Thank You for Smoking – Danke, dass Sie hier rauchen

Eine Filmsatire von Jason Reitman, der auf den gleichnamigen Roman von Christopher Buchley basiert hört auf den Namen “Thank You for Smoking”. Der Film ist eine Satire und erscheint 2005.

Die Geschichte

In Thank You for Smoking geht es um einen Lobbyisten der Tabakindustrie, der Nick Naylor heißt. Er ist Lobbyist sowie Pressesprecher eines Forschungsinstituts für Tabakstudien, welches von der Tabakindustrie finanziert wird. Nick Naylor ist der Sprecher und sorgt für Schadensbegrezung. Dazu geht er in Talkshows, gibt Interviews und vieles mehr. In dem Film sieht man schön, wie ein Lobbyist arbeitet und die Wahrheit durch passende und gute Argumente zurecht rücken kann. Sein Gegenspieler ist vorallem der Senator Ortolan Finisterre, der Zigaretten am liebsten komplett verbieten würde.

Mein Fazit

Der Film ist richtig genial. Sehr lustig und aufschlussreich. Nicht nur die Tabakindustrie spielt mit “falschen Mitteln” sondern auch sein Gegenspieler. Bewusst wird alles versucht, den jeweiligen Gegenspieler in die Schranken zu weisen. Ich finde den Film “Thank You for Smoking” wirklich sehr gut und empfehle ihn ausdrücklich.

The giddy sensation that comes with buying good movies cheap, like I mentioned in yesterday’s factoid (Random Factoid #118) isn’t limited to stores.  iTunes often offers $5 movies, and I will confess that I simply cannot resist.  I have bought “Hitch” and “Thank You for Smoking” through these promotions.

P.S. – These promotions also bring very frustrating feelings whenever the movie that I just bought gets marked down almost instantaneously.

Today I had the delight of watching the famed ‘Jennifer’s Body,‘ which ideally focuses on many controversial concepts which include subjects such as; Satanic worship, torture, mutilation, demonology and lesbianism. Oh, well, sounds like everyone’s first day of the summer break, right? No, of course not. This appeared to be apparent as Box Office sales didn’t exceed more than $19 million with its $16 million budget at hand and scoring particularly badly among critics.

I’ll dive right in to the pool of blood and bad attempts of comedy left behind by the film’s oh so apparent success among younger viewers, which was also dubbed ‘Twilight for boys‘ by acclaimed film critic Roger Ebert, who enjoyed the film. To be fair to Jennifer’s Body, it wasn’t an entirely bad film, it was indeed an interesting and original plot, however it could have been tackled far better by Diablo Cody who, to be honest, had her heart set on the film, but not necessarily all of her head. Fox’s acting was adequate at best, which significantly contrasted against Seyfried’s, who I have to admit, was surprising to say the least. Brody was also rather convincing as a slick-haired, satanic worshipping lead singer, which one wouldn’t have envisioned from his performances on ‘The OC.’

Roger Ebert was correct in saying that Jennifer’s Body is Twilight for boys, I mean how many women out there are prepared to sit through 102 minutes of blood-dripping, body-dismembering, scantily-dressed-cheerleading? Well, I’d imagine a few. It’s like Twilight in the same sense that every female in the world would go to see it because of the actor’s portrayal of the protagonist, who beyond all disbelief is Megan Fox, most men’s favourite young actress of the year.. or four. It’s also like Twilight in the sense that it’s completely and utterly successful beyond ever imagined. Oh wait a second…

Jennifer’s Body, overall, isn’t great. If you enjoy cheap thrills, then hey, be my guest. However, as the analysis goes; the acting is poor, the satirical side of it fails to achieve what it’s designed for, and probably the best part of it was the ending where I had a sigh of relief that I didn’t have to watch any more of what I thought would be a crazily good film. Unfortunately, it isn’t.  Despite a few occasional moments in the script, kudos to Cody for those, the film really can’t take off as what it’s supposed to be, comedy, slasher, horror or a film about female empowerment and it’s not like any other teen horror movie out there, for starters this one has some degree of a plot line, but it’s still not really worth the money of a cinema trip. Sorry folks. Oh and this poster is blatantly a rip of True Blood.

