Amazon.com

It's refreshing to see a film in which the writer receives equal credit with the director, showing that the dialogue actually means something. So it is with Smoke, a film about a New York quilt of contemporary characters who cross paths in a corner smoke shop, told in straightforward way by a talented acting group. Author Paul Auster and director Wayne Wang (The Joy Luck Club) worked on the story for years before it reached the screen. Their characters include Paul (William Hurt, in a good role again), a grief-stricken novelist; Auggie (Harvey Keitel), the shop's owner with a secret passion; Ruby (Stockard Channing), Auggie's long-ago girlfriend; and Rashid (Harold Perrineau Jr.), a teenager who is befriended by Paul and seeks his estranged father (Forest Whitaker). All the characters are great storytellers, whether it be out of loneliness, necessity, or just nature. Like Auster's The Music of Chance, the movie has accomplished an amazing feat: it makes us feel as if we are reading a serious novel, not watching a movie. --Doug Thomas ... Read more

Reviews (23)

Ensemble Cast, First-Rate Acting, and Raw Storytelling Power
In a world where Big-Budgeted Blockbusters rule,....it's a nice refreshing turn to see "little films" soar! I had the distinct pleasure of viewing this simplistically, yet elegantly shot masterpiece in the art-house theaters,.and it's just damn good storytelling,with NO special digital effects or CGIs from ILM!
William Hurt and Harvey Keitel (in his best performance since Mean Streets and Bad Lieutenant) are incredible followed by a bunch of supporters like Stockard Channing, Forrest Whitaker,Ashley Judd (like you've never seen her!)and Oz's Harold Perrineau Jr. All of these characters are intertwined like the best Robert Altman film you've ever seen plus some! Be warned! It IS slowly paced,.but the highlight of the film is the story Keitel tells Hurt in the coffee shop at the end. Just notice how slowly Keitel tells the story,and the slowest dolly push in shot, and how beautifully framed that one shot that covers the whole scene pretty much looks. It's ALL character-driven performances are top-notch all around,and Auggie's(Keitel)Brooklyn Cigar Shop (the central setpiece) will mesmerize you long after the credits roll! Once again,.this film is not for kids, or Steven Segal or Van Damme fans with 1/2 hour Springer time-slot-esque attention spans! Enjoy, and e-mail me with your opinions!( Also check out the sequel called Blue in the Face!It's from the same writer/director team (Paul Auster and Wayne Wang) who brought us Smoke. New music from the Jerry Garcia Band,too!)

Sleeper Smoke fine example of great movie story-telling
In an era where big budget glitz rules the film industry, a well crafted movie like Smoke is a breath of fresh air. Harvey Keitel, who plays the central character of Augie, is the one constant in an ever-moving stream of humanity that is Brooklyn. Augie is both witness and participant,and through the lens of his street corner perched camera, we realize that the world is made up of millions of stories, nearly all of which are in some way compelling. William Hurt's character is one such story. Once a prolific writer, Hurt's talent has been thwarted by life's brutality, one which we are reminded of constantly thoughout the film. Finally, he is able to deal with the grief of his wife's loss throught the selfless act of helping a young runaway. The scene where Hurt spots his wife in one of Augie's street corner photographs is one of the films many poignant moments. Great performances are delivered without exception by all the actors, but as is the case in so many of his films,Mr. Keitel steals the show. Probably more so than any actor of his generation, Harvey Keitel has mastered the ability to create characters who are both human, warts and all, yet also sympathetic. The telling of his Christmas story to the faithful customers of the smoke shop is probably the highlight of this film and is simply a brilliant piece of story-telling. What makes Smoke so different from mainstream movies is the fact that one can't help but feel that one is watching a well acted play, in that every line of dialog is so crucial, every character so meaningful.Not a scene could have been deleted without seriously damaging the final product, and when was the last time you could say that about a film? Smoke portrays Brooklyn convincingly as an exotic stew of diverse cultures and personalities, and in at least some of these personalities we must surely see a bit of ourselves.

