StumpTown Entertainment

Ever thought about what kind of villain you would make? Ever watched some movie where the evil genius has a brilliant plan and then messes it up by letting the wrong person live or by confessing their whole plan before leaving their incompetent henchman to off the hero, and thought, “man, I could do that so much better.” Maybe I’m revealing too much about myself here, but I think about that all the time. Of course the key to all of that, to borrow a line from “Thank You For Smoking” is that you would have to have a moral flexibility that is beyond most people. Thankfully, most of us don’t have that type of moral flexibility, but there can still be something seductive about the bad guy. Maybe it’s that black is slimming.

Whatever the reason, I have to say that the main character of this movie, a spokesperson for “big tobacco” made the bad guy seem as cool as possible while forcing me to spend 2 hours wishing I was that clever. The “sultan of spin” as he is called is absolutely brilliant in this very tongue in cheek comedy about the art of spin.

In some ways this movie also hit close to home because, like lobbyists, lawyers are asked to advocate the positions of their clients as if they were their own without making those issues their own. It is a very strange and difficult line to walk and some are better at it than others. Some become true believers and only represent causes they believe in. Some separate themselves from their work entirely and would not bat an eye at representing Osama or Saddam or a serial killer. Most stay in the middle constantly asking themselves if ethics and morality only require honesty, courtesy, professionalism, committed advocacy and playing by the rules. Or does it also require us to examine the causes and people and companies for whom we advocate? It is a very tough question to which most lawyers have at best an unsatisfactory, but functioning answer that changes from client to client

Anyway, this movie examines those issues in a very sarcastic, wickedly clever and above all very funny satire.

What it’s about: The movie follows Nick Naylor who is the chief spokesperson and lobbyist for American tobacco companies. It follows him as he bribes and manipulates cancer victims, slanders cheese, tries to put cigarettes back in the movies and all this while trying to parent his young son. Yes this is the story of the guy who wants your children to start and keep smoking and somehow makes a convincing case as to why they should.

What’s to like: Above all, the writing. Incredibly smart script on a couple levels. First, it is laugh out loud funny throughout the movie. Second it is full of subtle details, symbols, inferences, and wordplays that give the movie some depth and offer up rewards for paying close attention. When you watch this movie, and you really should, pay attention to the names of people and places and the themes and symbols. Make note of things like what flavor of ice cream Nick and son eat on the Santa Monica pier, and what’s going on in the movie showing when Nick and his son go to meet the Hollywood agent. Good stuff.

More than anything else, though, this movie is about the guy with the perfect comeback for everything. You know those great comebacks you think of 15 minutes after you’ve left a conversation, well this guy delivers when it matters. You just spend the whole time going, “oh man, that is perfect.” The writing is really that good.

The acting is also good. All 3 of the MOD squad (“Merchants of Death” – a meeting between lobbyists for tobacco, alcohol and firearms), were great. William H. Macy is as good as he always is. Basically, the script was inspired and the actors have the timing and skill to allow it to come alive.

Also, it didn’t suffer from that dead 30 minutes that kills most comedies. That period of time, when they are trying to advance a love story or just go too far between things that make you laugh. This movie starts you laughing right away and keeps you laughing until the end. Not crying, falling out of your chair laughing, but constant amusement.

What I could have done without: It suffered a little bit from “scripting.” There may be some other term out there that describes this phenomenon, but I’m not aware of it, so I’m stealing this word to describe something I see in movies all the time. This movie only works if you believe that Nick is this unstoppable arguing force of spin and confidence. So, the movie has to convince you he is that guy early and often. The thing is that being clever enough to be funny to watch requires not only a quick wit, but the right situation and opportunity. Lloyd Benson doesn’t get off that line about JFK unless Dan Quayle set him up for it.

You need a good set up to deliver that crushing one liner. That’s why George Constanza flew to Iowa or wherever it was to have a shot at delivering that “jerk store” line. If you don’t watch Seinfeld, just ignore me and move on and rest in the shame of having missed the best sitcom ever made for American network TV.

When movies need to set up their story by convincing you that a character is really smart, or an amazing fighter or super strong or super clever or whatever, they give their characters the right set up. Some movies try to “cheat” with narrators which never works quite as well and then others try to short-cut the process by making the set up just a little too good and the payoff just a little to big and those around the hero just a little too weak. That’s what I mean by “scripting.” We would all be a lot more clever if we knew what other people were going to say and some times this movie tried so hard to convince you Nick was clever, the set ups were a bit forced. Also, his opponents were ridiculously incompetent. Even the one person who makes life hard for him has to use talents other than intellect to best him.

