Review: The Nice Guys

The Nice Guys

Shane Black may not have invented the buddy movie (Butch And Sundance were there first). But he did create the modern version of it. When Lethal Weapon, made form his script, was released in 1987, the most recent buddy cop movie of that type was 1982’s 48 Hours, which made a movie star of Eddie Murphy. The earlier film was great. But it didn’t develop a whole sub-genre. Lethal Weapon did. It also launched the career of its screenwriter.

From there Black would go on to duke it out with Joe Estzerhas for the title of “Highest Paid Screenwriter In Hollywood”. In the process he wrote one of Tony Scott’s best films (The Last Boy Scout) and Renny Harlin’s absolute best (The Long Kiss Goodnight). But after the latter got written off as a flop (it has since become a cult film of sorts) Black pretty much left the business for about 8 years. He made his comeback in 2005 with the quite funny action comedy Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. That movie helped another Hollywood icon, Robert Downey Jr, make a comeback. This led to Black getting hired to script and direct Iron Man 3, which was a smash. Now Black is back with his third directorial opus. And it is by far the best movie I’ve seen so far this year.

The Nice Guys, which Black co-wrote as well as directs, is part buddy action/comedy, part noir with a few elements of satire thrown in. Set in 1977 Los Angeles, the film follows private eye Holland March (Ryan Gosling) and tough guy enforcer Jackson Healey (Russell Crowe). These characters don’t know each other as the film begins and when they do meet up not long in, Healey is breaking March’s arm. Yet soon after, they become (as per the usual in a Shane Black movie) reluctant partners in a tricky case involving the porn industry, the big three auto manufacturers, the Justice department and a killer nicknamed John Boy (Black foreshadows that nickname earlier when a TV announcer refers to the Waltons.

The plot, while engaging, isn’t the main point of The Nice Guys. The movie is about the characters and attitude. In that regard, it delivers. In some ways, March and Healey recall the lead characters of Lethal Weapon and The Last Boy Scout: men haunted by the past just barely holding on. Both exhibit a certain world weariness yet leap into action when spurred on. Holland has a daughter named Holly (Angourie Rice) who is a lot smarter than her daddy. This particular apsect plays out well and Rice gives a great performance as a girl who’s both smartass and vulnerable. Kim Basinger pops up as a Justice department prosecutor. Black has fun with all of this and succeeds in taking the audience along for the ride.

Any movie involving both Crowe and Basinger is bound to evoke memories of LA Confidential and any movie referencing the LA porn industry in the late 70s is bound to evoke memories of Boogie Nights (this one is explicit in one reference to the desire to make a porno film that succeeds as art). This one may not quite reach the level of those 2 1997 masterworks. But I don’t think that’s its intent. It stands on its own.

Like the two previously mentioned films, it depicts the period quite well from set design to soundtrack choices (much use of wah-wah guitars).

The Nice Guys is a rare breed of film: It isn’t a prestige picture. But it isn’t a mindless blockbuster. It’s quite well-done and should be seen ASAP before it gets creamed by the next X-Men movie.


Posted on May 23, 2016, in Movies, reviews and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 44 Comments.

  1. I’m not likely to see this in the theater. But I’ll definitely catch it on video. I greatly enjoyed Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and I’m a sucker for noir and a 70’s setting. So this hits several of my sweet spots.


  2. Thanks for the review. The Nice Guys sounds like a well-done genre film (or genre-blending, in this case), and I think there’s always room for one of those.


  3. BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID were NOT there first. See Laurel & Hardy, The Marx Brothers, The Three Stooges, THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, GUNGA DIN, and Abbott and Costello for prior reference. Ryan Gosling even aped Lou Costello in one scene in THE NICE GUYS.


  4. Lebeau, I would encourage you, and everyone, to see this movie in the theater. We need more movies like this to be successful so that not EVERY movie will be based on prior commercial product. This movie is such great fun!

    Liked by 1 person

    • I considered going to the theaters to support a movie I am fairly confident I will enjoy and the type of movie I would like to see more of. It’s simply a practical matter. The Nice Guys will likely be available for me to watch at home in the near future and probably won’t lose much in the transition to the small screen. It’s hypocritical of me because I complain about the current trend for everything to be a retread of existing material, but when I go to the theater it is usually for spectacles like Star Wars and Marvel. Reviews for X-Men have been mixed, but it may very well be the next movie I see in theaters. If I skip it, my next trip will probably be to take the kids to Secret Life of Pets or Finding Dory. These are the unfortunate realities.


