MovieChat Forums > Baluga > Replies
Baluga's Replies
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Don't worry: your shitty, outdated, centuries years old amendment is here to stay regardless of wich party wins.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.
Helping Ukraine is the right thing to do. Russia is the most prominent threat not only for Ukraine but Europe as a whole, where there are NATO countries.
Zero. All of of them died for Putlers refusal to not invade a sovreign state.
Putler with his bridge-long tables and dopplegangers is the pussy that hides while Zelensky personally insisted on staying in an invaded country where dedicated assasination squads were out to get him.
Putler is the one syphooning billions with counless of mansions and golden toilets while you earn peanuts for being a regime bot. Dishonorable cunt!
No i don't do those things
I just couldn't take the monster seriously and the movie wasn't interesting anymore. It picked up again when we got to follow the old guy's shopping and visits and the whole revelation, but by then the movie was alrrady ending.
Yes. She isn't really my responsibility and given the profession i'm in i'm already exposed as it is. Why would i put my life at risk or compromise my anonymity for some random civilian? He literally ended up dead because of it.
It was exciting to find out just what kind of situation she had gotten herself into, the sense that "something is off" yet nothing obvious has happened. I loved how she was laying in bed at night and the door just opened!
The dungeon exploration was exciting aswell - until it turned out to be guarded by a grey, dark-dwelling monster. By the time she was trying to feed the captives it had gotten completely goofy and all the horror elements had fizzled out.
I finished the movie as a mere formality of watching through what i'd already started.
Nothing confirms that there needed to be a breaking point. And it still doesn't really explain what she would've done if she caught him...
Why is it plausible to have her come back? She's a murder survivor and decades have gone by. Now there's a new copycat killer on the loose and for some reason she has to return. Who does that anyway? She's not a reporter of any kind nor part of a federal agency or a local policeforce.
Aside from being a popular character why the hell would she get involved as a <i>person</i>?
I don't think it's neccessarily chronoligical based on that reason alone. He could still be different characters and find his clothes in only one of the movies. The fact remains that neither the adventures nor any of the characters he meet are set up in a way that there is continuity/history in regards to Blondie.
My take on it is that the clothes and mannerisms are the same because it's iconic and not to because it's the same guy. It's just a re-used personality.
Yes but that's my point. Since Eastwood meets different characters it would make sense that he's a different character aswell. It would've been cheap otherwise, the idea that a plot has recycled actors just come back with a new name.
When those 2 were different characters it automatically differentiated Eastwood aswell. It concluded that he's living different lives meeting different people. His lifestyle is different in all the movies.
But the most important factor i would say is what the actual script says. If it doesn't conclude continuity between Blondie 1, 2 & 3 then the assumption should be that there is none. There's nothing intertwining the adventures neither by Blondie nor anyone else around him.
No because in Taxi Driver he's atleast shown to be institutionalized and later alive. It would be ambiguous at best.
Here you have 2 different Lee Van Cleef and Gian Maria Volontè characters meeting Blondie, therefor it would only make sense that he too is a different person in each one of them. The fact that he dresses the same does feel unneccessary but it could've just been considered iconic and stayed at that, it doesn't have to be reason for a whole continuity in every aspect.
They are not the same person even though they share the same name and actor.