with a particular reviewer's. In fact, I thought your review of "Don't Come Knocking" was spot on, and I just saw the preview for "On a Clear Day" on the "Good Night, and Good Luck" disc, and I immediately came to expect from the film exactly what I later read in your review. My post was just to say that I won't let the negative DVDTalk review keep me from giving the film a shot, simply because in a lot of instances your tastes just don't come anywhere near lining up with my own.

I know you feel kind of attacked with all of the, "what in the fuck was that guy thinking giving this film a negative review" comments in this thread. I faced a similar backlash when I panned "Million Dollar Baby" elsewhere. It wasn't in any way my intention to jump on that train. Sorry if it seemed that way, and keep doing your thing. You can't do anything more as a reviewer than call it as you see it, and even if I don't agree with most of your ratings, I totally respect the fact that you're not simply echoing the comments of Ebert or Peter Travers.

-JP

It sounds like this film walks the Spinal Tap-ian fine line between stupid and clever. I saw this one Saturday and thought it was hilarious; the funniest movie I've seen since Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. But at the same time, I can see how someone would see the humor as being really obvious and lame. I thought the style and the obvious thought in the direction made up for some of the flatter jokes.

I'm not sure why you're comparing reviews. What's the point of that argument? "Awesome" and "Brick" are two completely different movies, and they should be reviewed in two diiferent ways. Why use their compared ratings as an example to show us the guy has a screw loose?

This seems like a cheap shot at somebody I think does their job very well.

After sitting through both, I would take "ATL" over the awful "Lucky Number Slevin" any day of the week.