MovieChat Forums > Baluga > Replies
Baluga's Replies
He admires Putler and wants to atleast bask in his shadow if he can't be like him. Orange bloated idiot with a narcissistic disorder.
I mean Saddam was a dictator and war criminal. Atleast that time US toppled someone bad unlike now, when they're actively supporting someone terrible.
America drip-fed Ukraine support and then condioned it so as to not make Russia unhappy. Now they're haggling down Ukraine's outlook BEFORE any negotiations have even begun.
All because an orange fool has his head up any dictators ass that's gonna tell him he's a good boy. Trump wishes he could be what Putler is.
That he certainly is.
I'm not a Jew if that's what you're referring to, and i've lived long enough to have quite a few people slide the knife in my back over the years, wich weren't Jews either.
But you've already made up your mind👍 the rest is just you piling onto it.
Because the offspring religions Christianity and Islam saw them as competition to the new worldview that they had established. Once a long, historical discrimination has already been rooted it is easier for new ideologies to pick up & run with it.
Yeah it's inconceivable for these (maga)turds that sovreign countries should get to make their own decisions. The fact that Russia has attaked and/or destabilized multiple of it's neighbouring countries is ofcourse no expanding at, that is just fine and on par for the course.
It's exactly those countries outside of NATO that have gotten attacked by Russia -not Russia getting attacked but those inside of it.
Not really i mean i could just as easily point out that the name Westworld implies there's the gunslinger only.
That's true. But then at the same time it also detracts somewhat from Yul's robot. The walk, talk, stare everything that made him so uncanny are now really not all that essential parts when others malfunction anyway.
But wasn't it a given beforehand that the gunslinger is the one off? All the movies frontcover art certainly shows it and in the movie it's not exactly subtle either. He wouldn't have to kill the protagonist and the movie ends it could've transpired just as it did minus the other androids malfunctioning.
So i take it that you don't know yourself where you draw the line on who is white while simultaneously claiming that Pedro Pascal isn't. Because some guy "Nerdrotic" says so.
If he passes as white then why does it matter? That means his doing his job good. It's not like anyone else in the movie is a Roman citizen so i don't see why you need to get hung up on this specifically.
We don't really know down to the skincolor what a person looked like, even those that have busts of them remaining. Still it's unlikely that Macrinus was black as Denzel but i said that before.
On what basis do you draw the line on who is or isn't white? Chile is predominantly of European ancestry. Besides it's a FICTIONAL character so really it's for the director to decide who he is and how he looks. Even if he was a historical person you wouldn't know how he looked anyway.
A minority is just a group that there are few people of in a country so what does that have to do with anything? You do realize that you can be an minority ethnically in America and still white?
I think the cast bar Denzel perhaps paints a plausible picture of how these people might have looked and that you're seeing what you want to see. In the end that's why it's acting. Nobody was in Rome physically to give you an accurate, up to date representation of ANY of the things we see in the
movie our best guesses is all we have.
You'd be better off watching WWII movies where they could have consulted real veterans, watched real footage and complaining there.
I don't what the "white male reviewers" say but yeah, Macrinus wouldn't have been black, but he would've been dark-skinned and North African.
Someone like the guy playing Ravi might've fit better in that particular aspect - but Hollywood isn't a institute of historians doing the most accurate depictions for our education. Denzel Washington has a major pull factor it's not like you could just swap around top tier celebrities like that and get someone else.
I don't know about the "female warrior". It was only one woman, in a land where she and her husband already were foreigners. It's not like she had much of a fate without him.
BOTH protagonists were literally strong white men. Acasius was a disgruntled general not content with men's lives being wasted in conquest. Lucius was a warrior, gladiator, and rebel commander who constantly participated in battles and in the end, led his own legion towards a revolution. The movie also mythologizes Maximus a lot too.
How many legitimate cases of gun defense are there vs. the cases where someone got emboldened by the gun and used it, was jealoused and used it, was suicidal and used it... and so on (?)
Don't worry: your shitty, outdated, centuries years old amendment is here to stay regardless of wich party wins. Everything that is garbage with America is bi-partisan anyway.
Is that really woke? A female killer and lesbian at that is not what i would call a nice representation exactly. Also they never pushed the sexual orientation it was just there as a backdrop.
The movie was the opposite of woke if anything.
Well a mime tells a story through gestures. Art uses tools for violence and toys for gags so he's not really a mime, only mute. Besides clowns often don't talk either. He could look the part for either case but only fit the antics for one.
Yes Waingro killed that hooker and might've been a rapist but i don't think the crew knew that. They saw that he was trigger happy though and probably concluded that this man has issues that go beyond whatever they themselves might suffer from, doing what they do.
Perhaps the implication was that Waingro being the loose cannon might get himself in trouble "out there" and offer up information about them for a shorter sentence. Other than that i don't see how he would be dangerous towards them specifically. They might've needed to kill him off immediately before he does some stupid shit very soon and kills some random dude for saying the wrong thing.
But all things considered i still don't see why they couldn't off him after the score AND not do it outside a diner.
I think that Neil's anger just got the better of him: assaulting Waingro when he wasn't supposed to and rushing to finish the kill. Altough the other guys adapted pretty quickly positioning themselves as lookouts wich somewhat doesn't make sense to me because it all felt like Neil's decision. It would seem more reasonable than all agreeing to kill him in the parking lot beforehand.
We also see this in the end when Neil is out on a personal vendetta to hunt down Waingro. So i don't think danger/unpredictability was the deciding factor - Neil just didn't want to pay such a fuck up.
There was nothing indicating that Waingro was being suspicious at the diner. The crew could've not shown any reaction or just given token, toned down disagreement and finished him off elsewhere.
Even if Waingro was going his own way after the score and didn't have any personal relationship with the other guys they could've still called him for "another job" and baited him in that way.
Yet you lament the help to Ukraine. So wich one is it, should they have helped Chechnya too or neither of them? Also Chechnya is part of the Russian federation, small, located differently etc. But aside from all that it was a time where the Western world turned a blind eye in general to all the shit Russia was pulling when they shouldn't have. If a line was drawn way back Putler wouldn't have been embolden in the way he had become. Fat hog Merkel was sucking up to him geeting cheap gas etc.
No but Russia put it as a demand to end the war in Ukraine (among other insane things). It goes to show they never truly wanted to not be in this war. If Ukraine was NATO none of this would've happened.
The necessary treaties lol. Russia breaks all it's treaties they're not worth shit.
Oh really? "A US State Depatment bugaboo" that attacked Georgia, Romania, Chechnya 2x and Ukraine 2x? It wasn't the "US State Department" that made demands for NATO to expell it's eastern European members as a pre-requisite for the war to stop.
The fact is Russia has been hawkish for decades now towards what it considers it's sphere of influence and/or lost territories. If it wasn't for NATO we would've have more aggressions from the imperialist pussy federation, that will only attack when a country seems to be a walkover.
Yes we may certainly question the wars against Vietnam and Iraq. Like you said yourself:, Saddam was a major ass, dictator and aggressor in his own right, and USA never made claims on Iraqi territory. Right or wrong, it's far better than the pretext Putler ever had. A turd who bombed his own apartment buildings killing hundreds of people in order to justify a 2nd Chechen war.