It's hard to be a writer in New York City
This film is one of the strangest films you may encounter. The search for a father that turns sour-sweet, sour first because the father does not want to believe the boy is his son, sweet then because after some negociating with several witnesses of the meeting he will accept the idea and come to some fatherly agreement. The search for a father by a mother for her daughter in order to attempt her salvation from drugs and the salvation of the baby she is carrying. It turns frankly sour if not even bitter without any hope for recognition from the daughter and any salvation. The search for some financial success that has to do with hard work on the side of Auggie and pure luck on the side of Thomas, aka Rashid. And the good luck of one will compensate for his negligence that turned the hard work of the other into destruction and loss. And it all ends with a strange Christmas story, for the New York Times, mind you, where Auggie assumes the identity of a shoplifter of his and celebrates Christmas with the shoplifter's blind grandmother and shoplifts her apartment of a brand new camera that was probably stolen anyway in the first place. The film ends thus on pictures of the obvious pleasure of the black grandmother kissing and hugging the white Auggie as if he were her black grandson who had of course forgotten to come and celebrate Christmas with his grandmother, too busy he was shoplifting magazines, or other valueless goods, here and there.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Harvey's Butt Takes Second Stage
"Smoke" is one of those movies that you'd probably be better off buying rather than renting. It deserves --perhaps even requires-- multiple viewings. 'Great,' you may say, 'another movie that I have to watch a dozen times to understand.' No, no. Don't be afraid. The reason I suggest this is not because the film is presented in a haphazard format (like the double helix-like antics of "Pulp Fiction"). It's not because the dialogue is cryptic or scant, the story unfolding with minimal explanation. And, no, don't worry, it's not because it's so damned pretentiously quirky that things seem to be going absolutely nowhere, reminiscent of highly overrated films such as "The Royal Tennenbaums", "Punch Drunk Love", and "Adaptation": those where ultimately, you learn virtually nothing about the plot and characters. So why do I recommend that "Smoke" be watched more than once? There are actually a couple of primary reasons: First, I'll explain why it 'deserves' multiple viewings, and secondly, why it may 'require' them:

1) Simply put: This is a comforting film. If you need to be loved or wanted, or just want to hang out with some friends who have been in your shoes and will listen and provide solace... then this is the story for you.

Compassion is the essential theme of "Smoke". We have a drugged-out girl (Ashley Judd) who gets pregnant, with an alcoholic mother (Stockard Channing) struggling to reunite with her ex-boyfriend (Harvey Keitel) --who is also the purported father of her daughter-- in order to assist Judd's character with raising her child, and to provide a family atmosphere. Enter next a seventeen year-old boy (Harold Perrineau Jr.) attempting desperately to obtain employment from an amputee owner of a nearly bankrupt gas station (Forrest Whitaker) whom he believes to be his long, lost father. The boy ends up befriending -the last of the six characters-- a once popular writer (William Hurt) who, as a result of multiple traumas (mainly because of the loss of his wife), has lost his literary mojo; consequently, he is reclusive and somewhat paranoid of others. These are all seriously confused people, folks. But as the story progresses --at a pace that is neither hurried nor lagging behind, echoing the pace of the characters' deep thought and introspection, and thus allowing the viewer time to synthesize the consequences of their realizations-- these people become involved with others that share their pain and loss, and they console one another. There really are no antagonists in this film. Of course, none of the characters are even close to perfect, evidenced when they engage in some questionable and objectionable acts (never extending the scope of realism as to make them ridiculously quirky, I must add); but the important thing is that they all learn from their mishaps and paranoias, and bequeath their knowledge to influence positively each others' lives. To conclude why "Smoke" deserve multiple viewings: There's a lasting effect that I liken to listening to a comforting song, over and over and over again.

2) Though the pace of "Smoke" was concurrent with the goings-on in the characters' lives, these people are nonetheless complex. They are intellegent, introspective, and contemplative --and also great storytellers and listeners, to boot. But complex stories and complex characters both demand a high degree of attentiveness, and as a result, there is a greater probability of something being missed. For this reason, additional viewings may be required.

For whatever reason, I highly recommend at least one viewing of "Smoke". The acting is highly realistic --even improvised many times during the film, eliciting an occasional chuckle. Few times have I seen a film where personal highs and lows are so well-balanced. Then why only four stars? Well, the improvisation seems to get a little out-of-character sometimes, and the direction is occasionally shoddy. But overall, this is a great DVD to buy -not rent.