Smart against stupid was pretty funny, but smart against smart might have been better.

Also, while the subject matter and situations in the movie were great, the story was ignored at times which gave the movie a choppy feel, but this was just a “day in the life” movie anyway, so not a big deal.

Also, part of the plat revolved around how hot Katie Holmes is and I’m sorry she’s just not all that.

Who do you like: You don’t want to, but you like Nick. You just can’t help it.. If you’ve never been in a position where you have to argue for something you don’t personally believe in (though I’m not sure that was what was portrayed in the movie), you might have a harder time sympathizing with the characters in this movie, but if you have, or if you do so for a living, these characters have a haunting truth to them.

What’s new: This movie never gets preachy and doesn’t get bogged down in the angst over whether it’s ok to argue for big tobacco. It stays true to itself in a way that most movies do not as they try to further some agenda beyond the mere plot of their movie. So, that was new. It also showed this guy corrupting his son in a way that was funny and disturbing all at once. Usually, movies dodge that reality and want us to believe that people with flexible morals, still teach their kids what is right. Not this one.

What’s the last word: Good ending. A bit Hollywood (which could mean a bit too predictable or happy or forced or tidy, etc). I liked the shot at the reporter and the debate about cheese near the end. I also liked that the movie did not break character and try unnecessarily to redeem things that were not on their way to redemption. Sorry to be vague, but I don’t like giving things away.

Who you should bring: Anyone old enough to deal with some coarse language and some minor sexual scenes. All you need to enjoy this movie is a sense of humor that appreciates sarcasm, subtlety and rapier wit. I think this movie would appeal more to men than to women, but not enough to matter in deciding who to take.

Where you should watch: I think this is the first movie I’ve reviewed so far that does not call for a big screen. This movie will play just as well on your little tv at home as it does in the theater.

I should clarify that many people view a discussion of whether a movie is worth seeing in the theater a bit differently than I do. I hear people talking about whether they should see it in the theater or should just wait and rent it and the real debate is: Is this movie worth paying $9 for and arranging babysitting and such or is this a $3 watch it at home with microwave popcorn kind of movie.

I take a different approach. For me, you’re not paying for the value or quality of the movie, but rather the superior screen and sound. So, when I say, there is no need to see this movie in the theater, it is not to suggest anything about how good a movie it is, but rather that nothing is gained by seeing it on a big screen with the best surround sound. So, I would rather see Mission Impossible on the big screen than this movie, even though MI3 was not very good and this movie was, because MI3 is only worth seeing if you can take full advantage of the sound and visuals whereas a movie like this, just doesn’t rely on that sort of thing.

The net result of this for me, is that I tend to see more bad movies at the theater and the better movies at home, because it is much more rare to see a well made big budget visual feast of a movie these days than the smaller films that rely more on acting and writing. But I want to see both eventually, so I’ll go see the big action movies at the theater even when I strongly suspect they won’t be that good.

What’s the couch rating: This is a tough one. I didn’t see this with Tanya, but would expect my lovely wife to like this movie and appreciate the comedy. That said, if she were lying on the couch after 9:30 and watching this, I think it’s iffy that she makes it past halfway. Usually, my wife has to really care about the characters and what is happening in their lives to stay awake. Other factors come into play, but I think that is generally true. This movie is about the shock of hearing someone argue with a straight face that kids should try cigarettes for themselves and not rely on what their parents or other people tell them. That would make my wife laugh, but I’m giving this a couch rating of only 45 minutes to an hour.

What my gut tells me: I walked out wanting to quote back every line. So much good stuff. Just made me laugh and appreciate that a funny movie could still get made that was smart and didn’t rely at all on jokes about flatulents, sex or people’s private parts.

What it’s like: It seems like I've seen a movie or two that was like this, but none leap to mind. It’s a bit like Swimming with Sharks, it’s a bit like an unCareyfied Liar Liar. It has the same sort of feel as some of the Christopher Guest mockumenaries or a movie like Drop Dead Gorgeous. I’m struggling to find a better comparison, but it’s just not coming to mind. The movie is mostly dissimilar to anything else out there.

Where it rates: 9. Instant classic. Not funny enough to get into the very top tier, but on the verge.