I’m surprised there isn’t a thread on this already!
I just got back from watching it, and I loved it! I thought it captured the book really well. The dark humor was excellent - I laughed constantly.
The casting was done really well, except for Katie Holmes. She is supposed to be this really sexy reporter, and I just didn’t see it.
Anyone else seen it yet?
Just came back from seeing it too.
I’m sort of luke warm about the movie, the same way I’m luke warm about Christopher Buckley’s novels.
The ideas are always clever and plot clicks together like a Lego machine, but the satire never has any true bite. There’s no real moral question at work either, as a good satire would have. We know Nick is spouting BS because that’s what he’s good at, and that’s all we know about him. We can like him because he doesn’t really believe that cigarettes are good for you; he’s jus’ a good ol’ boy con man out of a thousand movies. If you’re duped, then it says more about you than about him.
A movie from the Captain’s point of view, a true believer, now that might have taken a piece out of our society.
But it’s really hard to dislike a movie that depends on smart dialog and ideas, great minor character scene stealers (the MoD were brilliant), no idiot characters, no chase scenes, no explosions, and no dumbing down the ending. I’d like more of those, please.
And as for Katie Holmes, her “world class tits” are mentioned more than once but pre-baby she was flat as a board. Didn’t anybody notice?
I did. I mean, I haven’t seen them up close, but why not change the line? I liked the movie more than you did, although nothing you said is wrong. Tobacco is a very easy target for satire, although a number of other deserving subjects were also picked on in the movie.
My company did a screening the other week (our founders were the executive producers of the movie).
I thought it was pretty funny but the book was much more ruthless and witty. I can understand the concessions they had to make with the plot to make it palatable for a wide audience though.
It diverged from the book about midway through, and not in a good way. It was a great-looking film with a terrific cast. The way it ended, Nick wound up learning nothing; instead of impacting society in some beneficial way, he just wound up whoring himself out to less obviously noxious industries.
Katie Holmes? Say you’ve lost respect for her, that her taste in men is appalling, that her capitulation to Scientology defies rational explanation. But don’t say she isn’t pretty. And while this film didn’t showcase her taut, exquisite curvature the way The Gift did, I think Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle had the last word on those delectable sweater puppies of hers. Also, this movie took place in Washington, which has a very different standard of feminine glamor than New York, LA or Miami.
Also, they bungled Nick’s signature line: “Where are the data?”
Right. I meant that after Katie Holmes was given the part, didn’t the director or producer or somebody notice that the script needed to be changed? She’s hot for a Washington reporter, so they could have referenced some other part of her anatomy.
BTW, how many people in the audience do you think noticed that at no point in the movie is a cigarette ever smoked or even lit? A smoke-free tobacco satire. Only in Hollywood.
Thank You for Smoking, part II
Thank You for Smoking, part I
Having pointed that out, I just saw the movie this weekend. I understand that a director must make compromises to the source material in order to fit even a small book into a two hour window. Still, this movie just didn’t click. It was amusing in spots, but I don’t think the satire was strong enough in the film. I did love the Mod Squad; their scenes, and the scene in the newsroom where Holmes gets her comeuppance were, to me, the best of the movie.
As compared to the dreck we’re usually served, I thought it was great. On it’s own, I’d say “pretty good”. Maybe my expectations were too high after having read reviews describing all the “biting satire” and “laughing 'til it hurts”. It was very clever, yes, but I think I only laughed out loud once or twice. I’d recommend it only to my friends that like their humor more on the cerebral side, and even then I’d probably tell them to wait until it’s out on dvd.
:smack: I did a search and came up with threads only talking about the book! Thanks for find those
After reading the earlier threads, I see some confirmation of my theory that the earlier in its run you go to see a movie the more likely you are to give it good reviews.
Thread after thread here the first weekenders’ responses are glowing raves. But after a movie’s been out for a few weeks and the rest of us finally get around to seeing it, the reviews are mixed at best with far more negatives and qualifications and ifs and buts.
Who says that hype and spin and peer pressure doesn’t work? 
Eh, this movie wasn’t tht good.
It never got to the point where I was invested in anything going on. None of the characters were ultimately interesting enough for me to feel like spending an hour and half with… I’m not saying they have to be likable characters, just interesting… and really except for their introduction scenes each character became trite and boring. I did enjoy the Rob Lowe scene and the chocolate/vanilla scene. Other than that… eh, I didn’t care.
And anyone who thinks Katie Holmes had no boobs pre baby, you are sadly mistaken… she bares those sweet puppies in that cheesy horror/thriller she made a few years ago… and they are indeed fantastic.
Then it’s a shame the movie didn’t show enough to back up the dialogue. 
I kind of agree. But if the sex scene had been as explicit as I’d have preferred, the satirical point they’d been making (“I want to fuck you and watch you on TV at the same time”) would’ve been out the window. This is satire, not Starlets Gone Wild.
I enjoyed it a lot. It had some fantastic one liners that me and my buddies were quoting the rest of the night. Funnily enough one of the guys left just as our hero got snatched on the road and endured the nicotine patches.
I agree it wasn’t a biting satire, but I still enjoyed it.
I just saw it yesterday. I LOVED it. It is easily one of the best movies I have seen in the last two to three years. Easily the best comedy since Election.
I loved how uncompromising it was. Plus, it had a sort of Libertarian flavor to it; which appeals to me personally.
I pretty much agree that Katie Holmes was the only bad casting choice. If they had played her as an up and coming reporter who used sex to get ahead, I could have bought it. But she was already some feared ace. I bought that as much as I bought Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist.
But her tits are fantastic.
Was it really necessary to remind us all of that film-making travesty in a thread about such a nice film?