  5. daffystardust

    I saw The Nice Guys on Saturday night, and although I enjoyed it thoroughly, I do have some quibbles with it. Despite that, I hereby predict that this movie will become the kind of flick college guys watch over and over before and after parties.


  6. I saw this and, yeah, it was a pretty fun movie


  7. I’m definitely going to see this film someday, for sure.
    I was just discussing buddy comedies the other day, and I named “Lethal Weapon”, but then right after corrected myself with “48 hrs.”. I agree with jeffthewildman though, “Lethal Weapon” really got that formula cooking, as “48 Hrs.” was kind of a one-off (should’ve remained that way; all I have to say is The Iceman, and I don’t mean Val Kilmer:-(.


    • I’m going to do a little research. My recollection was that when LW came out, a lot of people dismissed it as a 48 Hours ripoff. So I’m not sure you can credit LW with launching the buddy cop genre. In fact, when LW 2 came out, I recall a lot of people wondering why they bothered making a sequel to a movie that wasn’t that big in the first place. LW 2 was a huge hit. It grossed more than twice what the original picture made. That was the movie that established LW was a major franchise. I think the success of the subsequent films has caused people to give LW too much credit because when you think of a buddy cop movie, you think of Riggs and Murtaugh. But if you’re looking for the movie that kicked off the genre, I am thinking 48 Hours.

      I’m going to look into this further because I think it’s an interesting question.


      • That didn’t take long. As you can imagine, there’s a lot out there about this history of the buddy cop movie. Scholars point to Akira Kuriosawa’s Stray Dog as setting up the genre way back in 1949! Buddy cops were all over TV for decades with Dragnet and Starsky and Hutch as examples. 48 Hours brought the formula to the movies in 1982. The first LW was five years later in 1987. But there were plenty of buddy cop movies in between. Beverly Hills Cop isn’t exactly a buddy cop movie, but it’s close enough that some people count it. Running Scared came out an entire year before LW.

        Where I give LW credit, or probably more accurately LW 2, is that it honed the buddy cop formula. 48 Hours was gritty. LW 2 shifted the tone to comedy. The buddy cop movies that followed LW 2 were more funny than gritty. 48 hours and the first LW seem dark and violent by comparison.

        So I think you have to credit 48 Hours for kicking off the buddy cop movie and the Lethal Weapon series with popularizing it.


        • Good research Lebeau, and overall I would have to agree with you. I would like to make one minor addition though. You commented that the first Lethal Weapon wasn’t that big a hit, but actually it was: it finished among the Top 10 biggest hits of 1987 at #9 for the year. Anytime a film finishes among the Top 10 of the year I’d have so say it was a big hit.

          It is extraordinary though how LW2 went through the roof: back then the rule of thumb in the industry for sequels was they typically earned half of what the previous one did, but LW2 bucked that trend and earned more than twice as much as the first one, finishing 3rd for the year! LW2 really took off in a way that very few sequels did back then.


        • LETHAL WEAPON 2 also knocked BATMAN from the #1 spot at the box office, and remained there for 4 weeks, longer than BATMAN’s 2 weeks.


        • Top 10 is a hit. No doubt about it. But let me put this in perspective. The 8th highest-grossing movie of 1987, one slot above Lethal Weapon, was the buddy cop movie Stakeout.

          Lethal Weapon was a hit. But it wasn’t so big that people were demanding a sequel. Lethal Weapon 2 is the one that defined the franchise. Without it, Lethal Weapon might be as well-remembered as the Emilio Estevez-Richard Dreyfus movie.


        • STAKEOUT also had a not highly requested sequel. And it stunk.


        • Exactly. Lethal Weapon 2 could have been Another Stakeout.

          Imagine if Stakeout 2 had been a big hit and Another Lethal Weapon had been a disappointment. Would Mel Gibson have starred in the Mighty Ducks? Would Emilio Estevez have won an Oscar for directing Bobby? We’ll never know.


        • Right, “Running Scared”, I like that film. Yeah, I think that’s the way to look at “48 Hrs.”, even though as I think about it, it’s not a true cop buddy movie since Eddie Murphy’s Reggie character is a prisoner, not a cop, but I think it works in that category all the same.


