TCTTS said:

---

In no way, shape, or form is Perfidia's character - the most passionate of the revolutionaries - depicted as a "good guy." The second she's given the choice between family and her bull**** extremism, she cuts bait and runs, ultimately rats out her entire crew, and lives the rest of her life in misery and clear regret (as evident by the letter she writes to Willa). She is, in no uncertain terms, depicted as being in the wrong for all of this. To that end, her violent extremism is shown to be just as corrosive as Penn's violent extremism. Again, there is no other way to interpret this.

---

Her side are still the protagonists. That's like saying Han Solo isn't a protagonist because he's a smuggler. It's obvious who the baddies are in the movie, and who the good guys are.

If not; tell me which redeeming factors the wignat authoritarian government had.

I dont give 80% of people on either side of the political spectrum that much credit. People in this era want and need their bubbles for some bizarre reason.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

There were not protagonists and antagonists along political lines in this movie. They were all antagonists. Those that valued family were the protagonists.

Why are you hoping to have seen redeeming qualities of an authoritarian government being portrayed?

---

You're just making my argument for me. If one side has no redeeming features and the other side does, and they both have political motivations; then there is a protagonist; with clearly drawn political lines.

Who do you think the White Christian nationalist government was supposed to resemble? Who do you think the French 75 were supposed to resemble?

Give me a break. You lefties can't ever admit your propaganda is propaganda.

---

The only "protagonists" on the side of the revolutionaries are Bob and Willa. Everyone else is accessory and no one outside of those two were shown to have "redeeming qualities," save for del Toro's character, who isn't part of the French 75 (and never resorts to violence himself). Every other prominent member is "punished" thematically (if not narratively) for their actions, in way or another, full stop. Again, the movie's true dividing line isn't liberal revolutionaries vs conservative fascists. It's those who choose family over violent ideology and those who don't. That's it and that's all. If you insist on anything else, you're either incapable of understanding theme/nuance or just looking for reasons to ***** on the internet.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

There were not protagonists and antagonists along political lines in this movie. They were all antagonists.

---

No one on the left or right is going to see it that way, even if that was the intention (it wasn't).

---

So basically your argument is that we need to censor art because of morons. Got it.

captkirk said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

In no way, shape, or form is Perfidia's character - the most passionate of the revolutionaries - depicted as a "good guy." The second she's given the choice between family and her bull**** extremism, she cuts bait and runs, ultimately rats out her entire crew, and lives the rest of her life in misery and clear regret (as evident by the letter she writes to Willa). She is, in no uncertain terms, depicted as being in the wrong for all of this. To that end, her violent extremism is shown to be just as corrosive as Penn's violent extremism. Again, there is no other way to interpret this.

---

"Both sides"

---

Are you just typing random ****/talking points now? Because this doesn't even make sense in response to my post.

captkirk said:

---

They spent well over $250 million on this movie between production and marketing. They are going to lose their asses.

---

If/when it wins Best Picture (along with any other likely Oscars), it won't matter how much they spent on it. That kind of press/prestige is worth every penny to a studio.

I'm not "digging" for anything. It's literally, undeniably the movie's thematic argument. Every narrative turn, every character arc, every last context clue, along with the final scene itself, ALL point to it. The movie's "math" in that regard is apparent to anyone with two eyes, two ears, and a brain, who isn't a biased, bad faith, politically obsessed complainer on the internet.

Me when I have to log into Google from a laptop I've used 1000 times pic.twitter.com/A9unJ29KmV

— Erik Anderson (@awards_watch) September 27, 2025

Just got out and there is a lot to process. One thing is for sure though and that is Teyana Taylor deserves all of the awards that may come her way. Screen presence x 1000000000.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

In TC's review of Austin Powers, the main theme is that ultimately it isn't a good vs evil thing, but just the love between a father and son that keeps them together.

---

Not even remotely the same thing, but it's not surprising that you're incapable of grasping the difference.

Sea Speed said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

captkirk said:

---

They spent well over $250 million on this movie between production and marketing. They are going to lose their asses.

---

If/when it wins Best Picture (along with any other likely Oscars), it won't matter how much they spent on it. That kind of press/prestige is worth every penny to a studio.

---

Winning awards is more important than recouping their investment? I would think that the awards are less valuable every year as the normal attention span gets shorter and awards shows continue to lose their luster. Of course awards translate in to a boost in revenue, but I would think that boost has been getting smaller and smaller.

