Very disappointed, with speculation as a selling point, but by lowering the opponent's IQ to show the male protagonist nb's film. Politicians specializing in the tobacco field were asked: Why do you support American agriculture but oppose the tobacco industry, which also belongs to agriculture, and you are unprepared for such a simple question.
When I saw this, I realized that I wasted almost an hour, and I closed it immediately.
The screenwriter wants to throw out a morally controversial point, and that's okay. There are two ways to deal with ethical disputes
1 Present different viewpoints from different perspectives (even if you don’t want to give viewpoints only to phenomena), properly confront each other, bring more thinking directions to the audience, and do not give answers
2 Subjective output of the writer/director's point of view
Judging from the male protagonist's crushing mouth cannon, this film obviously belongs to the latter. Be careful at this point, because even if you make the slightest mistake in logic, or your opponent doesn't perform as well as it should, the whole movie will turn into a grandstanding and clever preaching.
2 points for the piece
1 point for the sense of humor inside,
2 points for the paragraph "chocolate or vanilla ice cream".
1 point to this is the film in 2005 should not be too harsh in speculative.
Again, the current social environment. The left (politically correct) looks stupid, the right looks powerful because of its uniqueness, so this film will have such a high score.
But when a certain set of things seems to be very powerful, many people will join the right wing in order to appear powerful, and even the right wing will show its blind stupidity.
In this infinite nest of dolls, no one will be the winner, so the path of 2 will not work.
I read the film review that the ending was changed to zzzq. I just want to say that after watching the first half, I just felt that the director made the male protagonist tremble and enjoy it.
View more about Thank You for Smoking reviews
