MovieChat Forums > Bugsy (1991) Discussion > Film is grotesquely inaccurate

Film is grotesquely inaccurate


I reckon that Warren Beatty was definitely NOT a good choice to play Ben Siegel. Warren might have been handsome but I didn't think he was as dapper, suave, charasmatic, enigmatic as what the real Ben Siegel was. Warren didn't bring him to life in my opinion, and I thought his acting was untrue.

Secondly, the whole portrayal of Ben Siegel in Bugsy was a load of sh!t. I would never have viewed Bugsy Siegel like they viewed him in this film. For example, I think the film shows Bugsy to be a good guy deep down, somewhat sensitive, somewhat needy of women, a loving/caring guy to all his friends and family. Overall, the film makes us feel SORRY for Bugsy when his casino fails. The film makes us feel DEVASTATED that Virginia Hill lost her lover. The film makes us LOVE him all the more when he dies. Yet I am an avid reader of anything to do with Benjamin Siegel and personally, I think he wasn't a nice guy. Charasmatic yes, charming, yes - only when he wanted something. A nice guy? Hell no!!! Arrogant, sexist, ruthless. A rapist. A degrader of woman. Trigger Happy. Warren Beatty doesn't know Ben Siegel from a pile of sh!t and the film makers obviously weren't interested in doing a bio-epic. More like 'based on actual happenings with the use of some dead guy's name'.

Lastly, Annette Benning was amazing in this role. But she is beautiful. And when you see pictures of the real Virginia Hill, she is NOT beautiful.

This film is entertaining, but I wouldn't rate it so much as what I'd rate something like 'Capote'.

Roman Polanski: The original five foot pole you don't want to touch anyone with.

reply

I agree with you whole heartaly but still an entertaining movie

reply

it was never intended to be the most accurate of films. it was a glamorized, hollywood-ized view of his life. they took liberties, obviously. i am completely biased, as the film is my favorite of all time. ;)

reply

There are problems with this film.. but it depends on what you mean by "inaccurate". I think the film very accurately shows the look and feel of the times beautifullly. In fact, I can't remember a film that gives a more accurate look to the streets and places of old Los Angeles and Hollywood along with the films "Chinatown", "L.A. Confidential" and "The Aviator".

The problem I have with the film is that Warren Beatty was too old for the part and he looks like it. Despite his gangster activities, Bugsy was indeed charming, incredibly smart and very handsome, had great power in Hollywood... and was about 15 years younger than Beatty looks here. Bugsy's language was also not laced with all that profanity. Beatty seems to use the "F" word in every situation (even when it's not particularly appropriate) and in those days, you were considered extremely low class if you used profanity, much less the "F" word. It just wastn't done. Bugsy considered himself very high class and certainly mingled with the social elite. Today we are seeing that potty mouthed language is falling out of style and clearly dates this film to the early 90s when the "F" word was fashionable in film for shock value.

I do think the film has merit and style and for that, I think it's well worth seeing. Benning and the supporting cast were also very good.

reply

Warren Beatty gave one of the greatest performances of the last 100 years IMO. :)

<<<<Today we are seeing that potty mouthed language is falling out of style>>>>

Have you seen "The Departed??" ;)

repeated viewings
Apocalypto- 10/10
The Fountain- 10/10

reply

Today we are seeing that potty mouthed language is falling out of style and clearly dates this film to the early 90s when the "F" word was fashionable in film for shock value.

What a load of bologna this is. I myself don't like to cuss (you'll not see me really using cusswords at all in my posts unless I'm quoting a movie), but there are a lot of people I have met through my life (I'm going to be 34 in April) who cuss a lot. It certainly is something a politician on either side might not do in public but it is how a lot of people talk. Like I said I have met a lot of people through out my life who cussed. It certainly isn't that looked down upon as this poster years ago said. If I got a dollar everytime I heard someone cuss, I could probably buy a house to live in.

reply

Yes, I agree!

Bugsy did not build up The Flamingo from scratch - he bought an unfinished casiono/hotel. Virginia did not steal 2 miljon - more like 2,5 miljon and probably with Bugsys help. Bugsy did not die directly after the opening fiasko, he closed The Flamingo in January 1947 and re-opended it again in March 1947 and succedeed to make a profit of 250.000 in May 2007 and finally got killed in June 1947.

A lot of facts that the director could have included in the movie - and IMHO he could have cut the crap about the romantic Bugsy and made a more "brutal" movie about the real Bugsy.

