I was on Norton's character's side: he planned everything, he made it possible, he hired Deniro and finds himself with a low pay, barely qualifying as a cut. What a partnership!
He was getting screwed, so he tried to turn the tables in his favor!
Whose side were you on?
Deniro's. Norton may have made the job possible, but he didn't plan everything, he just found out about the scepter. In fact, Norton's planning was quite inefficient. He originally told Deniro that there were no cameras when there was one at the beginning, he couldn't get past the security codes for the cameras without Deniro's contact and 50k that Deniro fronted, he disagreed with Deniro about staying on with his shift to avoid suspicion, and most importantly, Norton had no way to get the safe open. Deniro did the majority of the planning and work and then Norton tried screw everyone else over at the end because of his ego.
Is it even disclosed what Norton's cut was supposed to be? Deniro's only got larger when he wanted to walk.
Deniro side because he was the protagonist. If the movie was filmed from Norton's perspective then maybe I would cheer for him.
shareThat's exactly my point: it's a war amongst thieves, yet movie tries to make Norton (the antagonist) the bad guy in every way, but I can look past it and see that he tried only to defend himself against another thief that wanted to screw him out of his own heist.
The protagonist never does much, other than treat him with superiority and get in with his partner (Brando) to give Norton the lowest cut possible. At the end he wins because he has more experience and connection, but that doesn't make him the hero in my book.
"Screw him out of his own heist?"
Your thinking is muddy. They agreed to do the job, and agreed on what the split would be. When the job was done, Norton tried to screw over DeNiro. So instead of getting his agreed-upon cut, he got nothing.
How on earth do you figure Norton *wasn't* the "bad guy?"
As far as "hero," that's a concept w/no currency in this story. There are no heroes. . .this is a tale of criminals.
1- DeNiro is clearly a hero here, he's a noble criminal with a worthy goal to achieve (retirement, running a nice restaurant), as opposed to Norton who's portrayed as greedy and duplicitous.
2- But that's just the movie force feeding us with this version of facts, while if you look closer, Norton is NOT the bad guy: his plan is to redeem something its finders don't even know what it is, and are about to incinirate. So, he's actually saving this precious relic.
Then, he invites DeNiro to be his partner in the rescue, offering a fair share of the pay, so again not that bad of a guy.
3- Have you watched the movie? They agree on how to split the loot right away, but over time that goes from reasonable for Norton to "I'm totally getting screwed here". When he realizes this, he decides to take everything for himself and fuck his "partners".
1 - "a noble criminal"??? LMAO. He's a thief. As are the others. Period. Robbing people to retire and run a nice restaurant is hardly noble.
2 - Yes, the movie presents facts. Why you want to call them "a version" is baffling. And again: your assessment of "good guys" and "bad guys" makes no sense. . .the terms have no currency, in the context of this story. More accurate terms are "protagonist" and "antagonist."
3 - I own the movie. No idea where you're getting your ideas from, but again: they agreed to a certain split. Norton could've walked away at any time; he chose instead to try and cheat his partners. It's not complicated. . .you can try to apply some slanted interpretation to the events depicted, but it's pretty cut and dried.
No idea why you want force Norton into some square peg version of "relic savior." He's out for a payday, pure and simple.
I'm just pointing out what reality is like on the other side. The movie makes it so OBVIOUS that one is good, the other one is bad (him being bad is the reveal of the final act) but I find it quite forced.
DeNiro being a thief doesn't mean shit in terms of hero or not hero.
Infact, he's such a good HERO I would never consider him an antihero.
There are lots of thief heroes in narrative and in reality, this is clearly one of them, get a clue.
You're confused.
There's a difference between "hero" and "protagonist." It's not complicated; perhaps you should ask someone you know to help you w/the concept.
The movie sets up De Niro as the *protagonist.* He is by no means a hero. He's a thief.
These are well-defined terms. You seem to be having difficulty, but that in no way alters the fact.
As far as your "other side reality," the bottom line is that Norton, De Niro, and Brando's characters made a deal. . .and Norton tried to screw them, after the job was done. A stand-up, honorable (in your parlance, "heroic") person would insist on a bigger cut at the outset, or walk away from the deal. NOT lie to your partners, then go ahead with the job, then try to rob them and leave them with nothing.
Not complicated. If you don't get it, I really can't help you.
That is standard though. (What was the cut 60/40?) You need professional crimminals to move and find a buyer for such a unusual and hig profile object.
Try moving the piece on it your own , a good chance you would be caught/killed. You would want to be at least one step removed from the buyer.
No, Norton's cut was like 10% of the market value, the movie makes clear that Brando was gonna sell it for a price that was 10 times what Deniro was appraising their cut. They were screwing Norton big time, and he smelled it.
I understand he needed them, but it's his heist and they took over and wanted to give him peanuts.
Yeah that does seem low. In other good capers usually the new guy has to OK it with the criminal gang/mob that controls the territory. He usually gets around 25-50%.
I really wasn't rooting for either, just thought that it was a above average caper flick. Problem was both guys wanted to be in charge, which added to the movie tension nicely.