No Smoking Hindi Movie Full Movie Torrent Download
Marziabo Frechette
Thank You for Smoking is a 2005 American satirical black comedy film written and directed by Jason Reitman and starring Aaron Eckhart, based on the 1994 satirical novel of the same name by Christopher Buckley. It follows the efforts of Big Tobacco's chief spokesman, Nick Naylor, who lobbies on behalf of cigarettes using heavy spin tactics while also trying to remain a role model for his 12-year-old son. Maria Bello, Adam Brody, Sam Elliott, Katie Holmes, Rob Lowe, William H. Macy, J. K. Simmons, and Robert Duvall appear in supporting roles.
The film was released in a limited run on March 17, 2006, and had a wide release on April 14. It received largely positive reviews, with particular praise for its screenplay, humor, themes, and Eckhart's performance. As of 2007, the film had grossed a total of more than $39 million worldwide.[3] The film was released on DVD in the US on October 3, 2006, and in the UK on January 8, 2007.
Nick Naylor is a Big Tobacco spokesman using "research" from an institution of which he is vice-president, a tobacco lobby called the "Academy of Tobacco Studies". It claims there is no link between tobacco and lung disease. Naylor and his friends, firearm lobbyist Bobby Jay Bliss and alcohol lobbyist Polly Bailey, meet every week and jokingly call themselves the "Merchants of Death" or "The MOD Squad". As anti-tobacco campaigns mount and numbers of young smokers decline, Naylor's boss, BR, sends Naylor to Los Angeles to bargain for cigarette product placement in upcoming movies. Naylor takes along his young son, Joey, in hopes of bonding with him. The next day, Naylor is sent to meet with Lorne Lutch, the cancer-stricken man who once played the Marlboro Man in cigarette ads and is now campaigning against cigarettes. As his son watches, Naylor successfully offers Lutch a suitcase of money for his silence.
Senator Finistirre, one of Naylor's most vehement critics, promotes a bill to add a skull and crossbones POISON warning to cigarette packaging. As Naylor is about to appear before a U.S. Senate committee to fight the bill, he is kidnapped by a clandestine group and covered in nicotine patches. Awakening in a hospital, he learns he has survived due to his high nicotine tolerance from heavy smoking, but he is now hypersensitive to nicotine and can never smoke again. Meanwhile, Naylor is seduced by a young reporter named Heather Holloway into revealing secret information about his life and career. She makes it public via an expos, criticizing his business activities and accusing him of training his son Joey to follow his amoral example. This results in negative PR for Naylor, which costs him his job.
Naylor tells the press about his affair with Holloway and promises to clear the names of everyone mentioned in her article. He then appears before the Senate committee, admitting to the dangers of smoking but arguing that public awareness is already high enough without extra warnings. He emphasizes consumer choice and responsibility and claims that if tobacco companies are guilty of tobacco-related deaths, then perhaps Finistirre's state of Vermont, as a major cheese producer, is likewise guilty of cholesterol-related deaths.
Although BR offers Naylor his old job again, Naylor rejects it as Big Tobacco is settling claims of liability. He also mentions Heather was humiliated upon being terminated by the paper for her article and has been reduced to a cub reporter handling weather on a local news station. Naylor supports his son's newfound interest in debating and opens a private lobbying firm. The MOD squad continues to meet with new members that represent the fast-food, oil, and biohazard industries. Now Naylor runs an agency called Naylor Strategic Relations and consults cellphone industry representatives concerned about claims that cellphones cause brain cancer, he narrates: "Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I talk. Everyone has a talent."
Director Jason Reitman asked many of his prospective actors and actresses to be in the film by writing each of them a personal letter. Every one of his first choices accepted his or her part and most thanked Reitman for his letter. Reitman was also able to persuade Eckhart, Holmes, Macy, and Lowe to sign on to the film with minimum pay.[4]
Mel Gibson's Icon Productions bought the rights to Buckley's novel before its release. Initially, Gibson saw himself as starring as Nick Naylor in the adaptation.[2] However, the satiric nature of the book meant the studio lacked a way to film it and the project lacked a usable script.[5] Reitman became interested in heading an adaptation after reading the book, and independently wrote a draft for Icon executives after he discovered they owned the rights to the film. Reitman saw himself as a comic writer with a voice similar to Buckley's, and consciously attempted to maintain the satiric flavor of the book for his draft.[6] The script was received favorably by Icon, and Gibson called Reitman to tell him how much he loved it.[2] But over the next three years, the project languished because of a lack of financing and big studio interest, as most studios wanted Reitman to rewrite his script to include a more anti-smoking and uplifting ending. According to Reitman, studios wanted Naylor to have a change of heart by the film's end and repent for his past.[4]
It was only after meeting David O. Sacks, who had made his fortune as the former COO of the Internet payment company PayPal, that Reitman found a financier for his script. A first-time producer, Sacks spent over a year trying to acquire the rights to the film from Icon. He financed most of the film's $8.5 million budget and let Reitman keep most of his original draft.[2] The project marked Reitman's first feature-length film as a director, though he previously directed short films and commercials and had worked on the set of his father, director Ivan Reitman.