Voto: 7,5 (su 10)

Cosa c’è dentro il nostro zaino? Ognuno di noi si porta sulle proprie spalle le sue relazioni. Colleghi, amici, parenti, innamorati. E le relazioni sono un peso. È la teoria di Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), che ai corsi motivazionali per manager porta in scena proprio uno zaino, e invita a lasciarlo a terra, e con lui tutti i metaforici pesi che le nostre relazioni ci danno. Lui a terra ci sta pochissimo, visto che vola da una parte all’altra dell’America come “tagliatore di teste”: qualcuno affittato da codardi che non riescono a guardare in faccia chi devono licenziare. Ovviamente ha applicato a se stesso la teoria dello zaino: vive libero da legami (né amici, né famiglia d’origine, né moglie e figli), saltando da un aeroporto all’altro, con un trolley dove ha tutto ciò di cui ha bisogno. Il suo unico sogno è raggiungere i dieci milioni di miglia percorse, per entrare nel club esclusivo della compagnia aerea con cui vola. Il problema è che una nuova arrivata nella sua azienda trova il modo per ottimizzare i costi, proponendo di licenziare la gente in video chat. Un altro problema è l’attraente viaggiatrice (Vera Farmiga) che incontra in uno dei suoi viaggi…

Forse per Ryan è arrivato il momento di cambiare la sua esistenza solitaria? Magari di diventare come la sorella e il fidanzato, coppia felice che gli affida una loro foto su cartonato in modo da farsi fotografare nei posti più svariati (come il nano de Il favoloso mondo di Amèlie)? Quella sua vita metodica fatta di gesti sempre uguali, che la regia sottolinea con primi piani degli oggetti, montati a ritmo veloce, può cambiare? “Ognuno ha bisogno di un copilota”, dopo tutto. Ma non è facile cambiare, soprattutto quando si è consacrata l’intera vita al lavoro e ci si è costruiti una corazza per isolarsi dagli altri…

Tutto questo è Tra le nuvole (Up In The Air), il nuovo film di Jason Reitman, che, dopo Thank You For Smoking e Juno, firma un altro film quasi perfetto. Che ancora una volta, dietro battute folgoranti (imperdibile il duetto tra Clooney e la Farmiga, basato sul confronto tra le proprie carte di credito e sulle misure delle miglia percorse, degno della commedia brillante degli anni Sessanta), ci mostra verità scomode, su cui c’è poco da ridere. Così entriamo dritti, senza fare anticamera, nell’America della nuova grande crisi, con i licenziamenti che diventano un business, e vediamo le reazioni disperate di chi perde il lavoro. Le vediamo davvero, perché tra quelle montate ci sono delle vere interviste a persone che hanno perso il lavoro. Sono integrate piuttosto bene nel film, tanto che non ce ne accorgiamo subito. È un modo intelligente di portare nel cinema, anche in un prodotto apparentemente leggero e di intrattenimento, il mondo reale.

Quel mondo reale di cui si renderà conto di non appartenere Ryan, dopo il sottofinale a sorpresa che lascia a bocca aperta. Quel mondo reale fatto di relazioni interpersonali che forse non esiste più. Quello schermo del computer attraverso il quale, in video chat, si comunica con le persone, è proprio il simbolo dello “schermo” che mettiamo tra noi e il prossimo. Che può essere anche lo schermo di un telefonino: ci si lascia e ci si licenzia via sms. Allora forse è meglio portarsi sulle spalle quello zaino, con dentro affetti e relazioni. Pesi quel che pesi.

Da vedere perché: dietro battute folgoranti Reitman ci mostra verità scomode, su cui c’è poco da ridere. Così entriamo dritti, senza fare anticamera, nell’America della nuova grande crisi

Sam Elliot

We’re going to kick things off with a little profile of Sam Elliot, because… Why not? He’s a great actor who no one actually knows anything about. Samuel (Pack) Elliot popped out of the womb on August 9, 1944, in Sacramento California. Since the age of nine, acting was the name of the game.