Great Film, Even Though Harvey's Butt Wasn't Shown
"Smoke" is one of those movies that you'd probably be better off buying rather than renting. It deserves --perhaps even requires-- multiple viewings. 'Great,' you may say, 'another movie that I have to watch a dozen times to understand.' No, no. Don't be afraid. The reason I suggest this is not because the film is presented in a haphazard format (like the double helix-like antics of "Pulp Fiction"). It's not because the dialogue is cryptic or scant, the story unfolding with minimal explanation. And, no, don't worry, it's not because it's so damned pretentiously quirky that things seem to be going absolutely nowhere, reminiscent of highly overrated films such as "The Royal Tennenbaums", "Punch Drunk Love", and "Adaptation": those where ultimately, you learn virtually nothing about the plot and characters. So why do I recommend that "Smoke" be watched more than once? There are actually a couple of primary reasons: First, I'll explain why it 'deserves' multiple viewings, and secondly, why it may 'require' them:

Simply put: This is a comforting film. If you need to be loved or wanted, or just want to hang out with some friends who have been in your shoes and will listen and provide solace... then this is the film for you.

Compassion is the essential theme of "Smoke". We have a drugged-out girl (Ashley Judd) who gets pregnant, with an alcoholic mother (Stockard Channing) struggling to reunite with her ex-boyfriend (Harvey Keitel) --who is also the purported father of her daughter-- in order to assist Judd's character with raising her child. Enter next a seventeen year-old boy (Harold Perrineau Jr.) attempting desperately to obtain employment from an amputee owner of a nearly bankrupt gas station (Forrest Whitaker) whom he believes to be his long, lost father. The boy is befriended by a once popular writer (William Hurt) who, as a result of multiple traumas (mainly because of the loss of his wife), has lost his mojo for writing; consequently, he is reclusive and somewhat paranoid of others. These are all seriously confused people, folks. But as the story progresses, their lives intertwine, and they console one another. There really are no antagonists in this film. Of course, none of the characters are even close to perfect, evidenced when they engage in some questionable and objectionable acts (never extending the scope of realism as to make them ridiculously quirky, I must add); but the important thing is that they all learn from their mishaps and paranoias, and bequeath their knowledge to influence positively each others' lives.

The pace of "Smoke" is neither hurried nor lagging behind, echoing the pace of the characters' deep thought and introspection, as well as the hypnotic lucidity of their storytelling, thus allowing the viewer time to synthesize the consequences of their realizations. Indeed, a rapid or slothy pace are often why movies are ineffective; but "Smoke" is a refreshing exception. Additionally, the empathetic vibe of the film can be likened to that of a comforting song. There's a lasting effect that grabs you inside, and will not let go; or, perhaps better put: nicotine is addictive, is it not?

Though the pace of "Smoke" was concurrent with the goings-on in the characters' lives, these people are nonetheless complex. They are intellegent, introspective, and contemplative --and also great storytellers and listeners, to boot. But complex stories and complex characters both demand a high degree of attentiveness, and as a result, there is a greater probability of something being missed. For this reason, additional viewings may be required.

For whatever reason, I highly recommend at least one viewing of "Smoke". The acting is highly realistic --even improvised many times during the film, eliciting an occasional chuckle. Few times have I seen a film where personal highs and lows are so well-balanced. Then why only four stars? Well, the improvisation seems to get a little out-of-character sometimes, and the direction is occasionally shoddy. But overall, this is a great DVD to buy -not rent. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This oddball sequel to Smoke is less a sequel than a free-wheeling companion piece. Filmed by Wayne Wang and Paul Austerthe week after they finished Smoke, the idea was to create a wholly improvised film, using the same characters from the first and a few new ones. The challenge was to improvise scenes that would keep the characters talking and interacting for 10 minutes at a crack--the length of a magazine of film. Some of it works well, some less well, but some of it is pure gold (though there is no real story, per se). Among the highlights: Jim Jarmusch as a guy who is about to quit smoking, waxing eloquent about why he loves cigarettes; rocker Lou Reed discussing his various philosophies on life in hilarious deadpan; a few disquisitions on the joys of Brooklyn; and, if you can believe it, a love scene between Harvey Keitel and Roseanne. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (8)

What a shame!!!
What a waste. It's terribly filmed and aimless. It also suffers from shoddy editing. Harvey Keitel is great, I don't think I've ever seen him in a bad film. But many charachters, such as the one played by Michael J. Fox, are only seen for a few brief minutes. There is no narrative, this movie is shameful compared to it's predecessor. I understand the directors wanted too do an ode to Brooklyn, but why, oh why, did they have to do it around a sequel to smoke?

