200 Cigarettes

source: 200 Cigarettes

`200 Cigarettes' **1/2. New Year's Eve, 1981 and everyone is going to the same party. The story line follows a half dozen, maybe ten `couples' around NYC going to the party. Slow in places, funny in places. The slow parts are annoying, but the occasionally funny line was enough to keep me interested. Worth the rental.

I'm 37, so I'm about the same age of the people in this period. I had heard bad commentary on this movie and granted my expectations were lowered. Yes, the characters are shallow to a large degree, and the person I watched with got quite bored with this dialoge driven comedy. That being said, it has been a great while since I enjoyed a comedy as much as this. Like an Arthur Hailey novel you constantly bounce around to 5 or 6 parties and their very different issues. I could relate in alot of ways; please remember this is a couple years before the Aids crisis. I never found it to be dull, indeed I was draw in by the characters as things went along. I think what bothered many who've commented on the movie, is you are lead to believe everyone will be meeting at the 'Party'. Have patience; remember the film is about the people, not the party. The end of the movie was probably the best part. If you're intriged by what I've described here, definitly make this a Must-See"

A complete flop. This is one of those "people finding themselves in spite of themselves" type of stories. Lame script writing, unrealistic situations, dreadful overacting, and aimless direction lead this movie on a meandering voyage to nowhere. It's New Year's Eve, and some 20-somethings are having an overdue dose of coming-of-age, mentally, socially, etc. Already, I hear you snoring. Why should anyone care about losers who are 10 years behind in their intellectual development? The film engages on a wild dance between several groups of characters, each more dimwitted than the last, as they try to seek out some big "in people's party." We all know that we find ourselves by getting bombed on New Year's Eve, don't we? Every single character is a familiar "Dumb and Dumber" stereotype, and the pseudo-philosophical speeches they deliver fit these stooges about as well as The Gettysburg Address would fit being recited by Michael Jackson. The cornball link for the disparate group of random fools is that they're all chain smoking nerds. Inspired? Thought provoking? Maybe you'll be thinking about what you'll do after the film is mercifully over; that's about it. Nobody achieves anything useful, and the story just plods along until you have an epilogue sequence on New Year's morning, most of the characters waking up in strange beds, and realizing that they learned nothing from all of this. The audience ends up feeling the same way.

It may just be me but when i was introduced into this flick through a mate of mine back in 2002 and thought it was absolutely brilliant...BUT this may just be me.I love films with small budgets/small budget looks etc and with a plot that can keep you well entertained. Personally i felt that every actor/actress involved done a marvelous job with their roles, and being a fan of the likes of Paul Rudd, Dave Chappelle (also tied with him Guillermo Diaz - Half Baked is a classic) and definitely not forgetting the Afflecks, and to stimulate that macho side of me i better name Janeane Garofalo as a great cult actor.I found myself gut-twisted to realize that Courtney Love (to whom i thought i despised) was pretty damn alright in this flick (again i haven't really seen another flick with her in). Back on point and to conclude i watched this flick about 3 years ago and loved it...Over time it kept creeping up on me and remembering the title i search the net and was sad to realize that a PAL(UK/Euro) copy was not available...Thy blessed thou Multi-region DVD Player and bought an NTSC from the states and the results were that of one satisfied customer. As to summarizing, if you enjoy films such as Half Baked, Idle Hands or teen movies to the likes of Van Wilder then buying this movie is without a doubt for you..If you are the absolute opposite of this then i advise you SPRINT away from this movie as with all NEW satirical comedies there are phrases/words that may be offensive to some and also not too many people are comfortable with liberal-type issues, older generations shall i say?. Buy this movie but remember you are not buying the "meaning of life" so don't expect miracles such as water into wine but do expect an attractive cast and plot with many many laughs throughout. ******* out of ********** 7 out of 10 because life's worth IT

200 Cigarettes is a highly boring movie. A cast of mostly highly talented actors were wasted on the useless plot of this movie. The film takes place on New Year's Eve 1981 and follows a number of people around town in New York City on their way to a party. None of the characters or plot lines were especially interesting and the ending was rather flat and pointless. Unless you are a big fan of any particular actor in this movie, I do not recommend this movie. I give this movie 5/10 stars for the few funny scenes which were not enough to save this from being overwhelmingly boring.

