MovieChat Forums > Mr. Nice (2011) Discussion > What a let-down (spoilers)

What a let-down (spoilers)

posted 14 years ago by alexlarge
27 replies | jump to latest

Based on the book? Hardly. Jesus this film was all over the place. It certainly wasn't a very accurate movie version of the book, and I think it suffered terribly as a result. It could (and should) have been a thrilling rollercoaster of an adventure story (as the book is) but the whole thing seemed uneven and rushed. Specifically....

The timeline was inaccurate and shonky as hell. Random examples - he's shown lying in bed with a pregnant Judy before faking his abduction when in reality he met her about a year after he went on the run (and he didn't fake his abduction from his parents' house either). Judy being extradited to America - never happened.

Massive chunks of the story missing - most heinously of all, the huge amount of time he spent in Hong Kong and Bangkok organising deals in the 1980s - it's one of the most interesting and entertaining sections of the book and was completely ignored.

Not even a mention of the dozens of aliases and disguises he went through while on the run.

Characters' dialogue interposed - are we really expected to believe his Pakistani connection spoke all the cockney actually spoken by Marks' cockney right-hand man (who was also never shown in the movie)?

No mention of Lord Moynihan, who befriended and then betrayed Marks to the DEA.

I'm surprised Marks himself professes to be happy with this film when Rose has taken such blatant liberties with his life story. It's a story that's been raked over in at least three books - it's not hard to get it right, surely?

In short, if you're a fan of Mr Nice (the book) prepare to be let down by Mr Nice (the movie). It's a crying shame that such a great true-life adventure story has been given such a terrible treatment.

[–] britwrit 14 years ago

I didn't read the book but I was disappointed. How do you have a film about international drug smuggling - with the IRA, DEA and MI6 involved - and have it so tedious?

[–] alexlarge 14 years ago

God knows, but they made a pig's ear of it, that's for sure.

If you read the book you'll be even more baffled as to why they made the film this way. People might argue you can't cram 30 years into two and a bit hours but they managed it perfectly with Goodfellas. This film was crying out for some onscreen caption showing the years and more voiceover to move the story along. Yeah they're cliched movie techniques but they work for a reason.

This film is a waste of a great story.

[–] britwrit 14 years ago

Cool. Thanks. I'll check out the book from my local library. If it only has Jim McCann, IRA revolutionary turned pornographer, it should be a fascinating read...

[–] alexlarge 14 years ago

There are loads more crazy and hilarious Jim McCann anecdotes in the book. For some reason, Rose chose to ignore most of them in favour of an incident in which he throws green smoke bombs at the cops which, as far as I'm aware, never happened and has been made up purely for the film.

It's that sort of thing that rankles with this movie - Rose has written stuff that never happened and left out far more interesting stuff that actually did happen.

[–] philipbain 14 years ago

Firstly, I have read the book many times over the years and have always adored it, if you havnt read it I would suggest you do. Secondly you have to appreciate that when any book is translated into a film it will always end up being an abridged and shuffled version of the book in order to work as a narrative for a film. Therefore I went to see Mr Nice with this in mind and was pleased with how the film turned out, yes I realise there are some factual issues and timeline issues, but in order for the film to flow and work it would be impossible to do a straight translation of the book. I have seen worse adaptions of a book and few better.

[–] saighton 13 years ago

I agree, I thought it was a bit strange that they moved through so many years so quickly without giving it a little context with at least the years and locations on screen.
I DID enjoy it though, it was pretty amusing in places, and the scene with the first car-load was pretty tense, and pretty crazy that he got it through unmolested.

[–] rockman69 14 years ago

Sorry mate but acording to the book Judy was extradited, Howard and Judy were in the same prison (north dade - Miami) Judy ended up having to plead guilty to somthing she didn't do in order to get back to the kids

[–] alexlarge 14 years ago

My apologies, you're absolutely correct.

That's what comes of watching it stoned and then shooting your mouth off on here....!

[–] rockman69 14 years ago

No worries man, I usually wouldn't say anything but have just litterally finnished readin the book for the 3rd time! Love the book but from what i've read bout the film i might just wait till its out on DVD and borrow it from someone!

Peace man

[–] alexlarge 14 years ago

Yeah, I'm gonna give it another go at home if I can find a moody dvd and see if it improves on second viewing. I was getting miffed watching it at the cinema cos of all the silly inaccuracies and it spoiled my enjoyment of it somewhat.

I still can't understand why he left out key characters like John Denbigh, Phil Sparrowhawk, and Moynihan though.

[–] soulthinker 13 years ago

Saw the movie in London and hope it comes to the States soon. I learn something every day and I will read the book.

[–] saighton 13 years ago

Hehe, I missed the first ten minutes or so for a certain reason - I was outside the cinema!

[–] mrinterzone 14 years ago

Oi mate, you're allowed to have you're opinion, fair enough. You're starting to sound like some disgruntled extra who got cut from the movie. Go back to watching Auf Weidersehen Pet and The Business you sad p***k

[–] lepunkdigitale 13 years ago

I saw Howard Marks live at a local venue, he was both charming, giving and an incredible story teller. But he also gave a small insight into the movie, complete with showing us the commercial before it was aired on television or in cinema screens. And in this insight he told the audience that the film was a 'moderate' adaptation of his book, and did take some liberties in changing the story slightly.

I understand why some things needed to be changed or moved around, or even left out, of the final piece now i have seen it. You couldn't have possible fitted everything in. Not in the slightest. I think the film concentrated perfectly on the main points, and yes there are a lot of great moments missing from the film. but if we'd been delivered these off-tangent parts of the story then we'd have been sat in the cinema for four hours plus.

I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Nice. I thought Rhys Ifans was superb, displaying his natural charm and coupling this with his sheer ability to take on a thought provoking characters and allow his audience to escape into each one respectively.

Not only that, but Howard Marks was the main consultant for the film. I think if anything had been too far from the truth he would have advised against changing it. After all, it comes across, as clear as day, how proud he is of his adventures when you see him perform live.

[–] fino-mufc 13 years ago

alexlarge.

I saw it with my Girlfriend last night, we're both big fans of the book & I wanted to post something about it here.

You are spot on !!

I always said that I would make a great TV series - because you could never cover the whole story in 2 hours.

If a decent TV company had made this (4x1hr episodes) it could have been superb, I don't even think Ifans (who was born to play Howard) was used to his best abilities - His acting was hammy in parts, The way they spliced him into 'stock footage' was frankly lazy & cheap, it's possible to make a film look like it was made in the 70's/80's 'The Bank Job' isn't the best film ever made - but you believed it was the 70's.

They got in wrong in so many ways - If you just went to 'See a film' you must have been sat there thinking "What's all the fuss about ? this guy is small fry" (because they never went into his operation, why not ? Take American Gangster or Blow as an example - you knew how big their operations were because you saw it on screen)

If you went because you're a fan of the book you sat there thinking "Hang on ? where's the depth ? Where's the trips to Asia ? Where's the travel agency ? Where's the movement of money (which is harder to move then drugs) ? Where's all the time on run when he'd run out of money them remember he had a bank account around the corner ?"

I'll try and forget it ever happened.

The last of the famous international Playboys

[–] alexlarge 13 years ago

Fino - you hit the nail on the head when you said they made him look like small fry. I watched this again on a flight a couple of days ago and they more or less condense his career into three deals - all the early deals with McCann into Ireland are shown as one big deal, his Columbian into Scotland is given a fleeting mention in one line of voiceover, and the speaker scam is shown as a one-off deal that goes wrong. All these deals had the potential for some great scenes of comedy and drama but they just didn't bother.

It's just weird. And you're right about the money laundering side of it too - that's covered in a handful of conversations with Lane and a bizarre (and improbable) scene where he empties a load of cash onto a desk in a bank's boardroom. No "suitcases of cash under the bed", no mad chases through the streets of Hong Kong, and no Balendo and his "chinese magic"!!!

[–] digweed 13 years ago

I still haven't been able to see this movie - there was one cinema in the south west showing it, and for one week only!

I am sad to read all the comments here - tbh, they are just confirming what I expected though. Having read my signed copy of the book many, many times, it would be hard for the greatest of film makers to make something that would meet my expectations.

Not sure if I want to see it now.... should I?

[–] YoureMyWifeNowDave 13 years ago

Granted, some of the situations in the book aren't included but I saw Howard live at the Ocean in Hackney a few years back. At the end of his show he sat on the edge of the stage and rolled a few whilst taking questions - one of the questions put to him was how much of the book is true. He smiled, chuckled and said that's for him to know.

You can't expect a man whose entire life consisted of distraction, falsehoods and going about things in a way not entirely considered cricket to just lay bare all the facts and figures, connections, contacts and comedy involved. I also expect that perhaps some of it is massively embellished, maybe where Howard didn't think it was quite exciting enough.

He's a very charismatic guy, i could listen to his voice all day and night, and i'd likely also believe every word he told me.

[–] Dali-Fan 13 years ago

Well, from what you're all on about, I guess I'm glad I saw the film first.

[–] busterbboy 13 years ago

you'remywifenowdave - I don't think it matters if it was embellished or not, but I'm surprised and disappointed that they left so much good stuff out of the film.
As some other posts have said, when in his peak as a drug dealer, his life was so crazy and complicated and this would have made the film much funnier and more compelling.
I remember being impressed by his statements in the book that he was never really interested in the money, just the crack (as it were) and he drove himself insane with the grotesquely complicated logistics of a global drug-smuggling operation. I believe he had a primitive device he could attach to a public phone to make it untraceable. BS or not, such details would give the film more depth and excitement.
I believe he also made it clear in the book that he was addicted to the adrenaline and the complications, and this didn't really come across very clearly in the film.
Also, the sheer scale of his operations. Exaggerated or not, it would have made a better film.

"It's not true, but it's the truth"

[–] scottdestructo 13 years ago

You can't expect a man whose entire life consisted of distraction, falsehoods and going about things in a way not entirely considered cricket to just lay bare all the facts and figures, connections, contacts and comedy involved. I also expect that perhaps some of it is massively embellished, maybe where Howard didn't think it was quite exciting enough.

True, but it would still have been more enjoyable had it been closer to the book, embellished facts or not, than the massively compromised result.

You've got red on you..

[–] scottdestructo 13 years ago

I agree, it was a wasted opportunity.

You've got red on you..

[–] busterbboy 13 years ago

A wasted opportunity - haha

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alexlarge 13 years ago

Rhys Ifans narrates the film.

Much of what Marks wrote in the book is backed up by documentary or anecdotal evidence.

[–] Gib11 12 years ago

I thought the film was great. I watched it yesterday and bought the book today so I'll let you know what i think once i've read it.

Not that you care lol.