Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Jirorian A textbook in contemporary writing, 'Smoke' tells a simple tale that, much like the photographs of his Brooklyn corner cigar store taken daily by lead character Auggie, as played in a highly nuanced performance by Harvey Keitel, can only be properly understood when one slows down. It is a story about storytelling which breaks down the binaries assumed to be inherent to our understandings of the world, in turn challenging our understandings of truth. Structured like a jazz improvisation having found its freedom by denying a previously established set of rules, the film is about chance, family, race, time, fiction, knowledge, and deception; all of which are pervaded heavily by the overarching forces that characterise life in the city. The ensemble cast lead separate lives that intertwine through their experiences of the city, and the connections they share speak for the struggles we all undergo in our respective searches for identity, meaning, and answers, especially in times when nothing presents itself as being distinctly one way or another. Through this fuzziness, the filters of smoke through which our perceptions are realised, we are exposed to a highly plausible possibility of what could or could not be the true nature of the lenses through which we see, and the language through which we interpret what we see.

victorjuuel It sucks when you have to analyse it for school, btw paul dies at the end

wandereramor From the Miramax logo that opens it, Smoke is very much of a piece with 90s faux-indy films in the vein of Pulp Fiction or Clerks. It shares a lot of traits with this wave of films: great actors, somewhat affected dialogue, a shaky portrayal of race and a distinct sense of machismo (although not nearly as nauseating as, say, Swingers). Where Smoke differs is in rejecting the violent nihilism that often haunted this decade. Instead, this is a story about communities forming and the minor miracle that is everyday survival.Smoke is ostensibly centred around an ordinary corner smoke shop in New York City. We follow the shop, and the people around it, over the course of a year. There's a really laudable desire here to tell the story of a social environment rather than an individualist narrative. This is a goal that the film never quite fulfills, meandering into some fairly standard family drama with a refreshing lack of narrative closure. Even when the scenario would suggest melodrama, the overall focus of the film is not on what happens to our protagonists but the bonds that form between them.The performances are as great as you would expect from reading the cast list, although Stockard Channing's character is too underwritten for her to really shine. The script is by novelist Paul Auster, eschewing most of his postmodern experimentation for street-level human drama. (There is still a novelist named Paul with a dead wife, so I guess some things never change). Auster's dialogue is usually authentic-sounding, save for the tendency to drift into stagey monologues that never really justify themselves.As a film, Smoke is something of a failure -- it's unable to create the sense of place it aims for without relying on hoary story lines and drama. But there's also a lot to like about the film, from the brilliant cast to the relaxed pace. It's not all it could be, but it still deserves a look.

justin caise It spoiled two evenings, because I couldn't bear to watch it in one go. A real waste of some good actors. Hurt and Keitel do their best with their trite, boring lines, but they have nothing to work with in plot, story and dialog. Most of the other acting is worth a finger down the throat. Especially awful is the little scene with the aunt. She doesn't even qualify to be an understudy in a high school play. The pacing is supposed to be moody, but it's just slow and boring. The story is a lot of sentimental claptrap -- black/white feel-good. I would be considered a liberal, but I could not stomach the smarmy, sickeningly sweet racial aspects. It's clear that all the time wasted "up in smoke" is meant for the movie atmosphere, but it is just obviously juvenile. The writer and director should be staked out on the ground and covered with syrup like this movie and left for the ants. I have usually found some value with movies having a 7 or better, but this one destroys my faith in the IMDb ratings. I suffered to the end because of the 7.6, but next time I'll know better.