Elliot was a stage trained actor (as most of the good ones are) who first broke into the box office with a small role in the 1969 western Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. He fit perfectly into the western scene with his gravelly voice, relaxed drawl. The man was born to play the cowboy, Marlboro man type; a perfect fit for the western genre. Within a few years of that great, high profile debut, wouldn’t ya know it, the Hollywood market for westerns virtually disappeared, leaving Elliot scrambling to find a place somewhere else.
Elliot followed with a series of more contemporary films, where he found himself being identified as the “sexy tough-guy” in such films as Lifeguard and The Games. Surprisingly enough (to those of us who can only imagine him with a handlebar mustache and a 10-gallon hat) he gathered quite a following as a sex symbol. In fact, he was described as having a “Super Bod” in the book “Shirtless! The Hollywood Male Physique”.

Clearly wanting to avoid being pidgeon-holed as a sex symbol, he was quoted in the December 1976 edition of “Playgirl” saying “I don’t want to be known as a sex symbol. There’s a great stigma that goes with that tag. I want to be a Sam Elliot.” Although the western genre had died off in the box office, it lived on in television, where he would be able to thrive once more. He worked on several projects such as The Sackets (1977) and The Shadow Riders (1982).

It wasn’t until the 90s that the western genre returned to the box office. Elliot being inseperable from the genre came back with it, being cast as Virgil Earp in Tombstone (1993). In addition, he produced and co-wrote and starred in Conagher (1991) an adapted western, for which he won the Western Heritage Award and was nominated for a Golden Globe. The Big Lebowski (1998) marked the beginning of a transition for Elliot. With his role as the laid back “Stranger”, Elliot showed he could play more contemporary characters, and still keep that gritty, weatherworn quality.

With the 200 made for television remake of Fail Safe, Elliot began transitioning from the western character to modern war vet, to government official in The Contender. His success in these roles has given him the clout to be cast in such mainstream films as The Hulk, Ghostrider (ok, they were bad… really bad, but he wasn’t) and then Thank You for Smoking in which, interestingly enough, he played the Marlboro Man, the same character type from which he gained his success.
There, aren’t you glad you read this?

 www.stephenmedvidick.com

Alina: A cazut guvernul.
OtherAna: Unde a cazut?

Un baiat, dar nu mai vizualizez cine: Teoretic e revolutie.

Dupa care a venit Felice care stia mai multa politica de la stirile Radio Guerilla si ne-a explicat frumos cum stau lucrurile de fapt. Si Alexandra care a dat si nume.
___________________________________________________________
tutunul dauneaza grav sanatatii. (Directiva Consiliului CE 89/622/CEE, practic neaprobata)

Shakespeare: Ah, ce-as fuma o tigara.
Monique: Emil, provide please.
Comsea: Iti dau, pentru ca esti din gasca lui Monica.
Gherman: Daca vreti sa faceti parte din gasca lui Monique, trebuie sa ii dati lucruri.
________________________________________________
tutunul dauneaza grav sanatatii. (Directiva Consiliului CE 89/622/CEE) – asa scrie pe cartea de vizita a lui Gherman

“Thank You For Smoking” is the first great movie of 2006.  Some would say that a movie that follows a tobacco lobbyist who is trying to get more smoking back in to cinema would be in poor taste.  I beg to differ.  If done correctly, it can be a sharp witted satire and a heck of a dark comedy.  At these things it triumphs. 

Aaron Eckhart plays Nick Naylor, a lobbyist for the pro smoking community who follows the philosophy that if you have a good enough argument, you are never wrong.  We meet him on the “Joan Lunden” show where he is sitting next to a 15 year old boy named Robin. He is a cancer victim who quite smoking.  Nick argues that it is in tobacco’s best interest to keep this boy alive and smoking.  “The anti-smoking people want Robin to die”. 

Naylor works hard at his job, is divorced, and loves his son very much.  He tries desperately to justify his job to his son, and defend it to his ex-wife and her new husband.  These relationships form the heart of the movie as Naylor takes his son to Hollywood as he bargains with a Hollywood super agent to get some lead actors to smoke more cigarettes. 

Rob Lowe plays Jeff Megall, the super agent, who comes up with the idea of smoking on a space craft in an epic sci-fi picture.  “Wouldn’t the explode in an all oxygen environment?” asks Nick.  Lowe replies with a quick fix.  “Thank god we invented the thingy!”  

