It's always bothered me how they kill Fisher in this movie. His crime was.. being in debt to mobsters? Just like Slevin's dad?
Can't wait for the sequel where Fisher's son tapes a bag over Slevin's head. Or maybe Liu will when she realizes she ignored her friend's murder because of a silly conversation about James Bond.
Bond will always be Connery btw..
Yup spot on. I think they just don't care about these things, because they're happy with their overall movie idea. They literally couldn't give a *beep* about some of it's dumb points.
I think they said he was alone too, so nobody cared about him - that was there way of him supposedly being "ok" to kill.
Slevin's dad was not a degenerate gambler, Nick Fisher was. They concluded that he was a habitual loser who was eventually going to be killed anyway. He did seem to come off as a decent innocent guy, but maybe he did bad things to pay for his gambling addiction...
shareThey were talking about Fisher. If you cant gather that from their conversation it's no wonder you missed out on Nick Fisher being a child rapist too.
How they found that out is anyone's guess, or a coincidence, but I think it was added so people wouldn't complain about poor ol' Fisher. What about the girl? He tried to kill her, but she lived so it's ok?
I think his dad was a degenerate gambler anyway, I think he was made out to be that way too, how else do you know bookies like that, do you have a bookie? I guess degenerate is meant to mean "addict" when said before "gambler". I don't think he was an addict, he didn't know what the bookie was talking about with the "juice". But he was a degenerate POS who bet his life on a horse race.
Funny how many people miss that Nick Fisher raped some 14 year old girl, people forget that scene in the bathroom with the cop who killed the kid's mom, where he says "I know you're not Fisher because Fisher spent 8 years in Dade Correctional for forcing himself on a 14 year old cheerleader and they sent me a picture of him".
It was just thrown in there so people like you wouldn't complain about this gambler getting killed, but they forgot that idiots tend to have a short memory and 45 minutes is enough time to forget to make the connection between the death and the cop mentioning that about Fisher.
I guess its ironic you don't care that the same guy, Goodkat, tried to kill the girl, who is portrayed as innocent as can be, her crime was taking his picture. He thought he did kill her, isn't that just as bad? But since she lived it's cool with you? What about the Rabbi's son? He was a queer so that's ok too? We don't hear anything bad about either son, we don't like the black kid's smirk as he exits the hotel so it's ok he is murdered? The elevator man? Who might not be a bad guy gets 4 in the mid-section for operating the elevator and being on surveillance trying to make a couple bucks working for a bad guy to support his family? Maybe.
But poor Nick Fisher, the degenerate gambling child rapist everyone is in an uproar about. Hopefully you guys all skip out on voting as much as you do on paying attention.
Haha you are something else.
shareIndeed. A well thought out and pwning retort.
shareEasy, tiger! It's FICTION!! They can butcher children, rape gay, Jewish, nuns, whatever. Fiction doesn't have to be PC.
I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!
So Goodkat killing the innocent poor nurse for taking his picture is not even worth mentioning to these PC guys, but poor old Nick Fisher was all over this board with cries of an inequitable story.
Naw, sir.... I'm on your side. I think the PC is BS.
I was just reflecting on the IRONY of all these people --the OP included-- remarking about how poor old "Nick fisher" was killed when his ONLY crime was gambling.. Or if they had been paying attention Nick Fisher also liked little girls as an aside the cop says to Slevin in the bathroom. It's for the PC guys that Goodkat and Slevin only kill "Bad" guys. (the newspaper about the bookie behind "disappearing acts himself, etc)How could they possibly have known Nick Fisher was a rapist at one point? I simple background check I suppose but are these guys moral enough to do that after he already fits the bill for the perfect specimen for their "Kansas City Shuffle"? No..... It was added for the PC peeps.
I certainly do not think the people who made this movie gave a damn about the PC Thought Police (think GLAD and other Left-Wing groups like the name "Fag" being applied to Rabbi's kid"?). There is also no question, Nick Fisher was worse then Henry's dad (liking little girls is why). That said, I really do not believe for one second Goodkat only killed bad people (he would have killed Lindsey if not for Henry/Slevin). In fact, there is no evidence that Goodkat ever did a decent thing in his life (except not killing Henry). The one thing I will say, is he is NOT as bad as "Boss", "Rabbi" Nick Fisher and the worst of the worst Brikowski. But not being as bad as them, does not qualify you for hero (or even anti-hero status). As a matter of fact, you can make an argument that only Murphy (Robert Forster), and Henry's mom, of characters who appeared in the movie for more then 2 minutes did not do anything wrong. That includes Lindsey, who chose to go away with Henry/Slevin, despite his crimes (its called being an Accessory After The Fact)). Yet, she of the major characters comes closest to being good.
Indeed, I agree with you but they did consciously decide to add the part about Nick Fisher being a rapist.... That was consciously added, for the benefit of PC or whining people on this board about him being killed for no reason other than for their "shuffle". It would have been simple just to say he got Nick Fisher's picture off his Drivers License / ID card... Think about it, or don't...
