It's okay and has its moments.
I think people don't praise this much for a reason.
Lots of "style", not much substance.
Like other Shane Black films - I'm looking at you Iron Man 3.
Lots of "style", not much substance.
"I think people don't praise this much for a reason." It has a 7.6 on imdb.
When there's a line that's funny in the script, and Val Kilmer also delivers it really well, that is "substance," in a comedy.
Somehow, I think he lost interest in his question. Moved on to the Nice Guys, perhaps?
shareNot sure what you mean by "too winky"... you just can't throw in random words or create your own meaning for them.
"Too winky" can mean a lot of things. For comedies, I think it's best illustrated by every post "Silent Movie" film of Mel Brooks, in which every sight gag and every joke is overexplained with a wink and a nod.
I agree with the OP that this film is too slick, and not in a good way. The narration doesn't help, sometimes descending into a chummy self-referential rapport with the audience that rubbed me the wrong way, as a precious and infantile motormouthed Brooklyn hipster might. An example about 10 minutes in was Downey Jr. rambling on about his bad narration, and "can I say *beep* more?" I just find that kind of dialog lame in a cutesy sort of way. Lines like that delivered by Robert Downey Jr., who is smarmy to begin with, makes it doubly worse.
Just rewatched this again for god knows how many times just now and i gotta say after seening nice guys one week prior i think they are both excellent movies.
I prefer nice guys but i havent rewatched it yet.
10/10
ayy
I'm looking forward to Nice Guys. In my city, it has already been relegated to one session a day (or even less) so I will probably not see it at the cinema. I'll wait for the disc... or maybe find a 'copy' somewhere else in the interim.
shareFor sure. The winkiness was fun at the beginning, but it got old fast.
shareWell it IS kinda funny and kinda clever a lot of the time. But, all the same, there's frequently this grating undertone of a very, very self conscious postmodernist exercise being performed. Downey Jr and Kilmer are fairly effective in punching some serious life into the thing, but the thing never achieves a natural-feeling momentum. It's a major construction work and enjoyable in a manner when building blocks are identified, but a construction work nevertheless, with too many obvious "quirks" to handle.
Btw the kind of humor Downey Jr performs here often reminds a whole lot of Martin Riggs's moments of amusement.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
I enjoyed the movie, but agree that it's way too in love with itself. And the "friend zone" romance did not age well at all...yikes that was gross "oh no she slept with everyone but me! boo hooo waaahhh" get over yourself
MathurMarquee.Blogspot.com Facebook.com/MathurMarquee
I just re-watched it. It's still a 10 for me :)
sharei had forgotten about that whole subplot of the lead female being known as a mega-slut in high school until i watched it again recently, and i was waiting for the "oh those were just rumors, i was actually an angel in school" type of scene, but then she confesses that the one guy he believes she hadn't gotten off with she actually had (in addition to all the others).... well, i guess it was a welcome surprise to know the lead character still was in love with her
shareYes, it's slightly sexist and mildly homophobic. Not just in an "aged poorly" way, but "surprising even for 2005" way. I guess he thought that was "edgy" (the homophobia, at least).
shareAgree on all counts. Yet IM3 is also strangely overrated (just as IM2 is underrated).
share