MovieChat Forums > SlackerInc > Replies
SlackerInc's Replies
Huh, that's quite the commentary on detective stories then! I have never read a crime novel, but I've seen a few detective films (Klute, Knives Out, The Maltese Falcon), so I thought I understood the genre but maybe not.
I'm not searching these out, just happening across them as I read reviews (so far, in three of the seven reviews I've read):
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/movies/los-angeles-detective-and-new-york-thief-channel-pulp-fiction.html
"Harmony is played by Michelle Monaghan, who holds her own nicely in fairly intense company. You may find yourself wondering, all the same, about Harmony's beauty secrets, since while she and Harry are meant to be around the same age, the more-than-10-year gap between Ms. Monaghan and Mr. Downey is glaringly evident."
https://variety.com/2005/film/awards/kiss-kiss-bang-bang-2-1200525881/
"As nicely set up as it is, however, the Harry/Harmony reunion presents a major problem, simply because Downey looks about 15 years older than Monaghan, with both characters briefly repped by child actors of the same age; the issue continues to dog the film throughout."
I'm not the only one, BTW, although LaSalle didn't mind either and liked the movie overall better than I did:
https://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Kiss-gives-props-to-pulp-genre-while-satirizing-2598930.php
"Monaghan and Downey hardly look as if they could have been schoolmates. The movie could have accounted for the discrepancy by saying that she spent 10 years cryogenically frozen or that he spent that long eating nothing but toxic waste. Instead, Black chooses not to explain it, and soon the reason for their casting becomes apparent: Their comic rhythms are in perfect synch."
Not to me, but it didn't really bother me (though other things did and I ultimately rated the movie 4/10 although there were some fun elements).
I agree, but many of the movies that become "cult classics" really aren't very good: "Repo Man", "But I'm a Cheerleader", etc. Or even something like "The Shawshank Redemption". That's a good, solid movie, like 7/10, but so many people treat it like it's the Second Coming and it's weird.
I agree. I gave it a 4/10, and would only give a movie a 1 if it were atrocious on every level: nonexistent production values, non-professional acting, a script that sounds like a fifth grader wrote it.
But so many people give either 1 or 10, which screws up the whole system. Some other people may use 7-10, but I'd bet I'm one of the only people who uses 3, 4, or 5.
That was pretty good. Overall I thought this movie was a failure, but I did enjoy a few elements of it and that was one.
I don't think watching again would make it make any more sense, and I certainly don't want to sit through it again. All the stuff that seemed fresh and clever at the beginning will seem lame right from the jump the second time, and the stuff that annoyed me the first time through will just annoy me even more.
I clocked that too. I think she was playing a bit older, and he was playing a bit younger, but it was still a stretch.
The mystery is cockamamie and adds up to nothing remotely sensible.
Yes, 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).
For sure. The winkiness was fun at the beginning, but it got old fast.
Agree on all counts. Yet IM3 is also strangely overrated (just as IM2 is underrated).
Some of the spoofy stuff was fun. I liked the narration--at least at first, though it started to wear out its welcome. And I especially enjoyed (spoilers ahead) when they brought out the hoary old trope about playing Russian roulette with someone to scare them, and then in this case it kills him on the first try. 😆 Also fun was bringing in a parade of everyone who had been killed earlier in the film.
BUT...the quippiness wore out its welcome after a while, the central mystery made no freaking sense, and the screenplay was needlessly, gratuitously homophobic for no apparent reason. Just random, and though usually that kind of thing is described as "didn't age well", I think I would have wrinkled my nose at it even then. I would rate this 4/10, a D+. Almost good enough to recommend, but not quite.
Heh, I no longer remember this scene at all, or why exactly I was asking this question.
You're right that Rapaport was surprisingly young at 26. So for him, a ten-year reunion is fine, although I would say he looked over 30. Dillon was 32, Hutton 36 as you say.
No, I just finished a rewatch of one of my all-time favorites, "Double Indemnity", which certainly isn't that. For that matter, I consider "Mystery Train" itself a great film. So you have misunderstood me if you thought i was dragging the movie. I was only observing that the way Franz Kabuki characterized the third segment was "weird". And I stand by that characterization.
I'm sure it's not overstated in this case!
I liked it a titch more than he did, but it's certainly nowhere near top-tier Coen content.
Same here, on both counts.