The rest of the movie is populated by some very interesting supporting characters who are all supplied with dialogue from a screenplay that is bursting with flavour.  Consider Sam Elliot as a former Marlboro Man, now dying of cancer and a very outspoken advocate of smoking.  Nick brings him a briefcase full of money.  “This is not a bribe” says Nick, “It is a gift”.  Elliot is perfect at going from hard bitten and bitter to gleaming at the sign of money.   

Once a week Nick gets together with the MOD squad, which stands for Merchants Of Death.  They are fellow lobbyists for alcohol and fire arms.  Maria Bello and David Koechner respectively.  If you know both these actors, you should instinctively know which one represents which.  They cheerfully argue over whose products kills the most people. 

The director is Jason Reitman, son of Ivan, who as you know directed “Ghostbusters” and “Evolution”.  His son seems geared towards more character and dialogue driven comedy, as opposed to slapstick and special effects.  Neither theme of movie is better than the other, but lately it is nice to get a comedy with some style.  Reitman seems poised to do some serious damage in the realm of films.

Enjoy!

With the media induced Megan Fox frenzy, which is still going strong after her performance in Transformers 2, it was inevitable that this post was going to arrive.

Chances are, if you walk into a crowded bar full of fairly young and most probably drunken men and you say the name Megan Fox, most, if not all of their heads would turn. This is the result due to the Fox frenzy I was referring to, where everything I’ve read about her, everything I’ve seen with her in, uses her beauty and sexual prowess to grant her a level of success not widely given to those who can act better, rather than those who rely on voluptuousness. Whilst I am not saying her skills as an actress are bad, I am however saying they’re limited. Miss. Fox, granted she is very beautiful, can only act to a point before she starts relying on her physical form.

Personally, I think a quick rundown is in order. Hope and Faith… Who does she play? “a popular, vain, boy crazy, mean, and kind of ditzy” older teen. In Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, Fox plays ‘the most popular girl in school’. In Transformers 1 and 2 however she is portrayed slightly differently, being differentiated from ‘typical’ women in her age group. Yet still, somehow her performance is obviously there to want to make every male pay once, twice, or even three times to see her fixing up a car or  glistening on top of a motorbike. Those are just a few examples of what I mean. I have nothing against Megan Fox, I think she is a pretty good actress as far as her acting goes, but regardless of whether I’m a man, I don’t want ALL of her roles to be a popular, typical sex symbol. Megan said herself in an interview with MTV recently regarding her being portrayed as sexy all the time: “I’m not comfortable with it at all. It annoys me.” Good on her,  I’d like to see her trying to pull of something like Transamerica. That would be interesting to watch, just to see whether she can do it.

Anyway, about Jennifer’s Body. Diablo Cody wrote it, the screenwriter of Juno, who stated ‘she wanted the film to speak to female empowerment and explore the complex relationships between best friends‘. The film stars Megan Fox (Transformers, Transformers 2, How To Lose Friends and Alienate People), Amanda Seyfried (Mamma Mia!, Mean Girls, Alpha Dog), Adam Brody (The OC, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Thank You For Smoking) and Johnny Simmons (Hotel For Dogs, The Spirit, Evan Almighty) with a release date of 28th October 2009 just in time for Halloween. Despite all the ruckus, it looks like an okay – pretty good film. So enjoy the trailer.

I know I have gushed about Jason Reitman’s upcoming drama “Up In The Air” in the past, but I truly feel that the film will be something special, just like his fantastic “Thank You For Smoking”. Now, we finally get a full on theatrical trailer. So, although Apple (who hordes trailers like no other) only gives me the ability to link you to their site to watch this fantastic trailer, I implore you to do so. Air will land in theaters on Dec. 4 in limited release before expanding to wide release on Dec. 25.

Meanwhile, there is a fantastic trailer for a foreign film called “Bronson”. Having already played overseas, the 2008 film tells the story of a prisoner named Michael Petersen, who, after being thrown in jail in 1974 for attempted robbery of a post office, has extended his stay from 7 years to 34 years. Much of that time, 30 to be exact, was actually spent in solitary confinement which gave birth to the alter ego ‘Charles Bronson’. This is an inside look at the mind of Bronson.

So far, the film has gathered quite a following online, and stands at 70% with 23 reviews. Some are calling it a putrid celebration of violence , while others have noted the commentary on celebrity culture while also likening it to Stanley Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange”. To make up for the lack of the embedded trailer for “Up In The Air”, I give you two trailers for “Bronson”.