Whatever, it's just a movie, but it was a decision made to depict a sense of equilibrium of justice in the movie, you have to see that.
Does it look better that Fisher was a creep? Yes. But the makers of this movie did not care about this Board or the PC Thought Police. They went out of their way to limit the innocents as well and act as a mystery, which required not making the film predictable to the audience ( even the cop was shown to be the worst of all. Which no one saw coming). Keep in mind Slevin had no idea that he was a Degenerate until the cop told him. He was chosen because no one would miss him ( unlike Henry's Parents). That was important to him, because according to Henry Boss and Rabbi took everything he loved ( which of course we're his parents), so he did not want to do that to someone else. Of course, he does find love with Lucy ( you can tell he never thought she would go away with him). But at that point he had no one ( Mr. Goodkat included).
shareWhy do you think Slevin thought Lindsey wouldn't go away with him? I never got that impression at all. They both fell in love with each other very quickly.
He seems worried about her showing up at the end, but I took that as worried whether or not their plan to fake her death actually worked. Up until she shows up, he doesn't know if the plan was a success or not. Whether she is alive or dead he won't know until she shows up. Their plan was in no way a sure thing. This is how I took his worried demeanor at least.
Also, while it certainly helped that Fisher wouldn't be missed, they chose him because he "was the answer to a question".
"How do you get to two men that can't be gotten to?"
I never got the impression it was important to Slevin to kill someone who wasn't going to be missed. If anything, it just seems like an added bonus that it worked out that way. I can't picture Goodkat and Slevin coming across a name that gets Slevin in the door, but deciding against it because they researched him and found out the guy has kids or something like that.
"Keep in mind Slevin had no idea that he was a Degenerate until the cop told him."
Pretty sure Slevin already knew Nick was a degenerate. Nick was in debt to two different bookies who worked for serious crime bosses. Slevin and Goodkat already knew this about him. Goodkat even finds him at the station ready to book it out of there, most likely because he owes a lot of money to the kind of men you do not want to owe the smallest amount of money to.
Just my take.
What makes Fisher a degenerate is not a gambling problem, but playing around with 14 year old girls. As far as killing him or anyone like that is concerned, I doubt that Goodkat would care who he killed but Slevin would. Why? Because he does not want to put another kid through what he went through. The reason why Slevin had to be worried about her going with him was he barely knew her and the one thing he had learned during all the years he spent with Goodkat, was not to trust anyone. There are all kinds of scenarios he has to consider ( turning him ( and Goodkat) to the cops is just one).
shareUmmm no...? The hit was NOT ordered on Max and his family because he was in debt to mobsters. How so many people apparently came to that conclusion baffles me.
The Boss and the Rabbi fixed the horse race for themselves. So they could make money. When they found out that Max bet on their fixed race, they did not like that, amd decided to make an example out of Max, so that no one else would ever do what Max did. It had nothing to do with the money that Max then owed them.
So many come to that conclusion because the script made it seem like that was a part of the issue. The Boss and Rabbi fixed the race, but the horse died, so they did not cash in on their fix. Slevin's dad comes out to the parking lot, and one of the thugs says "how about covering that $20 large you just lost?"
Additionally, because Boss and Rabbi were up'n'comers looking to make a name for themselves, this guy owing that money made a good candidate to make an example of him. And wacking Danny Aiello's character was likely for offering the credit on the bet to a guy they couldn't squeeze for the money.
-----------------------------------------
Trying real hard to be the shepherd.
The Boss and the Rabbi did not fix the race. They were unhappy when they found out that someone had bet money through them on a race that was fixed, so they decided to make an example out of those involved. Betting them on a fixed race is basically trying to steal their money, that's why an example was to be made.
"But when The Rabbi and The Boss
find out the fix is in, well, they are the opposite of happy. Word comes down
an example is to be made."
Indeed, and the bookie was killed too, the original one who made the bet for "Slevin's" dad.
shareLets be real here. They killed Nick Fisher for no good reason. They said they needed a body, but why not heist one from the mourge? Why not keep him out of his apartment somehow that doesn't involve murdering him? The characters, and writers, did it for convience.
And they didnt choose him because he was a loser. That was a justification and a really poor one. Who actually believes a loser deserves to die? They choose him because he was deep in the red on both books. That was the only qualifications they needed. You could say anyone in the books was a loser.
Most importantly, you can say he wasn't innocent because Nick raped a minor, but they did not know that. For all they knew, he could have been a good person in some way with a family, but had a terrible gambling addiction. They sacfrificed him for their vengence. They are hypocrites.
The story isn't about doing what is right. It was never about being better than them. They killed their kids to get to them. Did they deserve to die because of the actions of their fathers? The actions of Slevin were purely driven by hate, not any sense of justice or principles.