        • Agreed it doesn’t fit the strict definition of a Buddy COP Movie. But it is close enough. Murphy’s character is a convict who is more or less acting in the rookie cop role. There’s a reason most of the buddy cop movies that followed had a racial component. They were following in the footsteps of 48 Hours.

          It’s like the slasher genre. Psycho and Peeping Tom set the groundwork. Halloween came along and popularized it. Then Friday the 13th mainstreamed it. 48 Hours is the Halloween here and the Lethal Weapon series is Friday the 13th. To take it a step further, Die Hard is like the Nightmare on Elm Street series taking the genre in a new direction.


        • Would you consider THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and BLACK CHRISTMAS as slasher films? I would consider them more direct ancestors to HALLOWEEN and FRIDAY THE 13TH than I would PSYCHO and PEEPING TOM.


        • I can get on board with that.


        • Wow, that’s a deep way to see it; wow, I’m glad it became creation. As Whitney Houston once sang, “How Do I know?”. I wonder how those film genres would pan out?


  8. Nice review and I second your plea for people to GET TO THE THEATER and support this movie! It’s really, really good and really, really original. Hollywood will quit taking risks on films like this if there’s no audience or box office profit for it. Please, for the love of film, go see it!


    • I’m planning to see it in my localish two screen non-chain cinema because a) I like to support them when I can given a lot of the time they’re too small to have much variety, and b) yeah, we need to send a message back to HW that non-tentpole fims have a place. Totally get why LeBeau has to pick & choose screenings, tho’.


  9. Nice review! I saw it with my girlfriend over the weekend and we both loved it. It has the perfect balance of action and humor, but I guess that’s not a surprise since Black wrote it. For me it falls in the category of very entertaining but not necessarily a movie that is going to stick in my head for all that long.


    • It probably should be added in a discussion of this movie that it is rated R. There are a fair amount of boobs in the movie, discussions of porno films, and strong language. Nothing that should bother most adults or teens, but if you decide to watch it on home video take this into account if you have young kids.


  10. The Curious Career of Kim Basinger

    Today, nearly 20 years after L.A. Confidential first graced theaters, there’s an unlikely kind of second chapter. Basinger and Crowe have reunited on the big screen for The Nice Guys—but the power dynamics have shifted. This time, Crowe is a lunkheaded enforcer so low-rent that he doesn’t even have a P.I. license, let alone a badge. And Basinger is the head of Los Angeles’ Justice Department, exercising colossal political power in a missing-persons case in which she has a very personal interest.

    It’s not quite a comeback. Over the years, Basinger has occasionally turned up in wife/mom roles in movies like Charlie St. Cloud, and Grudge Match, and she toplined a long-gestating passion project called The 11th Hour, which arrived on VOD last summer. But unless you’ve been actively following Basinger’s career over the past decade, it’s still a little startling when she suddenly pops up in The Nice Guys—like stumbling into an old friend you rarely think of and never visit.

    Basinger’s career is a complicated one to parse. Some of her breaks from acting were clearly her choice; in interviews, she’s quick to describe how much of her focus since 1995 has been on raising Ireland, her daughter with Alec Baldwin. Some of her movies were terrible and justly panned. But it’s still a little galling to see Basinger opposite her L.A. Confidential costar Crowe in The Nice Guys—gray and paunchy, in one of the sharpest leading roles of his career, while she languishes in an underdeveloped and underwritten bit part at the periphery of the narrative. This remains the reality for the vast majority of Hollywood actresses, and particularly those who were so explicitly lauded for their sex appeal, as Melanie Griffith, Kathleen Turner, and Kelly Le Brock could attest. At the very least, it’s hard to imagine Basinger’s similarly aged male costars being subjected to an insipid Q&A like this one:


  11. stupid wordpress. deleted comment twice. mad now. movie kinda bad. good character bits all in trailer. violence, drinking and children in danger have no consequence which clashed with the emotional moments when we have to be sorry for gosling


  12. since we are on topic of gosling I heard he turned down batman . I think he would been better batman then ben


  13. Not sure if anyone noticed but as great as crowe is in drama comedy not his strong suit. I am big fan of him but even I am aware of his weakness. A good year his snl skit and the sum of us . He does not have good comic timing. WHich does not make him bad actor him dramatic role make up. Some actors do not excel in certain genres. As much I love hanks and costner I can admit action or mystery roles not their thing


  14. We all have different opinions. I give him credit for branching out and doing comedy sometimes despite it not being his forte.


