Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by ChrisBEA, Apr 1, 2006.
I'm looking forward to seeing this one!
Dunno if this thread is open for discussion officially or if this falls into the threadcrap range - I'll take my chances!
I saw it at a preview a couple of weeks ago - I live in the DC area, so we're a clear target audience. I was unimpressed. It was generally entertaining but I thought it wasn't particularly clever or incisive. So lobbyists are essentially whores - that's news? Too many easy shots and not enough real depth or insight.
The film wasn't made to be clever or incisive. Today, I watched a brief interview with the director/writer and he made it very clear that this film is a comedy without any hidden messages, meant to be funny without being silly. His goal was to make people laugh which they did a lot at my viewing, so yes, it's an entertaining film.
This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Thank You for Smoking" please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.
All HTF member film reviews of "Thank You for Smoking" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
I loved it when I saw it at a preview screening at the Loews on the Common a couple weeks back. As I was waiting for my companion to finish up in the bathroom, the chatter I heard coming out of the theater was some of the most positive I've heard in long while. I enjoyed the hell out of it myself.
Nick Naylor (great name!) isn't a just a lobbyist. During the course of the film, you watch him develop a much higher public profile than a mere lobbyist (at least an unindicted one ). The film would be less interesting (and less funny) if it stuck to typical lobbying activities in the corridors of government. Instead, we watch Naylor try to go around government and appeal directly to the people: on TV, in movies, and in the press (which is where he gets into trouble).
Besides, where is it written that satire has to break new ground? It just has to be funny, and this film made me laugh, along with the rest of the audience I saw it with.
Because it mostly takes place in DC and features lobbyists, of which we have a ton?
Why would you NOT think that DC was a target audience? It's a movie that clearly will appeal to all the inside the Beltway sorts around here. Not saying they made the movie FOR those folks, but it's got an obvious appeal to them. Do you think it's a coincidence that the movie opened in three towns: NY, LA and DC?
Sorry, I don't buy that. I see no way you could make a movie like this about such a subject and not have some slant. Not saying that the film strongly advocates one way or another, but it clearly attempts a) to be clever, and b) to have some insight into its subject. If the director wants to pass it off as something with the same attempted depth as a Police Academy film, good for him - that doesn't mean I'll believe him. He's probably trying to slough off any criticisms for idealogical bias by saying "it's just a comedy!"
Why does a good comedy have to have the same depth as Police Academy to be a funny film while being a movie that is not giving out hidden meaning in its humor?
I'm sure he's worried about reactions from whomever.
That's a typical limited-release pattern. The Washington setting may have dictated the choice of the third town (over, say, Chicago, San Francisco or Toronto), but I think that's about as far as you can push it.
It's a film about LOBBYISTS! Of course that's going to appeal to the DC crowd! I don't understand arguments to the contrary - you make it sound like they chose DC at random...
Unless, there are thousands of lobbyists that are going to affect the box office receipts, what difference does it make either way?
Nice way to dismiss my opinions...
If it doesn't make any difference, why are people arguing with the idea?
They opened the movie in DC because it's a place where the subject will appeal to a lot of people. Not just lobbyists - government workers in general and those with a political bent. Believe it or not, we have a lot of folks involved with politics in DC! The movie looks at subjects that connect to many folks in the region.
Opening this flick here is the same as opening The Player in LA - the topics involved are natural to the story's region. I still have no clue why this seems to confuse or bother people...
It seems like you're more bother by people disagreeing with you about this minor point of contention than anyone else.
I agreed that the Washington setting probably influenced the release pattern; so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
Finally caught up with this movie and found it to be very funny. I agree that the movie is not especially insightful or in depth, but there are many priceless scenes here. Like where the son forces the mother's hand into letting him go with dad, or the brutal riff on the secretary to Rob Lowe, or the M.O.D. squad talk on who is worthy of the attention of terrorists, or the Malboro Man encounter.
Someone please sign William H Macy and JK Simmons to do a screwball comedy together. These guys are hilarious.
Saw this again tonight. LOVED it more...and bumped up my rating a tad to
I clicked Robert's discussion link but there's nothing there but the main forum page?
Again, a smart & VERY clever film with a good message.
That's because all links that predate the last forum software upgrade are no longer valid; so the board defaults to the main page. (Yeah, I know it sucks, but that's what the software writers stuck us with.)
Searches still work, though. The links have been updated, and this post has been relocated to the discussion thread.