Blue in the face
All events go on in one of the most famous districts of New York- Brooklyn.
Ozzy's shop with tobacco is the centre of the action. People come there not only to buy cigarettes but also to talk, to meet some friends. A lot of funny, absurd situations take place in Ozzy's shop. We can see some famous faces such as Jim Jarmush who is giving up smoking, Harvey Keitel (Ozzy), Madonna and her provocative dance...
"Brooklyn Boogie" is also a specific description of american city, inhabitants and their attitude towards living there. Lou Reed talks about New York, why he still lives there despite all that danger he meets everywhere.
It's really interesting film. It has nice, relaxing atmosphere, good for sad winter evenings.

Jarmusch Rules.
I had no idea who this guy was...but his bit on Nazis and movies and cigarettes has caused me to recommend this movie to friends. I saw Smoke first and enjoyed it, but Blue in the Face will leave you rolling on the floor laughing..promise!

No Script, No Plot, No Problem!
I got this movie to hear Lou Reed talk about New York. It gets 5 stars for that, but it's much more than a few moments of Lou's brillance. I can't say this movie is better than "Smoke". It has less to it (no plot), but it mangaes to say a little more. Where "Smoke" is like a beautiful song with lyrics, "Blue in the Face" is an instraumental. It's harder to capture, because the viewer isn't forced into pitying or loving any character or the city of Brooklyn. The story doesn't have a plot to guide the viewer toward some monumental epiphany. Instead, the viewer listens harder, and produces fulfillment for themselves. Don't get me wrong, this is a very funny movie. Low budget or filmed in five days, this movie matters.

Is there no cult following for this film?
And why are there only three customer reviews of this brilliant, on-the-edge film? And what's up with Leonard Maltin (see above)? I think he was expecting a Hollywood Production Movie. I think he would also ask for a Belgian waffle in Belgium (can't get them, I learned from watching this.) There is a McGuffin, I guess, for those who must have a plot. Will the cigar store be sold or not? Who cares? I'd much rather hear Lou Reed explaining the source of his life-long cynicism or why cigarettes are really "health tools." I had seen and enjoyed Smoke, but never knew this film existed. I am so glad I found it by chance. I enjoyed it more than Smoke. I think it would be a great film to run at a party. Regardless of the length and clarity of their attention spans, guests would have to ask "What is this?" And gradually this film would get the cult following it deserves (or maybe it already does and I don't know it out here in the Midwest). Of course, as always, I loved my main man, Harvey Keitel which should go without saying. (I wonder what Mr. Maltin had to say about the uncut version of another Keitel film, The Bad Lieutenant," another movie you won't be seeing on t.v. If "innovative" doesn't scare you, buy this. I am still thinking about the bag-in-the-tree man and Michael J. Fox's survey. I think I need to watch it again. ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Lulu is a bridge
I've seen this movie twice on cable, Stars or Encore. Maybe HBO. It's a sweet little thing about love unconditional. I like that Lou Reed has a role, Not Lou Reed. Would buy this DVD just to see him on screen (Lou Reed rocks!). The film was good, but best was it introduced me to Pandora's Box, a play and then silent film starring Louise Brooks as Lulu. The play and movie are classics; Brooksie, was a classic beauty. She embodies everything that was the Jazz Age flapper.

Uneasy mix between melodrama and the supernatural
Being a fan of Auster and Keitel I was looking forward to "Lulu". On the plus side; the acting is great and the plot is pretty offbeat. But the stuff about the weird stone and the "cult" (?!) doesn't really work to say the least. People who hated the plot of "Jacob's Ladder" should also avoid this. And Mira and Harvey as a couple didn't really convince me (even though when I'm at Keitel's age I would surely love to find a young groovy chick like Mira!). Credits must go to the somewhat original script and the inspired performances but still, well, I guess I just ain't that romantic uncynically kind of guy. But check it out because it's not a total waste of your time if you're lookin' for something different (even though my girl fell asleep).