/Affe

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Yeah, these are true. The Flamingo was already earning profits when Siegel was killed. Also, Virginia Hill committed suicide more than a decade after Bugsy's murder. The film did not indicate the year she killed herself, making it appear that her suicide had something to do with her relationship with Bugsy and the stolen money from the Flamingo.

reply

this is true. in the movie , it states she committed suicide 3 or 4 months after siegel's death, indicating she felt guilty about stealing the money. she actually remarried and didn't die until many years after. there is also no proof that siegel wasn't helping her steal or that she returned the money to lansky.

reply

I personally doubt that she stole any money.

Also, the scene where Bugsy is beating up Joe Adonis is fictional.
I don't know why they chose to make so many things up in this movie.

reply

I think Joe Adonis had a lot to do with sparing Virginia Hill from getting shot along with Bugsy in LA. I agree that Bugsy never beat up Joe A. to uphold Virginia's "honor".

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

reply

Just taking a guess here, but perhaps because IT’S A WORK OF FICTION?! While I COULD be wrong, and while pigs COULD fly, I’m not, and they don’t. It’s a movie. It’s not the Encyclopedia Britannica. In art, for example, in a movie, play or book, you have to lie in order to show the truth.

reply

Double post. Nothing to see here.

reply

Virginia Hill died in 1966. It's a shame because she had a son. I've seen her appearance before the Kefauver Commission and she looks like one tough, nasty woman, nothing like her portrayal in this movie.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

reply

i see your point.
Bugsy was a charasmatic psychopath in my opinion. He was charming and handsome and a cold-blooded killer.
Virginia Hill was no beauty but she was attractive.
Two excellent books to read about both of them are: We Only Kill Eachother and Bugy's Baby.
I think you might find them interesting.
the film was highly inaccurate--but it was worth watching in my opinion. Yes liberties were taken, but that's show biz I guess.



reply

Good film, despite the inaccuracies. But it did present Bugsy as a ruthless thug in the opening scene with the four shirts.

Yes, it can be very annoying when Hollywood takes liberties and purposely is inaccurate. Sadly, that's Hollywood.

reply

so true, I agree.




reply

Lets remember that James Toback wrote it and Toback is a writer who could find the good in someone who raped their mother and truly deplorable man who prides himself on being an intellectual post modernist.

reply


I'm sure you make a good point.
have no idea what i wrote. btw--and I write!
Look they wanted it to be a good vehicle for Beatty, that is Beatty did!
so I agree.



reply

[deleted]

of course you're right. it shouldn't (morally speaking) have been used as a vehicle to best present Beatty.
Although they did show psychotic aspects of him.
the relationship also with Hill is not accurate.
How many films are made that muddy the waters of reality?
most of them probably. is it right? nope. will it stop, i doubt it!
so I agree.



reply

Exactly! And to say he was the father of the strip is sickening. He didn't find the parcel of land in the setting Las Vegas sun to build a mighty resort. Are historians so far up their asses these days that they still believe the mob should be credited for the creation of the strip. Hello!, ever hear of El Rancho Vegas? Every hear of William Wilkerson? The in-accuracies of this movie make it mush. He was a sick human being and deserved to get wacked.

reply

Contrary to one of the above writers, Bugsy was shot while he WAS ON THE SOFA reading the newspaper. Not standing up and watching himself on the movie screen.

I remember a picture of him slumped on the sofa, after being shot.

Much of the inaccuracies in the film would not have arisen in this age with so much information on the internet. Any slight error would be pointed by viewers.

But back in 1991, there was no internet as we know it today, so the producers thought they can jerk us around with wrong information.

reply

To the OP, are you telling me there isn't a Santa Claus either. I am truly shocked, SHOCKED! that Hollywood would take liberties in a bio pic.

reply

[deleted]

I was more than a little disappointed with all the liberties taken with reality, but I must admit, Bugsy is one great cinematic achievement. Brilliant!

reply

At last! Someone with a brain. Yes, it is a wonderful movie; and, sort of like Cleopatra, it showed us the beginnings of a romance between its two talented and glamorous co-stars. I think that Warren Beatty is an under-appreciated asset in Hollywood’s Walk Of Fame. I mean: Reds? Bulworth? Bonny and Clyde? The remake of Heaven Can Wait? The man has solid bone fuses, not to mention being a solid swordsman a la Errol Flynn. Good movie, good leading man. Done.

reply