The premise is an excuse to get RDJ investigating a mystery, not an end to itself. Any other movie not written by Shane Black, there’d be some lesson to be learned that would culminate in him filming the TV show at the end of the movie.
But it doesn’t, because this isn’t that movie. And I get that. And I like it.
I was just making an observation.
A[quote name=“Bartleby_Scriven” url=“/community/t/155439/the-nice-guys-2016-discussion-thread/210#post_4190513”]Yeah, I get it. And I like it.
Seriously the fuck people?
[/quote]
YOU’VE DONE IT TO YOURSELF
You’ve become the poster child for CHUD contrarianism and now all conversation with you is about bringing you into line with CHUD orthodoxy!
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE
Okay fuck it, The Nice Guys sucks and I will fight you all forever.
Probably a de-rail but that exact thing happens in another RDJ movie, Due Date.
Although it’s not RDJ in the TV show.
AAs I’ve said before, I didn’t like THE NICE GUYS very much. Kinda fun in the moment, but nothing about the experience really left its mark.
You have my sword.
Bart, would your view of The Nice Guys have improved if the bad guy had, at one point, lept through a wall of glass instead of using the doorway in front of him simply because that shot would look good in trailers?
Bad taste time because I’m throwing a Molotov cocktail in here, but last night when the wife got home from work Crazy, Stupid, Love was on TV and we watched the last half…
AND GOSLING IS MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE IN THAT MOVIE
He’s cool and suave and is masking his soft baby voice with some sort of tough New York-esque accent. He’s effortless in his wooing of women, and when he throws a punch it actually looks like it hurts.
That movie has charm.
COME AT ME
At one point Crowe leaps through a window and does a tuck and roll in such a way that screams stuntman city.
So yes, more glass breaking and 'sploisons are always a plus.
The movie has some problems with the babysitter and son subplot, but Gosling is genuinely good-to-great in the movie. The tackling scene at the barbecue also always cracks me up.
Yes, yes! We can do this!
AI recently saw Half Nelson and he is pretty believable as a crackhead.
Watched last night, and really liked it, but didn’t love it. It kinda reminded me of Hail, Caesar! in the way it meanders and lopes in between some of the best scenes of the filmmaker’s career. Despite the lumpy pacing, I liked it much more than the Coens movie.
Gosling is fantastic in this, as is the actress playing his daughter, but I thought Russell Crowe was slightly miscast, slovenly but not quite grizzled enough. I kept thinking about peak-era Nick Nolte in his role.
ADespite my anti-Gosling bias, I think Gosling is pretty good in this.
I liked him a lot, even if some aspects were a little too affected. The girlish scream, for instance, makes for a nice gag but didn’t seem fitting for the character.
Again, too modern and looks like he’s playing dress-up in '70s cosplay.
The moment when he declares he’s invincible late in the movie did get a belly laugh out of me, though.
He’s OK with moments of pure brilliance. This was a role made for Downey, though.
Curious aspect of contemporary movies that are set in the past:
If anything, especially a detective story, is set in the '40s or '50s it’s always assumed or comes into play that the main characters served in World War II (see L.A. Confidential, Shutter Island).
But if it’s a story in the '70s, Vietnam is not a prerequisite for characters.
Why?
Aanswer seems petty obvious to me
I know Crowe’s an older guy in the movie and Gosling has a teenage daughter, but Vietnam doesn’t even get mentioned?
Instead the hippies are protesting smog. No returning soldiers getting spit on, no John Rambos?
wait, are you asking about how such movies use (or don’t use) Vietnam in general? Or just talking about this movie?