THANK YOU FOR SMOKING (Jason Reitman, 2005, USA) I'll rename this THANK YOU FOR NOT WATCHING. One of the most overrated films in the past few years, this poorly written waste of celluloid is morally ambiguous and ethically challenged. This film is NOT a successful satire! Lets consult the Wikipedia for a definition: In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with an intent to bring about improvement. The exact opposite happens to our protagonist lobbyist Nick Nailor who smooth talks his way to success at the expense of others and never changes! The film builds up to the climax of the court proceedings when Nick has a chance to accept responsibility, to see that he must change because he is harming others and to foster this moral humanism to his son. But the film isn't smart enough to consider this; it is only after a cheap laugh. This is not wit or irony it is only bad writing. His sad and deceitful relationship with the reporter and his son is purely stereotypical and dreadful. We can only imageine his son growing up in Daddy's footsteps to spread more misery and death in the world. I guess it's OK as long as you pay your mortgage. (F)
It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
THANK YOU FOR SMOKING (Jason Reitman, 2005, USA) I'll rename this THANK YOU FOR NOT WATCHING. One of the most overrated films in the past few years, this poorly written waste of celluloid is morally ambiguous and ethically challenged. This film is NOT a successful satire! Lets consult the Wikipedia for a definition: In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with an intent to bring about improvement. The exact opposite happens to our protagonist lobbyist Nick Nailor who smooth talks his way to success at the expense of others and never changes! The film builds up to the climax of the court proceedings when Nick has a chance to accept responsibility, to see that he must change because he is harming others and to foster this moral humanism to his son. But the film isn't smart enough to consider this; it is only after a cheap laugh. This is not wit or irony it is only bad writing. His sad and deceitful relationship with the reporter and his son is purely stereotypical and dreadful. We can only imageine his son growing up in Daddy's footsteps to spread more misery and death in the world. I guess it's OK as long as you pay your mortgage. (F)