The second trailer is after the jump. Look for this film to have limited release in the US beginning Oct. 9 with Magnet distributing. I expect it to hit various VOD services around the same time.

ne-am jucat cu un pistol. bang bang, bong bong, pac, pac, pic, pic. am ramas fara gaz si ne-am scrintit incheietura. se propune un curs de prim-ajutor. pe coanda il mai cheama si ionut, dar nu raspunde. asa ca s-a plecat la conferinta fashion week.
______________________________________________
Directiva Consiliului CE 89/622/CEE

I visited an acupuncturist the other day. A traditionalist with the Chinese meridians and whatnot. I didn’t realize those trained in the East had a “schtick”. Do you hear my amazement? Schtick, I tell you. First, he looks at my hands. Nails, fingers, general robustness. Palms next, then he takes my pulse. Not heart rate. Pulse. Then there’s my tongue– stick it out and try not to look silly. There’s other things, but I’ll skip to the schtick. He looks at me very sternly and says I have a conflict in my body. There’s an imbalance between my head and my constitution. I think too much, I read too much, my mind races at night, I don’t sleep well and I spend too much of my time indoors. He says this imbalance doesn’t affect me so much now because I’m young and healthy, but in ten years, watch out. I’m going to have trouble peeing (guaranteed, he said) and that’s just the start. My qi (chi) is bad around my middle. All that thinking is bad. All that jogging is bad. Weightlifting is bad. Plus, I don’t drink enough water or the right kind of water. WHAT?

If I were going to persuade someone to hinge their future health on a fringe modality, then I would take the tack used by this man. And when I say fringe, I mean it. If you believe in acupuncture and its effectiveness, then great. It’ll probably work for you, but that’s the thing. You have to believe in it. I think the efficacy studies show that benefit rates rival that of placebo which is to say 1 out of 3 will find relief. 2 out of 3 won’t. When drugs are put through trial, they have to better this placebo rate in order to make it to market. Otherwise, take a sugar pill.

It’s a little frustrating. I like acupuncture. I like the idea of it. I’m not sure it wouldn’t work given the right condition, the right patient, the right doc. It all depends. Just because you have a herniated disc doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have surgery. Same thing here. Acupuncture could have helped me. Could have. But not this guy. Too many red flags. Not enough to walk out, but just enough to cancel after a good night’s sleep. Plus, a quick review with the boyfriend confirming the goofiness didn’t hurt.

Sometimes a good barometer of an interaction is how they qualify it. My thoughts on his theory were delivered with honest skepticism. I countered his claim that I didn’t sleep well. I sleep great. Especially when I’m not in pain (hint, hint). He qualified my attitude as having been presented all the facts in a way that overwhelmed me. He had confused me.

Ohhh, I was confused– that was it.

I was confused all right– thought paternalism was a Western attribute. Nevermind that if you’re puncturing tissues in the meridian, wouldn’t it behoove you to know a little about the underlying structures and tissues? Names at least? Maybe having more than a superficial knowledge of the more allopathic therapies?

I’m snarking on the man, I am. I have to say I don’t think that kind of certitude is usually present in a healer. There’s something to be said for doubt, for exploration, for listening to the patient. To put forth a position, but heed the contraindications. I had wanted to impress upon him the benefits I had gotten from trigger point injections but he appeared impatient. Trigger points, BTW, are not exactly allopathic. If anything, they’re less accepted than acupuncture. But it worked for me and that’s the thing. If my direct experience demonstrates a significant and positive effect, I have to revise my doubt. It’s called proof. When I find proof, I like to air it. It’s called discourse.

I don’t think he was much a fan of discourse. He patiently bore me out, interrupting only a couple times, and then deciding that my inability to embrace his view was a result of having given me too much too soon. It was too Eastern for me. Clearly, I was a Westerner. How could I comprehend the holistic gestalt of a culture so ancient, so wise, so mystical? My ignorance was understandable.