Europe
Contrary to what it says on the webpage this DVD is NOT suitable for all regions. It does not play in Europe.

Please...
Although this movie has going for it Harvey Keitel as well as an interesting mystery stone, overall it is pure arthouse garbage. Yes, I like enigmatic, intricate movies. Yes I can suspend my disbelief. Yes I like it when movies enter a realm where reality as we know it loses ground. But this story is a mish mash. See Donnie Darko or even, as suggested by other reviewers, Jacob's Ladder for better made, well-constructed films that touch on the same subjects.

Only about 10 minutes of this flick retained my attention. The rest was at best a yawn and for the most part, a frustrating eye-roller. Mostly wooden performances (Keitel is his usual bad self, DaFoe is more than adequate) but the story is just cheesy and it has one of the worst endings I have ever seen. I almost threw up.

Aphrodite, metaphysics, and illusion
What is the story about? Jazz saxaphonist, Izzy, is performing with his band and is shot(whether intentionally or accidentally is not clear) by what seems like a crazed man. There is no police follow-up. Obviously this is not important to the theses in the film.
Izzy recovers though he has lost one lung and no longer has the wind power to play the sax, and has lost the use of his right hand fingers, so he cannot key the sax. Am I supposed to think he's a man without an identity? After recovering, Izzy is walking home on a dimly lighted street and comes upon a man with a bullet hole in his forehead, a leather briefcase beside him. Again no mention is ever made of this murder as far as the police are concerned. When Izzy arrives home, he empties the satchel, finds a small box, in it a stone about the size of an egg that glows in the dark. Alongside the dead man there was also a paper napkin with a phone number written on it. Next day he dials the phone number and meets Celia a would be actress waitress.
When the stone glowed, I thought, "Oh, no! Not one of these stories." But I persisted. Izzy did not know Celia or her name, so when she says, "Yes, come on over," I know I'm in a reality different from mine . In the late 20th century a single young girl is going to let an unknown male visit her alone in her aparment. Celia thinks she knows Izzy because he identified himself on the phone and she is listening to a recording of his. Nothing like honesty and trust. Well, Celia holds the glowing stone in the dark of her apartment; and then Izzy does. They are transformed into lovers at first sight. Izzy happens to know the people producing the movie LULU for which Celia is auditioning for a part which she gets because Izzy called his friends. Celia goes to Ireland where the movie is being shot; Izzy will follow in three days__which become a long time.
Stanley Mar, the murdered man, was murdered because he had the stone. Now some toughs find Izzy in his apartment and imprison him in a seemingly abandoned building where he is interrogated in hope of revealing where the stone is. He doesn't reveal it, but the interrogator(daFoe) reveals all the nasty details of Izzy's life. Izzy doesn't reveal anything about the stone because he's protecting Celia who has it in Ireland. Although Izzy hasn't given daFoe a clue, daFoe nevertheless finds Celia in Ireland.
I can't tell you the denouement, but I think it is still in the realm of a reality different from mine. I am not a romantic, so the love story didn't capture me. I'm a materialist(philosophical), so the transformative power of the stone did not capture me. Perhaps the story is about the transformative power of love, but then so is Silas Marner, and no stones, just gold. Where does Aphrodite come in? Well, LULU is a remake of G.W. Pabst's PANDORA'S BOX(1928), which is a very sexy, provocative story, and so Celia is supposed to be in the role of Lulu(Pandora), a femme fatale . And this is why the ending is ambiguous for me__again the reality of the film vs. the reality outside one's mind. This one reqires the "willing suspension of disbelief."
Five stars for the acting, etc. ... Read more

Reviews (20)

Lulu is a bridge
I've seen this movie twice on cable, Stars or Encore. Maybe HBO. It's a sweet little thing about love unconditional. I like that Lou Reed has a role, Not Lou Reed. Would buy this DVD just to see him on screen (Lou Reed rocks!). The film was good, but best was it introduced me to Pandora's Box, a play and then silent film starring Louise Brooks as Lulu. The play and movie are classics; Brooksie, was a classic beauty. She embodies everything that was the Jazz Age flapper.

