Homicidal_Squirrel
Adventurer
Maybe it was contained in the parts that weren't written in the movie?in order to understand his developmnent over all three movies, yes all three movies are relevant
....but his development in part 1 is self contained
Maybe it was contained in the parts that weren't written in the movie?in order to understand his developmnent over all three movies, yes all three movies are relevant
....but his development in part 1 is self contained
.
Omerta is like the code of honor? Uh, NO. More like the real code of Chivalry (which is nothing like the popular victorian romantic delusions of gentlemanly conduct--Chivalry allows for rape and murder, so long as the victim is of a lower class).
I suppose it is possible that Omerta is as mis-represented in the movie as the public perception of Chivalry, or the code of Samurai as depicted in martial arts movies.
Maybe it was contained in the parts that weren't written in the movie?
Good side? What good side? Were we shown a good side? I don't remember any good side. I just remember a spoiled brat playboy. One who enjoyed all the benefits, then whined like a little Hctib when the consequences of his actions came back on him.
Funny thing about opinions: they are subjective.
I started watching the movie for entertainment. I didn't find it. I'm guessing HS felt the same, based on his previous posting history.
You seem to have found some enjoyment from the movie.
We didn't.
You assert merits that we didn't find.
Whether they were there are not is a matter of opinion.
To fully appriciate it, you need to see this documentary first.That is because Citizen Cane is actually a very boring movie, for all the praise and innovations it presented at the time.
Well, to be fair, it is objectively bad. Like I said, it is terrible writing, and none to little character development. Half the things they do make no sense. There isn't a reason to care for any of the characters. There is no moral dilemma for anyone to overcome. Pacing is pretty bad. For a movie that is supposed to take place over five years, there is little to show the passage of time.What I objected to was HS claiming it was objectively bad (and that is the claim HS has been making)
Alright, I'll admit that 'stupid' was the wrong word to use. So I'll amend my previous statement.and his/herfollowup position that people who like it are stupid. I am not saying you have to share my thoughts on the merits of the film.
So, I apologize for using the word 'stupid.' In fact, I'll readily admit that there are plenty of intelligent people that like really bad movies. It doesn't make them stupid. Better?
Hmmm... may this is where we are having this confusion. I'm not saying that you are incorrect for liking the movie. I'm just saying you are wrong when you say it is a good movie. Listen, there are plenty of bad movies that a lot of people like. That doesn't make the movies any good, though. But that doesn't mean they are incorrect for liking them.I was presenting these as a counter point to HS's position that is objectively a bad movie and that people who like it must be incorrect.