  15. He does not the right vocal tone for comedy. Maybe it is the fact that iam used to seeing him in serious dramas not helping either. The snl skits he was in where funny had the rightr material i found him to be weak link of them


  16. Ryan Gosling Realized He’s Funny In 2016, And The World’s Better For It

    It’s similarly impossible to feel crappy watching Gosling’s next film, The Nice Guys, which is one of 2016’s best and most overlooked movies. In other words, it’s a Shane Black joint. Gosling plays Holland March (what a name), an over-his-head, oft-drunk private investigator who reluctantly teams up with the goon-like Jackson Healy. The pudgy gumshoe is played by Russell Crowe, who described Gosling as a “little bastard.” And that’s what Gosling is in the movie: the Laurel to Crowe’s Hardy. Take a look at the bathroom stall scene.

    Ryan Gosling is one of the most attractive people on the planet and a damn fine Academy Award-nominated actor, but in The Nice Guys, he’s caught with his pants down, literally, and tries to hold a cigarette in his mouth, a gun in his hand, and a magazine over his schwantz, while simultaneously keeping a bathroom stall door from closing on him, as an amused Russell Crowe looks on. It’s gung-ho slapstick, and it’s not even Gosling’s best physical performance in the movie. That would be the scene where a fumbling Holland discovers a dead body while having a smoke during a party. He’s rendered speechless, relying on a series of exaggerated gestures and Lou Costello-by-way-of-Looney Tunes wheezes to field Jackson’s attention. It’s silly, it’s over the top, it’s beautiful.


    • Gossip no one in Hollywood Will Say Out Loud: Part 8

      hank you so much for your post, [[R523]]! Great details and a lot of insight into the business side of Holywood; I very much enjoyed reading it.

      I had no idea that Halls and Huvane were part of the same firm! If those walls could talk…

      So interesting that Robin Baum is part of that firm as well; as you said, so much power behind the scenes at this one place.

      Gosling being one of the clients there makes a lot of sense to me; he pretty much always gets good press (and he was basically “the world’s boyfriend” with all of those “Hey, girl!” memes for so long), his somewhat odd/mismatched pairing with Eva Mendes seemingly hasn’t hurt him PR wise at all–and nobody really knows anything about their relationship, what they are like as a couple, they get away with sharing no personal details of their lives in interviews, and their children are never allowed to be photographed–pics of them have never seen the light of day, even years after birth…

      Also, Gosling’s career seemed like it was on the downturn with nothing really high profile going on for a while and then the flop of “The Nice Guys”–and then he gets “La La Land” and an Oscar nomination (and a starring role in the “Blade Runner” sequel) and he’s at the top of the A-List.

      He’s also talked about a lot in a positive way in the media without having to really play the press game at all.

      It makes total sense that he’s with the top PR firm in Hollywood–even though to most of the public he seems like a quiet and private hipster type who probably doesn’t have a big Hollywood “team”….

      —R495–thanks again, R523, for your great post!

      reply 542 Last Monday at 4:58 AM


  17. 20 Best Movies Of 2016

    The Nice Guys

    Shane Black gets back to pulp noir caper territory with this riotously entertaining 70s farce, making the best of the central buddy pairing between Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe.

    True to the genre, you won’t remember much about the plot, but it doesn’t really matter as the film is so intently focused on the two personalities at the forefront.

    Fans of Black’s Kiss Kiss Bang Bang will feel especially at home here, with the quick-fire dialogue and amusing meta references to the genre, while Black also takes a gamble on a child sidekick character which totally pays off, thanks to a splendid performance from Angourie Rice.

    It’s violent, it’s un-PC, and it’s the writer-director at his most fiercely unbridled. It’s just a shame it bombed at the box office regardless.


    • I Am The Goddess Of Too Much: The 10 Biggest Box-Office Bombs Of 2016

      Nice Guys: (-$55 million)

      Movies like Nice Guys, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot and Miss Sloane are exactly the kind of mid-budget movies aimed at adults that the multiplexes are sadly missing. Their box-office grosses are exactly why we will continue to miss them, although there are some exceptions. Now You See Me 2 succeeded thanks to China’s box-office, The Accountant performed well thanks to Affleck, and Money Men benefited from George Clooney’s international appeal. The failure of Nice Guys hurts, though, because it’s one of the best movies of the year, it had familiar stars in Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe, a great director in Shane Black, and a cult following from Kiss Kiss Bang Bang looking for a spiritual successor. I don’t know what to blame here except for the timing of the release. It’s a fall movie that was released during a packed summer, forced to go head to head with Neighbors 2 only two weeks after Captain America: Civil War.


