MovieChat Forums > TheWhiteHotel
TheWhiteHotel (44)
Posts
Replies
I don't even know what this conversation is about so I'd have trouble inserting propaganda into it. Incredibly paranoid sounding reply...
You can tell me what you are talking about if you like. I'm not American if that helps. If you don't want to, that'll be fine too.
There's zero chance this will produce a fruitful discussion given your starting point but I am genuinely intrigued; what lunacy are you referring to? Say what you like about Biden but he's about the most middle-of-the-road politician you could possible imagine. Accusing him of lunacy is like calling brown bread an exotic foodstuff.
A friend of mine has just come back from Washington where he was staying with some inlaws. They're all apparently very nice people but all rabid republicans. After the midterm results they told my friend "well, at least the democrats won't have an excuse to riot. They always riot when they don't get the election result they want". Can you imagine, a Trump supporter said that unironically. That's what this question reminds me of.
Batman reference? I also like "I'm not only president of the hair club for men, I'm also a member."
It's not a plot hole. The answer is pretty much given in the movie. The penalties for drugs were much harsher than for most other forms of gangsterism and led to many more guys turning state witness to avoid them, making senior members like Paulie far more vulnerable to lengthy prison sentences than they would otherwise have been. Plus of course, people on drugs tend to be much less reliable so you do not want your guys doing them.
Hello ecarle, this happens to be the second post of yours that I have replied to today (the other being on the Nebraska board) but I am not stalking you, I promise!
I agree completely, when I first saw Wolf of Wall Street I clearly remember thinking Di Caprio could almost be Liotta. I am not American so I am not brilliant at the nuances of American accents, but they sound very similar to me, and as you say, even more than that, the tone and intonation of the two voices is uncannily similar and they both guide you somewhat gleefully through their own amoral, despicable but at times exciting and glamourous worlds. Scorsese's directorial style also contributes to the similarity of course and in some ways I think that these are the two films of his that are the most similar to each other.
I love both movies and could (and have) happily watch either multiple times. Goodfellas is more viscerally exciting (it is one of the best directed movies I have ever seen) but I get more power and nuance from the The Godfather (and Part 2). If I were to describe how I felt about each movie to a stranger I suspect they would come away with the idea that I like The Godfather more, and ultimately I think that is probably true.
Lecter, who is, for all his other defects, always depicted as a genius and an extraordinarily insightful psychologist/psychiatrist, specifically states in the movie that "Billy is not a transexual".
It is much harder (but certainly not impossible) to get a movie made today that is consciously racist, sexist, or otherwise conforms to or pushes a harmful stereotype, and rightly so. SOTL does not. That's not to say it would not anger some people, but it also attracted protests when it was released in 1991. The most powerful demographic in the world still includes many people who are racist, sexist or prejudiced in other ways. The idea that these people are unjustly suffering at the hands of political correctness, wokeness or whatever other uncodified umbrella term you want to use, is pretty difficult to sustain. The reason people who are considered "woke" are so seemingly visible/audible is that the world itself does not reflect their outlook and hence they feel the need to protest.
Adult son: "Did you love mom?"
Elderly father: "It never came up"
You might see him kill more people on screen or personally, but Michael is still responsible for more deaths. He's the head of the most powerful Mafia family in America for 30+ years. The Mafia's whole thing is to commit acts of violence for profit and to murder people who object. Michael's motivation is far worse than Indiana Jones'.
Plus, half the people that die having come into contact with Indiana Jones do so because they are involved in high speed chases and the like and die as a result of accidents or recklessness. Indiana Jones does not personally kill quite a lot of the people who die in those movies and if they weren't chasing after him for whatever reason (and let's not forget that according to the movies, the main reason these guys are trying to stop Indy is that they themselves are evil) they would not have died. So I'd still go with Michael, who chooses to be the head of a far-reaching criminal syndicate whose whole business operation is based on violence and murder.
I don't think he is responsible for more deaths. Besides, most of the people who Indy kills were Nazis or were forcing kidnapped children to work in a mine.
View all replies >