During the filming, Reitman made the conscious decision not to show any actual smoking of cigarettes. The only scenes that include smoking are older films the characters watch, such as when John Wayne lights up in Sands of Iwo Jima.
Before the film was screened at the Sundance Film Festival, internet rumors claimed that an extended nudity scene between Eckhart and Holmes had been cut down after pressure from Holmes' husband, Tom Cruise. Reitman and executives denied that such a scene had ever existed but welcomed the publicity it garnered for the film. Reitman later said that "Half the questions that I've been getting are thoughtful questions about the moral of lobbying and how does satire work. And the rest is just, 'Is there actually any nude footage out there?'"[7]
Controversy also arose after the film was screened at the Toronto Film Festival. Thank You for Smoking was met with tremendous popular reception and afterward disputed claims emerged as to who had signed a distribution deal with Sacks. Fox Searchlight Pictures and Paramount Classics both issued competing press releases claiming that they had secured rights for the film's distribution. Sacks later claimed that he never reached a firm deal with Paramount, and noted that Fox Searchlight had offered $7 million for distribution, while Paramount Classics offered $6.7 million. Allegedly, Sacks called Paramount at 1:15 a.m. saying he was uncomfortable with their initial deal. Ruth Vitale, co-president of Paramount Classics said "He can't resell the film" and noted "I can only think that because of his naivet and inexperience he would do this."[2]
The film received mostly positive reviews from film critics. Film-review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 86% of 182 critics have given the film a positive review, with a rating average of 7.32/10. The site's general consensus is that "Loaded with delightfully unscrupulous characters and a witty, cynical script, Thank You For Smoking is a sharp satire with a brilliantly smarmy lead performance from Aaron Eckhart."[11] Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from film critics, has a rating score of 71 based on 36 reviews.[12] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone describing it as "acutely hilarious" and gave the film 3.5 out of 4 stars.[13] USA Today film critic Claudia Puig called it a "razor-sharp satire" that was "the wittiest dark comedy of the year thus far. It has appeal to all sides of the political spectrum." She praised the film for a "quirky and intelligent rarity that elicits wry smiles and hearty laughs alike" and compared it in tone to Election (1999).[14] Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times also favorably reviewed the film, calling it a "very smart and funny movie" that had been "shrewdly" adapted to film from novel.[5]
The main contention most critics had with the film was its lack of continuity. Karina Longworth of Cinematical notes "Thank You for Smoking has a vague emotional arc, but narratively it plays out like a constellation of sitcom sketches, connected by the most tenuous threads of character evolution",[17] while Empire observes "the problem's not so much with the movie's aim, as with the number of targets it's aiming at."[18] Other reviewers criticized the film's overacting. Manohla Dargis of The New York Times notes "although he [Reitman] steers his cast through its paces with facility, he tends to oversell jokes that were already plenty loud in the book."[19] The Hollywood Reporter wrote "While often entertaining, the film keeps hitting the same comic notes",[20] and Salon said, "The actors here are entertaining enough to watch, even if they sometimes seem to be taking their mission (whatever they think it is) a bit too seriously."[21]
While Thank You for Smoking the book was praised as a sharp criticism of both anti-smoking lobbyists and the tobacco industry, the film has received more mixed reviews on its satirical content. Steve Palopoli of Metro Silicon Valley writes that "no matter" how much the hype machine might hard-sell the idea that the movie "skewers both sides of the issue", "any child old enough to recognize Joe Camel can tell that underneath the sarcastic joking, this is a bitterly anti-smoking film."[23] Palopoli goes on to say "the supposed case against the anti-smoking lobby has been reduced mostly to some limp jokes at the expense of William H. Macy's senator character, who is fervently against the tobacco lobby". Many felt the film's relatively sappy ending negated the slicker, darker tone of the book. The Washington Post's Desson Thomson thought that "as written and directed by Jason Reitman, Smoking is filtered too heavily with moral redemption."[24]
b37509886e