Uneasy mix between melodrama and the supernatural
Being a fan of Auster and Keitel I was looking forward to "Lulu". On the plus side; the acting is great and the plot is pretty offbeat. But the stuff about the weird stone and the "cult" (?!) doesn't really work to say the least. People who hated the plot of "Jacob's Ladder" should also avoid this. And Mira and Harvey as a couple didn't really convince me (even though when I'm at Keitel's age I would surely love to find a young groovy chick like Mira!). Credits must go to the somewhat original script and the inspired performances but still, well, I guess I just ain't that romantic uncynically kind of guy. But check it out because it's not a total waste of your time if you're lookin' for something different (even though my girl fell asleep).

Europe
Contrary to what it says on the webpage this DVD is NOT suitable for all regions. It does not play in Europe.

Please...
Although this movie has going for it Harvey Keitel as well as an interesting mystery stone, overall it is pure arthouse garbage. Yes, I like enigmatic, intricate movies. Yes I can suspend my disbelief. Yes I like it when movies enter a realm where reality as we know it loses ground. But this story is a mish mash. See Donnie Darko or even, as suggested by other reviewers, Jacob's Ladder for better made, well-constructed films that touch on the same subjects.

Only about 10 minutes of this flick retained my attention. The rest was at best a yawn and for the most part, a frustrating eye-roller. Mostly wooden performances (Keitel is his usual bad self, DaFoe is more than adequate) but the story is just cheesy and it has one of the worst endings I have ever seen. I almost threw up.

Aphrodite, metaphysics, and illusion
What is the story about? Jazz saxaphonist, Izzy, is performing with his band and is shot(whether intentionally or accidentally is not clear) by what seems like a crazed man. There is no police follow-up. Obviously this is not important to the theses in the film.
Izzy recovers though he has lost one lung and no longer has the wind power to play the sax, and has lost the use of his right hand fingers, so he cannot key the sax. Am I supposed to think he's a man without an identity? After recovering, Izzy is walking home on a dimly lighted street and comes upon a man with a bullet hole in his forehead, a leather briefcase beside him. Again no mention is ever made of this murder as far as the police are concerned. When Izzy arrives home, he empties the satchel, finds a small box, in it a stone about the size of an egg that glows in the dark. Alongside the dead man there was also a paper napkin with a phone number written on it. Next day he dials the phone number and meets Celia a would be actress waitress.
When the stone glowed, I thought, "Oh, no! Not one of these stories." But I persisted. Izzy did not know Celia or her name, so when she says, "Yes, come on over," I know I'm in a reality different from mine . In the late 20th century a single young girl is going to let an unknown male visit her alone in her aparment. Celia thinks she knows Izzy because he identified himself on the phone and she is listening to a recording of his. Nothing like honesty and trust. Well, Celia holds the glowing stone in the dark of her apartment; and then Izzy does. They are transformed into lovers at first sight. Izzy happens to know the people producing the movie LULU for which Celia is auditioning for a part which she gets because Izzy called his friends. Celia goes to Ireland where the movie is being shot; Izzy will follow in three days__which become a long time.
Stanley Mar, the murdered man, was murdered because he had the stone. Now some toughs find Izzy in his apartment and imprison him in a seemingly abandoned building where he is interrogated in hope of revealing where the stone is. He doesn't reveal it, but the interrogator(daFoe) reveals all the nasty details of Izzy's life. Izzy doesn't reveal anything about the stone because he's protecting Celia who has it in Ireland. Although Izzy hasn't given daFoe a clue, daFoe nevertheless finds Celia in Ireland.
I can't tell you the denouement, but I think it is still in the realm of a reality different from mine. I am not a romantic, so the love story didn't capture me. I'm a materialist(philosophical), so the transformative power of the stone did not capture me. Perhaps the story is about the transformative power of love, but then so is Silas Marner, and no stones, just gold. Where does Aphrodite come in? Well, LULU is a remake of G.W. Pabst's PANDORA'S BOX(1928), which is a very sexy, provocative story, and so Celia is supposed to be in the role of Lulu(Pandora), a femme fatale . And this is why the ending is ambiguous for me__again the reality of the film vs. the reality outside one's mind. This one reqires the "willing suspension of disbelief."
Five stars for the acting, etc. ... Read more