After everything, an unkind thought occurred to me. Isn’t that a passive-aggressive reaction? You don’t understand how good I am. It’s a point of sophistry ably demonstrated in the film Thank You For Smoking. Dad and son take a hypothetical argument. Which is the better flavor: Vanilla or chocolate? Son takes vanilla. Dad argues for chocolate, but there are more flavors in the world than just those two. What about strawberry? What about butter brickle? So the son cogently points out he hasn’t won, he’s just argued for choice. Dad says, that’s the point. You don’t need to make your point if you can win the audience. And that was Dr. Acupuncture’s tack except I was the audience. And claiming Eastern ways are too lofty for Western logic doesn’t exactly win me over.

s-a vorbit toata ziua despre tije metalice: in brat, in picior, in ambele brate, in celalalt picior, in bratele mele, in bratele tale, la picioarele tuturor. Maine vine fiecare cu radiografiile sa le punem pe facebook. Si cu magneti, sa se lipeasca toate fetele de Coanda.
______________________________________________________
Tutunul nu dauneaza grav cutiei craniene, insa dauneaza grav sanatatii creierului. Daca nu ma credeti, google “Directiva Consiliului CE 89/622/CEE“.

The only thing worse than this film’s plot is its clichéd titled. Love Happens? Really? Does it? Well, another four-letter word happens too and it happens to describe this movie perfectly.

Jennifer Aniston is once again playing the quirky lead in this snoozer alongside Aaron Eckhart. Eckhart is a widower, Burke Ryan, who turns his loss into gain when he fashions a motivational self-help book titled—I kid you not—A-Okay. The problem is, Ryan isn’t “a-okay.” Despite the smorgasbord of platitudes spewed by him, such as “Happiness is a state of mind” and “When life hands you lemons you can either make a face or lemonade,” that are meant to encourage his naive followers, Ryan is truly unhappy and still blames himself for his wife’s death. He is essentially not practicing what he preaches. Ryan’s book agent Lane “Goddamn” Marshall (Dan Fogler), attempts to provide some humor, is constantly telling Ryan to “live a little,” which comes off as trite and overdone. (The man lost his wife and of course the cure-all is for him to go out there and meet more women rather than work on healing his pain. Kudos, screenwriter.)

He meets Aniston’s character Eloise while he’s in Seattle giving a week-long seminar on grief and loss. She’s an odd gal who likes to write excessively long and obscure words, a sesquipedalianist if you will, on the back of paintings in the hotel her floral business caters to. I think we can all guess the rest: Ryan falls for Eloise, Eloise falls for Ryan, an obstacle arises that gets in the way of their love and then banality ensues as Ryan begins to embrace Eloise’s idea that “when one things ends, something else begins.”

At every second the film manages to insult its audience with a string of hackneyed sayings that try to disguise themselves as novel. Did the filmmakers really think that the average viewer would not be bored with the same mundane plot? Just because a formula has worked in the past does not mean that it will continue working or that originality should be ignored. How about a little surprise?

Not to mention, Aniston seems to always play the heartbroken female lead who has to take back the imperfect man and whose love is the male character’s saving grace (The Break-Up, anyone?). Gag. And while Eckhart had promise in becoming a Hollywood heavyweight in last year’s The Dark Knight in this film he slightly squanders that. Don’t get me wrong, I like it when actors branch out, but it only works if they branch out to worthwhile films. Had his portrayal been more like the one in Bill or Thank You for Smoking and less like The Core, maybe this film could have had something.

Oh, who am I kidding? This movie rankles more than gum on the bottom of your shoe.

Up in the Air: Jason Reitman (Juno, Thank You for Smoking) returns, as does Jason Bateman (at least in team with Reitman).  I have enjoyed both of Reitman’s first movies.  One suggestion: the intricate opening credits he seems to love really kill my love for his movies.  I think I saw Touch of Evil on Turner Classic Movies right before seeing Thank You For Smoking for the first time in the theater, and whoever introduced Touch of Evil talked about how important it was to Orson Welles to just start his films, with as few opening credits as the studio would allow.  Reitman seems to be on the opposite end of the spectrum.  He has to be pushing his producers to allow him to do those ridiculous opening credits.  And his movies would actually be better without them.  Still, this is an excellent trailer that makes me want to see his film (a quality of all recent trailers involving George Clooney).

For fun, compare Clooney’s narration of the Up in the Air trailer to Sean Penn’s opening narration from the 21 Grams trailer: