Bugsy Siegel was a known psychopathic thug, hence the name Bugsy, Beatty is way too much of a pretty boy to pull off this role. This film fell very flat and it all revolves around Warren Beatty poor performance. Beatty is a good actor but was the wrong choice in this film.
shareI think Warren Beatty suits the role. Who do you have in mind?
shareYes. He suited the part extremely well for me.
shareEmilio Estevez or Val Kilmer would've been good choices to play Bugsy, because they are both slightly loony.
shareI'm not to sure about Estevez or Kilmer. I think Richard Gere however would have done a good job.
"A real man would rather bow down to a strong woman than dominate a weak one"
Hold on. If you were producing BUGSY, you would have cast Emilio Estevez over Warren Beatty? Seriously?
Kilmer? Gere? ESTEVEZ!!?? Are you on crack? this is Bugsy we're talking about, not Mighty Ducks!! He and the others are hideous suggestions. Beatty was born for this role. He made it what it is. Ok sure I know he was kind of old at that point compared to the age the real Bugsy would have been, but sometimes in a biopic even though the portrayal isn't always totally acurate (dramatic and artistic licence is excusable) the main star can make the movie take on a life of it's own and make it a classic (like Armand Assante in 'Gotti'). And as for saying Beatty is too pretty, the real Bugsy apparently also had handsome good looks, and in this movie Beatty does not make Bugsy look all pretty boy-like, as he has that piercing evil stare and menacing demeanour that you just cannot buy. Personally I have not seen Beatty in anything else other than this and I'm not really interested in his other films, as he is legend enough in this.
shareI thought he was perfect and agree about the real Siegal being movie star handsome. He pulled off the psychopath - a man who could decorate his daughter's birthday cake while wearing a ridiculous chef's hat, and then later dare a backstabbing underling to blow his brains out - to a tee.
shareIt's been awhile since any replies, but for me, Beatty gave an excellant performance. When he went "over-the-top" it was as the character, not as an actor just chewing scenery to show off. Miscast? No. Although I could see Kevin Costner doing it well, too. Not many others, though.
"I can understand it, but I don't like it none!"--Cheyenne.
The real Bugsy was much more "pretty boy" than Beatty, IMO, and though they mention Bugsy's baby blue eyes a few times, I could never tell what color Beatty's eyes were throughout. Even in black-and-white pictures, the real Bugsy's baby blues are apparent.
shareEverybody sees people differently, but from some photos I've seen of the real Bugsy Siegel, he looks a lot to me like Michael Madsen of "Reservoir Dogs" fame. That movie was made only a year after "Bugsy"; Madsen was working.
But alas he wasn't a Big Name Star, and Warren Beatty himself produced Bugsy to showcase himself.
I thought Beatty was fine. We need to remember: his first really big hit(other than, maybe, Splendor in the Grass) was "Bonnie and Clyde," and Clyde Barrow was rather the romantic psycho killer gangster in that one, too...a very dangerous guy with a hair-trigger temper(recall when the captured Sheriff spits in Bonnie's face; Beatty goes as bugsy as...Bugsy.)
"Bugsy" also makes use of something that Pretty Warren rarely accentuated: his size. He is a tall, strapping man(played football in high school.) So, he was believable when he menaced guys and beat the crap out of them.
And yet: he still did that kinda goofy, kinda shy and "girlish" lovey-dovey stuff with Annette Bening as tough dame Virginia Hill. I'm not sure that "Beatty being Beatty" entirely worked in those scenes, but...he was a believable gangster psycho.
Just like in "Bonnie and Clyde."
[deleted]
[deleted]
Beatty is perfect for this role. Period. If you love and understand the casino business, this film, along with Casino, is both perfect, and an education. If you don’t, you waste my time.
share