In The Nice Guys, Holland March (Ryan Gosling) asks a movie producer, "You made a porno and want us to care about the plot?" I'm not entirely sure if the question isn't self-referential. The Nice Guys is '70s porn, a disco-tinted homage to old-school buddy cop films, and as a pastiche, it's damn fun.
In 1977, the death of porn star Misty Mountains (Murielle Telio) sends shockwaves through the Hollywood hills, bringing together two private investigators. The first is Holland March (Ryan Gosling). He's a loose cannon, the type of guy who'll try and convince that he's a "functioning alcoholic." Opposite him: Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe), a man whose wit is as sharp as his brass knuckles. Assisted by Holland's whiz kid, Holly (Angourie Rice), they face off against gangsters, politicians, and the deadliest of all foes, killer bees.
Shane Black (writer of Lethal Weapon and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) packs every idea possible into a 116-minute script. For the most part, it all flows together, bouncing between points of view, character moments, and the ridiculous (Holland jumps into a pool at one point to chase after mermaid dancers). The movie doesn't stop moving, and that loose energy pushes me through the plot...until the last half hour.
Black sets up the movie with a clear ending in mind, but after it reaches said ending in an hour, the movie keeps going. I feel like I've signed up to only use so much energy in an allotted frame of time, but the movie takes advantage and continues. While the ending's not bad, by the time I hit it, I'm fatigued.
What pulls me through is Crowe and Gosling's chemistry, which is so natural and so complementary that I never feel like they're acting. Their banter is smooth and quick, trading jabs and wordplay like an intricate ballet routine.
Look for Angourie Rice in future movies; this is a breakout role. The boys' unofficial (and undesired) helper, Holly can infiltrate porn star parties better than they can. She often pieces the mystery together while Jackson's off searching for leads and Holland's chasing tail and cocktails. If there's ever a remake of Inspector Gadget, we've found our Penny.
It's a treat to see an old-school buddy cop movie in theaters, emphasis on old-school. The Nice Guys is a dark, groovy, reckless good time. To see a movie this wild that doesn't feel like something under our current studio system is a damn cool treat. If you want something to watch while your kids are checking out The Angry Birds Movie (which I also recommend, 5/6 stars), definitely give this a watch.
Thank you all for reading. I'm the Man Without a Plan, signing off.
I'm going to break form and put the trailer up top. Do me a favor and watch this trailer for Money Monster, then read the rest of the review.
Welcome back. Intense, huh? What a pulse-pounder! Don't be fooled. Money Monster is a black comedy in thriller's clothing, tugging on emotion rather than logic to address America's post-Recession frustrations. There's a couple dick jokes thrown in there, too.
George Clooney is Lee Gates, the pompous rock star host of "Money Monster," a financial show as bombastic and ludicrous as he is. Julia Roberts plays the show's director, Patty Fehn, whose idea of a Friday night is pajamas, TV, and Chinese takeout, something that I'm not sure Lee finds adorable, pathetic, or both.
During a live taping, a lone gunman (Jack O'Connell) bursts in and puts a barrel up to Lee's head. Influenced by Lee's show, the gunman had placed all his money in stocks for Ibis Clear Capital, a company Lee lauded as a messiah for Wall Street. Unfortunately, the company suddenly lost $800 million from a computer glitch, wiping out the gunman's stock.
Believing there's more to the story, the gunman demands Lee give him some answers, and as the story breaks globally, everyone hunts for answers, slowly uncovering the complicated truth.
Money Monster draws comparisons to last year's The Big Short. Both focus on Recession fears and address the desire for accountability in the economy. In The Big Short, the problem was greed. In Money Monster, the problem is still greed, but it adds a layer of technology: the movement away from gold bricks to bitcoins.
The problem's two-pronged. The first is an old fear - whether money changes from gold to dollars or dollars to data, the shift brings apprehensions about the value of money and whether a new format will devalue the old. The second involves a psychological tic. When something becomes intangible or virtual, people tend to treat it with less severity; it doesn't feel as real. In our brains, there's a huge difference between reading "$100" on our bank account and holding good ol' Benjamin's face in our hands. The movie asserts that as we become more and more technologically dependent, money starts looking more and more like a series of numbers, and less like a tool we use to live.
When Lee sees $800 million disappear in the blink of an eye, he tells his viewers that the event is isolated, only a minor setback for the company. He doesn't think of the people who earned that money, their frustrations and anger. The gunman does. Of course there's a personal stake in it; he's told at one point that his outrage is linked to his loss. If he was winning, if nothing changed, would he care? Probably not.
However, I don't think Money Monster, while heavy-handed, is naive. It understands the risks involved in entering the stock market. And while I'd like a movie about the economy that doesn't automatically take a sledgehammer to corporate America and a feather to bad or ignorant investors, I don't think the movie wants to focus on the money, but rather on people.
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is one of Frank Capra's most lauded films (an Oscar winner and number 26 on AFI's Top 100 Movies list) and one of my favorites. Just like Money Monster, the film explores how a major system can be corrupted, featuring the everyman's plight to break free of said corruption. Capra is a director whose characters are inherently more emotional than logical (only Jefferson Smith would sincerely believe that he could get a plan for a national boys' camp written, passed through committee, and ratified in the Senate in one night). However, in that emotion lies Capra's strength: he breaks down stories to their most essential, human elements. Capra's movies are about people, about the strength and courage inherent in us, and the need for more of these in the world.