      • Why did this fare so poorly at the box office?

        by everlone_2000 » Mon Oct 31 2016 04:41:38

        Change in viewing habits maybe. It doesn’t look like something you have to catch on the big screen. As soon as I saw the trailer I thought ‘Oh I’ll enjoy watching that on Google play, sitting on the sofa with my wife and a bottle of wine’.

        by eileen-guthrie555 » Sat Nov 5 2016 19:05:57

        Well, the advertising suffered. I don’t ever recall seeing a commercial about this film even once. I’ve never heard of the movie and only learned about it’s existence after reading some critics top 10 list for 2016 (so far). If you want to bring an audience to the theater, you need to advertise that it was made and currently in the theaters.

        by supersutnopthebest » Thu Nov 10 2016 10:42:26

        Because it is a comedy movie for grown ups.

        People go to cinema for an experience that they can not have at home. This is not a movie made better by 3D or sound effects, but comedy. This is a movie someone could watch at home and having the exact same experience as they would have had if they went to the cinema and tickets sold at cinemas are what makes box office scores. Its probably doing fine money-wise thanks to streaming services. Also the movie isn’t marketed for children but like many other comedy movies are and it doesn’t feature any actors famous with the kids. Kids are what fuels most comedy movies when it comes to watching them in a cinema.

        Mon Nov 14 2016 13:53:59

        It wasn’t terrible but I can see why they didn’t want to spend any money for advertising. A lot of the dialogue was just odd, like when the Gosling character does a Lou Costello imitation on seeing the dead guy under the tree, and a lot of the supporting acting was very amateurish. Also in a comedy you don’t expect the girl they’ve been trying to protect to get killed in the end, and the bad guys (corrupt govt. agency) to win out. Rather depressing.

        Tue Dec 6 2016 10:05:04
        there’s been too many buddy cop movies lately which were lukewarm at best. i don’t think the studio thought it would do well enough to advertise it well. i’m sure it’s more than made it’s money back of the int. distribution, domestic was never going to be great this time of year. had nothing to do with the film, basically.

        by Deathchronology » Wed Dec 14 2016 18:46:29

        because audiences don’t want to watch anything that requires even an atom-sized fragment of a brain anymore

        by duongdogg » Sat Dec 24 2016 05:08:34

        Hope there will be a sequel. Yeah the marketing team fkd up. They were more interested in marketing central intelligence.

        by Laserseightoclockdayone » Mon Dec 26 2016 18:30:03

        Now that people know they missed out on a gem, a sequel is going to make what this film made in its entire run over the first weekend even if it’s terrible… because people are kinda like cattle.

        Consider that the week this came out was the week a movie about an iPhone game did and that movie did gangbusters. 349 million gangbusters. No one will ever convince me that most people are intelligent in any sense of the word.

        by jax-28 » Tue Dec 27 2016 04:36:41

        The received wisdom is that comedies don’t do well in cinemas anymore, that people prefer watching them at home rather than going to the cinemas.

        Thus oversized action movies with oversized effects have a cinema draw, while comedies and more complicated stories end up as TV series or internet fare.

        by johnhehir72 » Tue Dec 27 2016 14:36:18

        I think it will do well in the home market. This is good as the home market is a big revenue factor now. Don’t get me wrong, box office recipes do still count but look at films like Alien and Blade runner, slow burners that found an audience. in today’s market those home sales are more significant. I enjoyed the film and it would be nice to see a few sequels. Only time will tell.

        by aharbell-730-971748 » Tue Jan 3 2017 09:57:56

        Exactly – when the girl they were trying to protect was killed – ugh. What were the writers thinking? Way off kilter and I didn’t recommend this movie to anyone.

        by FizzyGillespie » Sat Jan 7 2017 20:38:33

        Good movies challenge expectations. Mediocre movies confirm them.

        You’ve watched so many mediocre movies you’ve come to insist upon the “happy ending.”

