Mr. Nice (2010)

Mr. Nice (2010)

GENRESBiography,Comedy,Crime,Drama
LANGEnglish,Spanish
ACTOR
Rhys IfansChloë SevignyDavid ThewlisLuis Tosar
DIRECTOR
Bernard Rose

SYNOPSICS

Mr. Nice (2010) is a English,Spanish movie. Bernard Rose has directed this movie. Rhys Ifans,Chloë Sevigny,David Thewlis,Luis Tosar are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2010. Mr. Nice (2010) is considered one of the best Biography,Comedy,Crime,Drama movie in India and around the world.

Mr Nice is the true life story of Howard Marks who was born into a coal mining family in South Wales in 1940's and then made it to Oxford University to study nuclear physics during the swinging sixties. With the help of fellow students, Marks built a worldwide marijuana smuggling network which became responsible for the majority of the drug smoked in the Western world during the 1970s and 1980s. Marks' adventures led him to have dealings with the CIA, PLO, IRA and the Mafia and he even became an MI6 agent himself for a period. Howard Marks is played by the brilliant Rhys Ivans, who won much acclaim for his portrayal of the folk hero.

More

Mr. Nice (2010) Reviews

  • Fun with serious intent

    bartireid2010-10-14

    Mr Nice is a rare beast of a film, it swaggers, it spits, it dreams, it punches, it laughs, it cries and of course and likely above all it gets stoned. Howard Marks is the central character played effortlessly by Rhys Ifans, a welsh school boy turned big city student and pothead. We see Marks transformation through a series of off beat scenes in which director Bernard Rose reflects on Marks' humble, banal yet honest origins. Then our protagonist through a combination youthful substance experimentation and a fateful convergence of circumstances is established as an international Drug smuggler, We are gradually introduced to a plethora of interesting characters that vary from casual love interests to drug dealing allies, who materialise as Ifans travels deeper into Marks' world of dope, dealing and debauchery. Amongst the group are fine supporting efforts notably from David Thewlis who delivers the hilariously cranky IRA terrorist turned middle man Jim. Chloë Sevigny convinces as the overly supportive wife and mother Judy and Omid Djalili sparkles intermittently as the Pakistani pusher Saleem Malik. The film takes us through the tumultuous times of sex, drugs, betrayal, greed, prison and pot which Marks and his merry men navigate their way through against a lush backdrop of 70's pastiche. By the time we get to the stories conclusion we have great connections with the characters motives as a result of the superb cast and due to an impressive directorial mesh of humour and grit from Rose what's left is the best British film of the year to date. 8/10

    More
  • Deserving more

    tyo242010-10-13

    A film that in theory couldn't go wrong with some of the stories Howard has got in his arsenal. But the film was slightly off aim; mainly by concentrating more on his family life than action packed drug deals or comedy situations. Lets face it, the reason everyone wants to read and now watch about Marks is not his loyalty as a husband or devotion as a father. Director Bernard Rose just seemed to go the wrong way about telling the story of Mr Nice. With very dry arresting scenes which are better left played out in your head with Howard's narration or read in the book.The film does have its up points however with David Thewlis putting in a master class performance as crazy Irish IRA Jim McCann which left me half wanting the film to be all about him. Rhys Ifans played the part of Mr Nice with that particular Marks swagger which his fans know and love him for and pulls it off well. The film has pockets of comedy which helps numb the slow two hours of product, but at times it doesn't seem to know what it is a good witty British film to an ITV drama.

    More
  • To laugh. To cry. To care . . .

