REVIEW: The Nice Guys

When I first got into podcasting about movies with Christopher Spicer just over three years ago, he was adamant that Ryan Gosling was someone that I should be adoring as a talent.  I had not seen many films of his, and I was not easily swayed that the former Young Hercules and alum from Breaker High was all that intriguing an acting prospect.  To set me straight, we decided to podcast a noir film staring Gosling called Gangster Squad.  I, with all conviction, can say that my opinion did not change the day that we visually ingested that lumpy and lukewarm dish.

I have to admit that since that time I have been won around on Gosling through films like Drive, The Place Beyond the Pines, and Blue Valentine.  The man can act and throws himself fully into his rolls, but would I find him appropriate in the comedy genre?  That is what The Nice Guys would answer.  Once again, I went to the theatres to see a Gosling noir film and I was hoping that my eyes would be opened to another aspect of his talents.

There was no disappointment with The Nice Guys.  From Gosling's tremendously in-depth and well rounded comedic chops, to the tight script that plays out like an old school mystery, this was a film that happily ate my admission price and made me more than willing to quickly tell others about it as soon as I left the screening.

The film is set in 1977 Los Angeles, with Gosling playing a private detective (Holland March) and Russell Crowe playing the part of an enforcer named Jackson Healy.  Circumstances bring them together as they have to solve the case of a suicide of a famous porn star.  It is the typical place setting for a buddy cop comedy, except these two are neither cops nor are they buddies.  The ground that this film embarks from may feel familiar and comforting, and that's because it is.  It is the type of film that we have seen before in the past, back before everything in the theatres was about reboots and sequels.  The pure energy of this film is the old friend that we have been missing for the past twenty years, and meeting up with them for two hours in the theatre is pure joy.

Much of the enjoyment comes from the interactions between Gosling and Crowe, who play off each other as though they have been in many films prior to this one.  Crowe plays the straight man, and delivers his lines with the steadiness and stone face needed to juxtapose the antics of his co-star.  Not only are they funny together, but they are captivating as well.  From beating up bad guys to talking about Richard Nixon and how he relates to angels, it is entertaining to see the two actors playing off each other.

Behind the two stars, you have a fast paced plot penned by Anthony Bagarozzi and director Shane Black.  There are no wasted scenes to be found in this film as it flows and delivers the unfolding of the mystery at a steady pace.  A lot of times I can predict what the final outcome will be, but that didn't happen in this case until the movie was wrapping up.  It was a breathe of fresh air in today's cinematic climate.

One thing that needs to be mentioned is the great detail that is paid to the wardrobe, hair, and set pieces.  This truly does feel like a well done period piece.  It goes a long way in taking the audience to 1970s Los Angeles, immersing the viewers in the sights and sounds of the location.

The film may not be for everyone.  I found that out when an older couple got up and walked out during the screening I was in.  It is an R-rated film, and movie goers need only look at the plot synopsis which mentions the porn industry to get an understanding of the type of content that will be in it.  There is nudity in the film, but it is not gratuitous in the way that an 80s Jean-Claude Van Damme movie would use it.

If you are looking for something that is geared towards adults and feels like a blast from cinema past, The Nice Guys is just waiting for you to get your ticket, park your arse in the seat, and enjoy the ride that it will take you on.  It is a terrific blend of comedy and action, with Gosling's performance being the standout.  The man can do comedy, there is no doubting that.  And there is no doubting that you will love your time spent with The Nice Guys.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

Noah

Over the past few months, a lot of talk has emerged over the movie Noah, which is helmed by director Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream, Black Swan).  Most of the conversation was not centred around the typical anticipation and hype that a star-studded film would receive, but rather from different camps of faith over the style of the film and its accuracy to the Bible account in the Old Testament. 

Hoping to gain the same sort of audience that The Passion of the Christ was able to attract, Paramount went about screening their own cuts of the movie to faith groups, a move that is far from normal in the land of movie making.  What ended up happening was a battle between the studio and the director over which version would end up making it to the big screen, with Aronofsky coming out the champion.  Paramount then made sure to include in its advertising that this film was meant to be an interpretation of the events and that the themes from the story were still held within the final product.

When there is so much discussion from different camps around a movie, from Glen Beck railing against it even though he had never seen it, to the Vatican inviting Russell Crowe to meet with the Pope in the run up to the release, it can become hard to audiences to enter into the experience without preconceived notions on what the film will end up being.  While the groups that were focused on bringing negative attention to the film were very vocal, it also proved a bit counterproductive as it raised the unaided awareness of the film greatly.