        The film is based on film noir and potboiler mystery novels. It’s not unusual for “the good guy” (or girl) to die.

        by sirfaulty » Sun Jan 8 2017 07:28:36

        This is the sort of “buddy-cop” movie that thrived in the eighties and early nineties and would have been a sure-fire box office winner with the good reviews from the critics it got on release but times have changed and these star-driven “Lethal 48 Hour Weapon” type films don’t work anymore for a modern audience who just want to see superhero crap after superhero crap (I suppose it’s a sign of their time because the world is currently a dismal place and in need of some superhero saving). were as when I was growing up it was a happier place (late seventies/eighties/early nineties).

        It’s pretty sad because it actually looks very enjoyable and I would rather see this than umpteenth superhero flick which sadly has just overtaken the box office and has stopped serious movie goers like myself from attending.

        Now we just wait for the good films to come to cable or Netflix.

        by cendrizzi » Wed Jan 18 2017 11:00:30

        I just watched it. Brilliant show. The reality is outside of small budget films there is no oxygen left for moderate budget films that are clever like this.

        Hollywood is in a tough spot.

        One type of film does well, and as a result that is the focus. Then people like me don’t even think about going to movies anymore because we aren’t interested in those films and shows like this don’t get people like me to go because I just stopped looking.

        So they just keep shoveling out reboots and the same genre and hope that the money doesn’t dry up I suppose. They are doing really well within an increasingly narrow space. This can’t bode well for the future.

        The real sad thing is movies like this don’t do well, because it really deserved to.

        by cendrizzi » Wed Jan 18 2017 11:13:30

        I think movies like this are such a better escape of the dismal place we live (for example, I can’t predict exactly how the twist and turns are going to happen like every stupid super hero show). It feels like if a movie doesn’t come out of Hollywood with a political point then the pundits will make one for it. I stopped watch award shows a while ago. It used to be Shaun Penn (spelling?) would always make his statement but overall Hollywood stayed above board. Now it’s constant in it’s need to politicize everything (and I actually agree with a lot of it, just not how it’s talked about). This probably doesn’t help the industry as a whole in reaching a large range of audiences except the most common denominator of movies (superheroes and star wars!).

        by dloomstein » 1 hour ago (Sun Jan 29 2017 20:18:55)

        This movie SUCKED. Aside from some OK jokes and a decent rapport between Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling, the reliance on little girls in danger, and then on the receiving end of A LOT OF VIOLENCE makes this movie not only terribly written, but cheap and exploitative. I’ve paid to see a lot in theaters, but I just don’t want to see little girls being thrown through windows or shot at point blank range. Shane Black has written some decent, commercial funny/violent films, and some of the worst commercial films ever made. This is one of the latter. A career low, Shane.


      • Why did this movie do so awful?

        by versetrack9 » Tue Oct 11 2016 10:34:30

        Because it was a R rated buddy comedy set in the 70s. That’s it really a hard sell, and even though his fingerprints are all over a bunch of successful films, a lot of people have no clue who Shane black is. Basically Ryan gosling was their best hope to sell this film but his female fans would have no interest in this. It’s a great film though. Loved it.

        by Paula57 » Wed Oct 12 2016 22:22:53

        It can be hard to market a film like this. I can’t help but think the timing was off for the release date. It came the 3rd week in May. It did pretty well the first couple of weeks, but then the kids are out of school and the grown up movies go by the wayside. I think it might have done better if they released it earlier in the spring or held it til fall.

        by jonhopper217 » Thu Oct 13 2016 06:30:52

        100% agree. The trailers were awful and made it look terrible. I only got watched, because of the cast and glad I did. Hilariously funny. The two leads were great, but Rice, who played Holly stole the show, as she did in These Final Hours.

        by politicidal » Mon Oct 17 2016 19:43:09

        Mass audiences tastes have changed for the worst. Saw it last week on Netflix. Loved it.

        What’s missing in movies is same as in society: a good sense of work ethic and living up to ideals.

        by stephenguti » Tue Oct 18 2016 10:31:19

        It definitely had to do with marketing, MPAA rating, and release. If this movie was PG-13 and released in March/April it would’ve done better. But the fact this was released in May with Captain America: Civil War still in theaters and X-Men: Apocalypse coming out the week after Nice Guys, it was at a major disadvantage.

        After 5 Years of Chuck, I have learned that at the end the nerd will ALWAYS get the girl. Chuck me.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: