MovieChat Forums > The Nice Guys (2016) Discussion > The kid violence and sex references were...

The kid violence and sex references were disturbing

posted 7 years ago by Dreamcatcher9000
36 replies | jump to latest

It's been a while since I saw the movie, but despite being just a mediocre movie, I remember how much I was disturbed with some stuff about the kids in the movie.

The one thing was Gosling's 11 (?) year old daughter being in that stripclub or whatever it was, and talking with the strippers in their changing room. I mean, ok, she's a kid, not even a teenager, and she's talking with naked women in a strip club?

The other was the violence towards her and a girlfriend of hers, at the scene they're in that house, and the bad guy comes in and beats the s--t out of them, and wants to kill them. He even throws her friend out of the window, smashing the glass. And this is not a thriller, which would be ok, it's supposed to be a COMEDY.
And even worst, that bad guy is played by Matt Bomer, who is a homosexual in real life. You'll say wtf does it matter, he's an actor playing a character, but I don't know, the combination of what he does in this scene and being not a random macho actor, but a sympathetic nice gay person who has kids in real life, makes it even worst.

And the most disturbing one was with that boy talking to Gosling and Crow, and says something about sucking their penis, meaning of course he's a boy prostitute. Ok, I get it, this world is not made by rainbows, these sad things exist. But why should we make fun of them? Why should we LAUGH watching a 10 year old boy asking from someone to suck his penis for money?

I don't remember whatever else happens, and I'm really not prudent when it comes to violence and sex among adults, but these kid scenes were really uncomfortable. I don't understand how could someone laugh with them. Again, they were not even teenagers, they were not 17-18 years old, they were KIDS.

[–] dakowill11 7 years ago

Uh, to be honest, I felt uncomfortable myself on a few occasions watching this film mostly when it involved the young children and sex (e.g. Bobby looking though the porno magazine as if about to fap and then finding Misty Mountains' naked corpse; the Kid on Bike who suggests exposing himself to Healy, March and Chet; Holly watching a porno and discussing anal sex with the Young Porn Queen, etc.). It disturbed me a little as it came across as if this was all "normal" to be exposed to such at that tender age. For me it definitely wasn't and I was a teen in the late 1980s-early 1990s. Then again I grew up in a devout Catholic family so I'll be the first to admit I probably had a sheltered childhood. And at the same I was clueless about the film's plot revolving around the porno industry as it was only on recommendation of my niece and her partner that I saw it.

[–] shobomil 7 years ago

the hollywood gay pedo agenda is getting desperate

[–] hov34-1 7 years ago

This is why the message boards are getting shut down. Nice job dicks.

[–] gunslinger818 7 years ago

I don't think either writer has kids. but I'm just guessing.

[–] Oliver-50 7 years ago

Maybe I'm leaping here, but there seemed to be a theme about children being exposed to sex and violence too early. Healy's opening narration talks about how "there's something wrong with kids these days; they know too much." The boy looking at the adult magazine and then seeing a fiery crash where a beaten woman dies. The 13 year-old girl in a relationship with the older man. Everything Holly is exposed to (and chooses to expose herself to). The boy on the bike offering to expose himself for $20. Chet being beaten. The girl being thrown through the window.

Yet, the young boy covers the porn star with a shirt as she's dying. Chet offers to help March and Healy for $20. Holly and her friend stand-up against a villian. Holly convinces Healy to not kill someone. I agree with Healy's initial narration; kids do know too much. I'm not saying whether I thought any or all of this was funny, profound, disturbing, good-writing, bad-writing... but it certainly seemed like there was more to it than just showing children in danger.

I know who I am! I'm the dude playing a dude disguised as another dude!

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 7 years ago

Nice troll post.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

[–] mh-newressistance 7 years ago

I bet that it was Shane Black's idea. He's definitely a pervert and a pedo.

[–] heelmaster2000 7 years ago

Ive seen worse.

[–] helenroscoe 7 years ago

Literally everything you said about every situation you mentioned is described wrong.

[–] emvan 7 years ago

What's actually disturbing is how you misremember a bunch of stuff happening that's far worse than what's actually in the movie.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

emvan

What's actually disturbing is how you misremember a bunch of stuff happening that's far worse than what's actually in the movie.

A BUNCH of stuff? Please, tell me. But first read my reply above to the other idiot. Maybe you should hang out together. So I confused asking them to suck their penises with let them see his (like this kid wouldn't blow them for a few bucks). That's all. Anything else?

[–] emvan 7 years ago

See my reply to your other reply, where even after re-watching the scene, your description of what's in the film and what's actually in the film are completely and disturbingly different.

There was no scene with naked strippers. The only nudity was in the opening sequence -- the picture of Misty Mountains in the magazine, and then her naked dead body. There is a scene at the big party at Sid the producer's mansion where Holly is with a porno actress who is trying to get her to watch her porno film, but Holly isn't interested.

John Boy does not beat the s*** out of the two girls. Nor does he want to kill them (unless in self defense). And why would you think that Holly threw her own friend out the window? That's the only violence done to either girl by the assassin.

So, yeah, the only thing you complained about that was remotely in the movie was Holly's friend being thrown through the window.Which was actually funny (simply because it was wholly unexpected, because in fact nothing had happened to either kid to that point ... and it implied that Holly's friend had done something aggressive enough to get thrown out of the way, which was also surprising).

There is indeed a constant theme in this movie about kids being exposed to sexuality at too early an age. That doesn't mean it endorses the idea. It's actually saying two things about it. With Holly, it's arguing that most kids are more adult than we give them credit for and we are too worried that they will be damaged by exposure to porn (at least the normal kind found in the 70's). With the kid who wants to be a porn star, it's showing that it's nevertheless not a good idea.

IOW, your kids are obviously better off not seeing this stuff than seeing it, but if they do see it, it's not anywhere near the big deal we might think it is. The kids are more resilient and are more level-headed than we think they are. You can make a pretty good argument that a parent making a real big deal of their kids having seen porn makes it more forbidden and attractive to them. It just backfires.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

Ok, I admit it. It's been some time since I saw this movie. I don't remember the plot. And English is not my first language. So I didn't get that this kid said that he showed his dick to that producer to get in a porn movie, I thought he meant he showed it to him because he asked him to.

But are you saying to me that at the end of that scene, the kid doesn't ask from Gosling and Crowe to show them his dick for 20 bucks? Even if he's joking (and we don't really know if he does), does he say it, yes or no? What if they said "yes"? He would run away scared?

And do you really want to convince me and yourself that this kid wouldn't do anything related to homosexual sex for money? Ok, no, the movie doesn't CLEARLY say that this kid would have sex for money (other than in a porn movie), but isn't it A BIT obvious that he wouldn't say "no"?

And lastly, at least we agree that it's a "HUMOROUS" scene about a 12-13 year old kid who wants to make money from some sort of SEXUAL activity (like playing in a porn movie),right? So, it's NOT disturbing? Do you have a 13 year old son? Did you watch this scene with him and laughed?

SOME things are sensitive. For me, and for other persons. Can you acknowledge that? And no, I don't have to have been raped when I was 10 by the priest of the church I was an altar boy to find this scene, and this movie in general, uncomfortable to watch, when it comes to kid scenes. You find this SICK? Goooood for you. Probably if I was jerking off when I was listening to that boy talking about showing his dick to adults would be more healthy.

The fascination that men have with other men's extraordinary equipment is a pretty common theme that has nothing to do with sexuality.

MEN to MEN. Not CHILDREN to MEN. You don't get the difference? Pity.

There is a scene at the big party at Sid the producer's mansion where Holly is with a porno actress who is trying to get her to watch her porno film, but Holly isn't interested.

I'm sure that if Holly said yes you would still find an excuse to defend the movie. You would say "comeee oooon, kids watch porn all the time, nothing wrong with that".
Still, WHY did the scriptwriters write a scene of a porn actress asking from a little girl, fresh out of elementary school, to watch a porn movie? And *I* am the one who is disturbed? Not them, nooooo, they're open-minded... What a funny scene, I was laughing so hard.

John Boy does not beat the s*** out of the two girls. Nor does he want to kill them (unless in self defense). And why would you think that Holly threw her own friend out the window? That's the only violence done to either girl by the assassin.

Ok, jeez, I made a mistake and said "she" instead of "he". Seriously, since you remember the movie so well, couldn't you understand that I made a mistake and I meant that HE threw her friend through the window?? Why would she throw her??
And second, like I said, I don't remember the plot so well, but I DO REMEMBER Matt Bomer getting into that house and being EXTREMELY VIOLENT towards these girls! Or at least Holy's friend, I don't remember what he did with Holy. Ok, seriously, are you s--ting me? Are you a troll? Or did you watch a "G" rated version of the movie? Because if you didn't see that cold blooded assassin character getting in that house with the intention to seriously harm (and I mean, KILL) whoever stood in his way, including little girls, then we definitely saw different movies. Or maybe that kind of violence is too gentle for you.

So, yeah, the only thing you complained about that was remotely in the movie was Holly's friend being thrown through the window.Which was actually funny

Not just funny, it was hy-ste-rical... You know what, I saw a movie once where a guy throws a baby from the 50th floor of a building. I'll send you the title when I find it, you'll love it.

And *I* am the disturbed one... Wow...

(simply because it was wholly unexpected, because in fact nothing had happened to either kid to that point ... and it implied that Holly's friend had done something aggressive enough to get thrown out of the way, which was also surprising).

Is that what your therapist told you to make you feel better? Dude, you like seeing guys beating up kids (in movies, at least). It's so simple. I have watched like 10,000 movies in my life, and I've never watched a scene like that, which is supposed (I guess?) to be funny. Except that other atrocity, "Kick Ass". No, I didn't like that movie either. You know why? Because I'm an abused disturbed sicko who doesn't find amusing the spectacle of a 13 year old girl killing so fiercely countless people. Yeah, psychos like me exist.

IOW, your kids are obviously better off not seeing this stuff than seeing it, but if they do see it, it's not anywhere near the big deal we might think it is. The kids are more resilient and are more level-headed than we think they are. You can make a pretty good argument that a parent making a real big deal of their kids having seen porn makes it more forbidden and attractive to them. It just backfires.

Being a 13 year old boy and wanted to see a Playboy or whatever, and generally, to see some BOOBS, is of course 100% normal, and you can make some innocent funny scenes out of it, like it has, so many times. But being a kid and wanting to make money by showing your dick to producers or to strangers for a few bucks is a toooootally different story.

Dude, did you like this movie? Did you have fun with those scenes? I'm 100% ok with that. You find me sick because I sensed some elements of a kid being exposed to homosexual sex (or just sex) to make money, and with the kid violence? Totally fine, I guess you know me better than I do. So I guess we're cool.

I'll send you the movie with those adults beating toddlers as soon as I find it. I just remembered that it also has a scene that one of them throws one to fire. Nooo, he didn't clearly intend to kill it of course (although he was an assassin), God forbid... It was self defense!

And I didn't say that this movie endorses kid porn. What I'm saying is that it presents it like it's a subject to make fun of. I don't find some things funny. Like making fun (in movies) of people who have cancer or being mentally disabled or whatever. It's low, and disturbing. For me and others.

[–] marie-soleil15 7 years ago

You're getting all this in the wrong way. How could you make all this I don't get it, it's a freaking movie this is the theme of the movie this is not real life. I don't understand what are you not getting... If it's was a movie about a child getting rape it's ok it's a movie about a child being rape that's it! and about your comment on the homosexual it's so wrong and stupid of your self to think that I wouldn't get involve in that conversation.

[–] Whatthecurtain? (33) 2 years ago

No one and I mean no one who has English as a second language says "jeez" since that is idiomatically middle American from the backwoods. Backwoods America 1950 at least.
And your sentence construction is typically Anerican English as a first language.