Now, I'm not calling Money Monster a future number 27, but I think Foster has tapped into some of Capra's magic. O'Connell has a way with asking Clooney questions that breaks the artifice of media, the complications of economics, and gets to a need for accountability. At the heart of corporations and finance are people, looking to make a living and get back home to their kids, so when things go wrong, the response should be genuine, not automatic. It's what makes us human.
The movie's not a seminar: Foster and editor Matt Chesse have extraordinary timing, and make for some fantastic laugh-out-loud moments that break tension and parody other hostage thrillers. Clooney and Roberts are veterans, playing their strengths to the best of the story. It's not as elegant or clever as The Big Short, but if you're looking for an intense drama with a great sense of humor and an emotional backbone, it's worth a watch.
Thank you all for reading; I'm the Man Without a Plan, signing off.
Directors Joe and Anthony Russo have a thankless job.
After their surprise success (both those words are severe understatements) with Captain America: The Winter Soldier, they were chosen to, after the departure of Avengers director Joss Whedon, to helm the third and fourth Avengers films: Infinity War - Part 1 and 2. Given these movies will not only bring back characters from Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron, but also, most likely, add newcomers from Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, Spider-Man: Homecoming, and Black Panther, the screen will be literally stuffed from edge to edge with comic book fandom, visual effects, and the most expensive and extensive cast in history.
No pressure.
Captain America: Civil War serves as the Russo Brothers' audition for Avengers: Infinity War - when faced with a potential 67 characters in the latter, a six-on-six fight seems doable. As an audition goes, Civil War is about as good as it gets, with fantastic performances from old friends and new, imaginative direction, thrilling action, and a thoughtful introduction on the difficulties facing law and crime in a globalized world.
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), known as Captain America, leads the New Avengers: Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Vision (Paul Bettany), and Falcon (Anthony Mackie). With the demise of SHIELD, they work on their own, stopping terrorist attack worldwide. However, as civilian casualties rise, the international community fears their unchecked power and creates the Sokovia Accords, a treaty that would give the United Nations oversight of the team, dispatching them only when absolutely necessary.
Iron Man/Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is for signing the agreement. After his creation of Ultron and the Iron Legion led to the attack on Sokovia, his guilt guides him to relinquish some power for the sake of protection.
Captain America, seeing first-hand how HYDRA infiltrated and corrupted SHIELD, opposes the agreement. If compromised, the United Nations could prevent the Avengers from intervening when truly necessary.
"The safest hands are still our own," Steve argues.
Tensions escalate when the bombing of the U.N. meeting in Vienna sees the Winter Soldier/Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) as the prime suspect. Tony and the government want to apprehend Barnes the "shoot first, ask later" way but Steve wants to try and find Bucky on his own.
To anyone watching this from afar, understanding it all would feel like solving a Rubik's cube, but Marvel's strength has always been its characters. Their directors and writers flesh out these heroes, constantly building on them. Age of Ultron recruits Scarlet Witch and Vision are given more screen time; new characters Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) and Spider-Man (Tom Holland) are given effective scenes to completely understand and appreciate their characters. You don't have to see a two-hour movie to know and like them, which makes juggling these characters doable, with surprising ease.
Due to this and the Accords, friends form alliances, teammates take opposing sides, and the strength of our heroes are tested.
You'd also think the 6-on-6 fight would be incomprehensible, but the Russos take the layered approach J.J. Abrams did with The Force Awakens, weaving hand-to-hand combat, aerial dogfights, and team combos with lots of open space, smooth camerawork, and smart editing. Everyone, from War Machine (Don Cheadle) to Ant-Man (Paul Rudd), gets their money shot, and look damn fine doing it.
The rest of the action unsuccessfully borrows from Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Legacy, Captain Phillips), with lots of shaky, handheld camera work. The beginning scene finds the New Avengers chasing a group of bad guys, and I could barely understand what was going on, who was where. Given that Winter Soldier gave us some of the clearest and sharpest action in a Marvel movie to date, I don't understand why the Russos went down this path.
I understand what causes Steve and Tony to disagree, but the escalation to a fistfight is hollow. Most of their rationale is based off of impatience and loose facts, and it's evident throughout the fights that no one is fighting because they believe in it, but because the plot requires it.
One of the last Captain America/Iron Man fights is prefaced with a piece of information that provides that legitimate emotional push, but by that point, we're two hours in, and it's too little, too late. There's no strong anchor to any plot, so it's unclear what the main storyline is. I found myself yawning often, waiting for the next fight I saw in the trailer.
But that's the curse of having many mouths to feed. To put a spin on an Abraham Lincoln quote, "You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." I like Civil War for the fights, the Easter eggs, and characters. You might like it for different reasons. That's the luxury of a wealth of content: there's something for everybody.
Captain America: Civil War isn't a home run, but a solid double. It gives the Russo Brothers and Marvel Studios a good foundation to branch out, experiment, and ready themselves for the Infinity War.
Thank you all for reading. I'm the Man Without a Plan, signing off.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current MCU Rankings
13) Iron Man 3
12) Iron Man 2
11) Thor: The Dark World
10) Ant-Man
9) The Incredible Hulk
8) Avengers: Age of Ultron
7) Thor
6) Captain America: Civil War
5) Captain America: The First Avenger
4) Captain America: The Winter Soldier
3) Iron Man
2) Guardians of the Galaxy
1) The Avengers
In lieu of a trailer, here's a review I did with HalfKocked Productions on the film. They're a fledgling hometown outfit, so click below and give them some love!