    Chris_Docker2010-06-24

    I hadn't read much about the film before seeing it. Afterwards, I'd say it is one part sexy, stoned, witty fun. One part light-hearted crime caper (almost, but not quite, getting too repetitive). And one part 'serious issues.' The film is very loosely inspired by the life of Howard Marks. Part One. Howard (Rhys Ifans) goes from a tiny school in Wales to become a successful Oxford graduate, consuming large amounts of marijuana on the way (plus a tiny bit of LSD, probably a lot of sex, and a small amount of alcohol). After Oxford, he gives up drugs to become a teacher. But when a pal is stranded trying to bring a car full of resin home, he kindly steps in and finds it rather lucrative. The difference between someone who smokes and someone he deals is, as he puts it, the first smokes all they have; whereas the second has more than they can humanly smoke. He's drawn into the Secret Service in passing, who like his ability to move between borders and attract ladies. I found Part One very funny. I have a slight problem with Rhys Ifans looking the same age at the beginning of the film as he does many years later, and after a fairly long stretch in prison. But it didn't distract me from enjoying it. His Welsh humour finds its mark, the comedic editing and timing is flawless, and for anyone over a certain age it has elements of a trip down memory lane. When David Thewlis chimes in (convincingly) as an IRA leader, Jim McCann, offering to supply planes to ferry the stuff over, heavyweight Irish hilarity meets Welsh wit. The head-on result is riotous, and yet never predictable or stilted. Add to that, my favourite fall-in-love-with-the-bad-guy actress, Ms Chloë Sevigny, and I am in for the ride. Part Two consists of several cat-and-mouse chases as they evade capture. I did wonder if they were going to keep it up till the end of the movie, but it gives me a chance to look out for a tiny cameo by king-of-the bad-boy directors himself, Mr Ken Russell. (Look carefully or you will miss him – in the background at one of the passport check sequences.) Part Three is when we start to see what the movie's serious undercurrent is, and it accordingly leaps in my estimation. Remember Steven Soderbergh's film, Traffic? If you came out of that thinking every sensible, well-supported argument on legalising marijuana had been made – and still there was no change in government policy – it's time to realise that rational argument is not going to change articles of faith. Can humour help? Mr Nice doesn't make moral judgements. But the natural facts speak for themselves. The main character and his associates never use hard drugs (stated emphatically). There are no perceptible harmful effects (other than Howard and friends enjoying what they do). There are considerable beneficial effects. Especially notable is the scene where a man discovers his partner being unfaithful. We expect violence. If they had been drinking alcohol – a drug with far more proved harmful effects – violence would almost inevitably followed. Instead, they get momentarily outraged: then share a joint. From my limited student experience of the dope-smoking 'scene' many years ago, this is an entirely plausible reaction. The association with 'organised crime' (here, the IRA in the form Jim McCann) is clearly a result of anti-drugs legislation, not the other way around. The misery inflicted is the emphatically the result of anti-drugs legislation, not the use of the drug (Sevigny especially comes into her element with some emotionally moving end-scenes. Yes, I did shed a tear. And Sevigny managed a very nice English accent to boot). The filmmakers must have wondered if smoking marijuana would be decriminalised before Mr Nice was released – but the UK government, in one of the many pre-election scandals, ignored the advice of its own experts and continued to include hash in the 'war on drugs.' As Soderbergh said years ago, "We can't have a frank discussion with our policymakers - if you're in the government or in law enforcement you cannot acknowledge that drugs are anything but inherently evil and morally wrong." Bottom line: there is too much money and jobs tied up in 'drugs enforcement' to legalise them. But I should stress that this is my 'reading' of the film. Someone opposed to decriminalisation might reach an entirely different conclusion, and from watching the very same film. On the downside, two hours of largely hash-based comedy could be very wearisome for anyone that hasn't had at least passing familiarity with the stuff. Other complaints might include Rhys Ifans not seeing him get his shirt off often enough (though I lost count of the number of times he did). Or whether Ms Sevigny used a stand-in for the brief times her shirt was off. On the plus side, it made me proud that Britain could turn out solid, constructive comedy. Rather than kitchen-sink drama based (as Ken Russell might say) on 'football in the Midlands.' Sometimes laughter, well done, can maybe reach places that common sense alone cannot reach.

    More
  • My 358th Review: Given the material this is not up to par

    intelearts2011-01-26

    Howard Marks' biography remains one of the more fascinating and erudite, and just plain gobsmaking pieces of the past 20 years. He captured the zeitgeist and his book is full of bathos, bravado, and even some pathos. The film does not capture this well. Shot in a very linear fashion we get a A-Z account of the life, but it suffers from that film biography sickness of making the events govern - and though we get those events quite frankly it gets pretty dull pretty quickly. Given the talent here they should have gone for laughs, and though there are some, they are few and far between. What we have ended up with is a mediocre drama about the relationship between the IRA and a drug dealer - and honestly, even though it is viewable, it's not exactly brilliant. If drugs are your thing I guess you may enjoy it. I was hoping for something less brash, less linear, and just more. The fault lies mainly in the script, the script is just not picking the superb moments that would have lifted this to another level, and is way too "and then this happens." Given the material this could have been an excellent film, it's just OK.

    More
  • Read the book and don't go any further....

    bisiker2011-03-09

    First and foremost, if you haven't read the book or seen the film. Then please read the book first. Then if you want to afterwards, watch the film. Now I fully appreciate that novels, films, plays etc are all different forms of art and ways of telling stories, and people shouldn't always compare a film to the original book so harshly as most do. But immediately two books spring to mind that the writer of the novel has done a fantastic job, and so has the film in adapting it, I speak of, 'No Country for Old Men' and 'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Cowards Robert Ford'. However, with 'Mr. Nice', the book is greatly written, it is funny, witty, heartwarming and a general entertaining easy read which is fantastic coming from such an intelligent man who doesn't have to prove himself by filling the novel with big clever words. But what he does do is fill it will the entirety of his life that makes for a fun and interesting read, that creates characters in your head you can picture so well and understand, and even at the end of wish you could of been apart of his life (for the good times anyway). Now the best way to describe what Bernard Rose did to the book to make the film was simply pick it up, and flick through it all in the that quick motion we can do with our thumb, letting the pages slide by and fan us as it goes. This is what the film felt like to me. It had no structure in terms of story to it, just episodes of the book he could pick out with his eyes as the pages flew past him and then shot it, and in the editing room tried to string them together to get some sort of story out it. Even if I hadn't read the book before and knew all that Rose had left out, I still wouldn't have connected with any of the characters on the screen or the story itself. You may say that a four hundred page book is difficult to squeeze into a two hour film, and that is fair enough, but I ask you to only look towards what Jackson and Walsh did for the LOTR. This then leads me to believe that Rose has no real writing skills and doesn't really no what a story is. Nor editing for that matter. But what annoyed me the most I think for this film is the total lack of knowledge towards the characters he was portraying on the film, now I may have read the book differently, and this is just my opinion, but I don't feel any of the characters were captured at all on the screen, especially Jim McCann, and every scene never went anywhere or made me feel anything towards them or the connection they should have with another. Like I said before, it just felt like Rose had took bits of the book out and tried stringing them together, giving us no real story or character arc. The only saving grace for this film for me was the fact that Rose remembered to put in a few of the good bits from the book itself, such as the funny scene in both book and film of when McCann and Marks are trying to talk to each other over the radio.

    More

Hot Search