In a 1998 issue of Premiere Magazine, a female producer on this film told a writer, "It's a romantic comedy. It lets the girl get the guy. It's adorable. It's gonna be great!" All right, so what do we get? A bunch of losers swearing and smoking. That producer must've been a flunky at MTV who got a break (and now hopefully she's busy being adorable some place else). This collection of 'wacky' characters, all trying to make their way to the same 1981 New Year's Eve party, have nothing fresh to say. The script seems to be written as an inside-joke, but it's hard to laugh when the actors on-screen are humiliated (and in such a lifeless vacuum). The ashtrays are overflowing, but the dialogue is stilted and the scenario strangely aloof and cold. Martha Plimpton plays the unfortunate girl giving the party and one feels sorry for the performer, not the character. Plimpton is a young actress who is difficult to cast; she's tough and direct, but her toughness isn't engaging and her direct, no-nonsense manner isn't particularly feminine or fetching. Janeane Garofalo has some sparkle, but the teaming of an annoying Courtney Love and an even more annoying Paul Rudd doesn't pay off. Other party-poopers include Ben Affleck, Casey Affleck, Kate Hudson, Gaby Hoffmann and Christina Ricci--all portraying people with low IQ's. * from ****

I really love party movies, really mindless, fun party movies w/good music, bright, outlandish fashions and hilarious memorable characters. The entire cast was laugh out loud funny, from Dave Chapelle as the jive talkin' disco cabbie to Martha Plimpton's howl of a distraught party hostess. Paul Rudd was exceptionally great as Kevin the dumpee who is all grouchy and depressed, and so was Angela Featherstone as Caitlyn the poser. Ben Affleck was good as the bartender, mainly because he didn't talk much. Brother Casey was very cute as a punk/roadie who befriends the two underage partyers played by Christina Ricci and Gaby Hoffman. Courtney Love was really good as Lucy. I always love Jeaneane Garafalo and she didn't disappoint here as Ellie. I really didn't get why Guillermo Diaz got more exposure, like on the DVD cover art, than characters who were much more memorable, like Hillary played by Catherine Kellner (hilariously ditzy), Bridget, played by the very pretty and funny Nicole Parker, and the lousy lover Scotsman Eric, played by Brian McCardie. Jay Mohr and Kate Hudson were also very lovable as Jack and Cindy. Lots of good music by the Commodores, the Cars, Bow Wow Wow, Blondie, Rick James and many more. A great film to revisit the outrageous Reagan era!!!

This movie tried to provide insightful revelations into human relations through humor. I know humor is subjective but I found the film to be only intermittently funny. I think the film could could've been better had they trimmed some of the characters. There are many big names in this film but they all receive only scant screen time. There are better offerings out there, 6/10.

This movie had a lot of bad things said about it upon its release, but my girlfriend dragged me to it anyway. I didn't really like it, but after extended conversation, we realized exactly what we were dealing with. And that is, a movie before its time. Most all cinema, both in and out of Hollywood, is brought to us by upper-class white males, complete with their beliefs, morals, what have you. One would argue, then, that even if a film came from someone who was not an upper-class white male would still have to work within that system, probably even being influenced by it, in order to get a film made. Note, then, that this film was written by a woman, and directed by a woman. The characters in it are not testoserone-driven or in any way the pumped-up dumbed-down characters we have seen in recent decades. They are sensitive, but open to communication, a little irrational at times, but still human. They are characters from the female mind, a female psychology, and have very feminine ways in interacting with each other. Then note that is was probably marketed by the same male-dominated Hollywood. This is, of course, mostly backed up with the amount of psychology classes I have taken, but the simple version is that when this movie was new, I discussed it with many of my friends. All of the men either had no desire to see it, or hated it. Every single one of the women thought it was excellent. Granted, this is a common rationale used by people who think themselves movie critics, but just you try seeing with a member of the opposite sex, and see how your opinions differ. This is the first movie of a New Hollywood, tho it will certainly not be remmebered as such. Check it out and see what I mean.