'The Nice Guys' has garish violence and few laughs

The 1970s-set 'Nice' stars Russell Crowe as an enforcer and Ryan Gosling as a private detective. The two team up to try to find a missing girl.

Daniel McFadden/Warner Bros. Entertainment/AP
'The Nice Guys' stars Russell Crowe (l.) and Ryan Gosling (r.).

Just what we need – another potential buddy-movie franchise. For “The Nice Guys,” somebody had the bright idea to pair Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling, two actors best known for playing seething loners. It’s not unusual for seriouso actors to change course and attempt comedy – Robert De Niro did it, though I mostly wish he hadn’t – but in this case, Crowe and Gosling aren’t especially funny either singly or together. This may not be their fault altogether, since writer-director Shane Black (with credits on the “Lethal Weapon" films and “Iron Man 3”) isn’t the sort of filmmaker who can be accused of having a light touch.

Crowe plays Jackson Healy, a hired enforcer, and Gosling is Holland March, a heavy-drinking private detective in 1970s L.A. who gets embroiled in the search for a missing girl who was mixed up in the pornographic film world. A string of murders unveils a larger conspiracy. 

The violence is cartoonishly garish and the yuks are few. Crowe, looking (deliberately I presume) flabby and somnolent, is more dead than deadpan, and Gosling, who appears at times to be doing a Lou Costello impression, is, to put it mildly, not in his element. 

There’s also March’s 13-year daughter, Holly (Angourie Rice), who is hauled into the mayhem. She’s meant to be wiser and more caustic than all these rampaging adults. Black inserts her, giddily, into all this porno pandemonium, a ploy I found more objectionable than amusing. Grade: C (Rated R for violence, sexuality, nudity, language and brief drug use.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.