So many times there are movies that are ‘based on true events’ or ‘inspired by true events’ that basically end up using the original source as a mere launching point.  Peter Benchley’s Jaws is a great example, as it was inspired by the true story of a shark attacking swimmers on the Eastern coast of the United States, but took no more similarities into the book or even the film.  Other movies attempt to depict a story very close to the source material and take painstaking efforts to get them right.  In the end, is one more right than the other?  Should they both be held up to the same level of scrutiny or should we accept that they are made into a story with their own artistic interpretation and goals?

For myself, I am fine with a movie going in whatever direction it wants as long as it serves a purpose to the greater story that it is trying to tell.  Documentaries are meant to be real life experiences, whereas feature films allow for different narratives to come forward.  The only time I have felt at opposition with a movie’s claim to be true events was in Pain and Gain, where the action was frozen in the middle of a scene and text was added to assure audiences that this actually happened (even though the depicted scene had a fictional character in it).  In that case, adding the basis of real life truth into the story became a part of the movie itself and that is a ground that should be treaded lightly on if you do not want people to glare at any mistakes you had made.

While Noah is not taking steps to stay completely within the confines of the Biblical account, it uses a wide range of themes to stay true to the concept and the heart of the tale.  We see the family of Noah (played by Russell Crowe) as one who is committed to the stewardship of the earth, showing great respect and care for what The Creator has given them.  They are the last of a line who see this value, and come into opposition of those who view the world as something to rule over, devouring resources, destroying the land for their own needs, and then moving on to consume the next locale.  It creates the backdrop of the character of Noah, a man who refuses to live in a way that is out of harmony with what was given to him by the divine.  In one way, people can take this theme and transfer it to our mentalities today about pollution and resource consumption, and it is presented in a way that can remind us that we may be out of tune with where we are living.

Aronofsky uses visuals and symbolism throughout the film to serve his task of delivering the heart of the matter.  It is not all about the death and destruction of the world, but about commitment to faith and beliefs as well as the human nature to possibly succumb to temptation when faced with it.  While it is about people horrifically drowning, there is plenty of time given to show the argument over whether people are good or not, and just how both poles of the righteous spectrum can live in everyone. 

A person, such as Noah, can be able to stick to his task in an unwavering way, but still be able to find himself off course at times.  This aspect was perhaps one of the most interesting sides of the movie, as we get to see the toll that Noah’s obligation takes on him both emotionally and mentally.  We may think upon the well-known story and see a man who serves perfectly, but Aronofsky shows the human side of Noah.  He is a man who is warned about the destruction of the world, the death of almost everyone, and in the carrying out of such obligations it would only be natural to assume that there would be a personal cost to enduring an event such as this.  Russell Crowe portrays the title character with art, depth, and skill to take the character out of cartoonish pictures that we may have seen in Sunday School and show the agony and turmoil that staying true to faith can take on someone, even to the point of not acknowledging when behaviours have reached an extreme and that they are no longer in line with what was intended.

The visuals of the film were one spot that felt a little weak at times, where computer generated animals had the ability to look fake, as well as getting some blurring effects on panning camera shots.  For the most part, it held up well, but the moments here and there where it fell below par felt enough to take me out of the moment.  Perhaps this was because of the size of the budget and the worries that the movie may not be attracting the audience it wanted which lead to stricter spending of money.  I am just not well informed enough to say anything other than speculation, but it did have the feel as though everything was not touched up as neatly as it should have been.

The main aspect of the film, the destruction of the earth from a deity who had seen the evil of men and had a desire to set things right, was pulled off really well.  Because of the various other themes at play in the movie, there was a lot more weight to this movie that made the flooding prove to be an important measure to take.  God (or The Creator, as the film refers to Him) is never shown without mercy, care, or the ability to provide for the few who stood apart from society to live in right standing.  We are shown that the heart of forgiveness is prominent, and that The Creator accepts those who may have once turned their backs but now attempt to serve.

I have mentioned the themes of this film many times, because that really is where the movie is strongest.  Yes, there are some wonderful acting performances from Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, and Anthony Hopkins, but they worked to add colour and flavour to the greater story.  One of the best things about a movie experience is being able to talk about it afterwards with others, picking through various aspects of the film and attempting to see the larger picture of a well-crafted tapestry.  Noah succeeded at this, offering my wife and I different points of entry in conversation to digest and process what we had seen.  Most importantly, everything in the film is easily translated to current day living.  It does not just contain itself to the distant past, but rather delivers its message in a relatable fashion that merges with the realities of the world we live in, making the lessons of the film and the story timeless.

Rating – 3.5 out of 4