---

I never said "winning awards is more important than recouping their investment." I was simply making the point that the sting of losing money will be made less if the movie elevates the prestige of the studio. Between this, Sinners, Weapons, Dune, etc all being successful in their own ways (whether financially or in terms of praise/awards), Warner Bros can increasingly be a haven for auteur filmmakers. Being "filmmaker friendly" carries a lot of cache that can to financial success in myriad other ways.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Insulting people and being condescending is your calling card here man, for like...20 years. I don't really get into it with many people and I don't try to talk down to people either. You just dont know how to tell someone you differ with them without adding that they're dumb. It's your thing, which is actually funny.

---

The only people I'm condescending to are the same handful of people who are either never-ending *******s to me, or are clearly here just to rant and virtue signal, re: their political beliefs. Otherwise, I don't go around insulting people or their opinions who are simply posting/sharing, no matter how much I may disagree with them. Sure, I dole out the occasional friendly jab, but so does everyone else. Being condescending is "my thing" only toward those who are always negative, go out of their way to make everything political, and are generally miserable to engage with for those reasons and more. Whether you fit that bill is your decision, not mine.

Nope, that's now how this works.

When captkirk posts a video featuring two guys who are flat out, objectively wrong about certain parts of the movie - in ways in which they're clearly putting their political biases/virtue signaling over basic, common sense - being called "idiots" in response isn't unreasonable nor does it make me a bad person.

And when Quo Vadis? says things like "this will likely encourage mentally unstable people on the left towards revolutionary violence; likely entirely against white conservatives but that can't be helped. We can't run the country based off the mental instability of certain parts of the population," I can refute his points with well-argued points of my own, and laugh at such overblown nonsense in the process.

This idea that no one can call out dumb ideas for what they are when those ideas come from "your side" of the isle, while you never ever ever ever have issues with those who call out dumb ideas on the "side" opposite yours, is ridiculous. To that end, I'm not going to let you keep trying to turn this into some thing where I'm just going around being a bully or whatever for no reason, out of the blue.

Why is it that none of you will actually explain how the revolutionaries are "humanized" or are shown to have "redeeming qualities." You keep saying it, but you won't point to concrete examples, while continuing to ignore the more pertinent argument I've made multiple times now that they are ALL given their comeuppance regardless.

Every single one of them are punished narratively for their actions.

This is not something you can continue to ignore for the sake of your argument.

DiCaprio's character is the ONLY one rewarded in any way because he's the ONLY one who chooses family over violent extremism. Y'all KEEP ignoring this point and it's just insane to me why or how.

As for this…

"Hollywood productions demonizing / dehumanizing large swathes of our population are dangerous, not for viewers like you, but for people who have nothing to live for and want to go out with their own twisted sense of glory. That's why elements of this movie gave me pause."

… what in God's name are you talking about?

This. Didn't. Happen.

"Large swaths of our population" are NOT demonized or dehumanized in this movie. Like, not in any way. This is a blatant lie, to the point where I have to wonder how malicious your intentions are at this point.

A single, violent, hypocritical, unempathetic, status-obsessed egomaniac meathead is made to be the villain of this movie, while a small group of hilariously over-the-top racist/elitist Christmas-worshipers are shown to be pulling the strings. How the hell do any of those people represent "large swaths of our population" in the context of the movie?

Seriously, this is such looking-to-be-offended, looking-to-start-**** nonsense that I don't even know what to say. What is it about some of you that so desperately need movies like this to have such an evil agenda? Why do some of you get off so much on being such woe-is-us, desperate-to-be-persecuted pearl-clutchers?

PTA has been working on iterations of this movie for 20 years. And when he finally started filming it, Trump had been president again for TWO DAYS, and ICE as it currently operates under Trump wasn't even a thing yet (in terms of the ire it drew). Never mind that PTA wrote this iteration while Biden was president. Also, the release date was chosen years ago. That it came out in the political climate it did has nothing to do with PTA or Warner Bros, and delaying it last-minute would have cost them millions. But also... there was no reason to delay it in the first place because, again, this time for the cheap seats... it's not all the movie you keep insisting it is.

"Fighting against those enforcing immigration policies is made to look noble/cool…"

NO. IT'S. NOT.

Because they each ultimately get their comeuppance.

THAT is exactly what negates the noble/cool factor in the end.

A movie is not just its first act (where they *do* look noble/cool). A movie is THREE acts, the second and third of which they suffer the consequences of choosing the violent extremism of the first act.

That's the whole point!

Good Lord, how are you not getting this?

Again, would you complain that the depravity/fraud in the first half of The Wolf of Wall Street is made to look "noble/cool," when it's blatantly obvious that Scorsese spends the second half of the movie giving each and every character their comeuppance?

No.

So why do you keep doing it here?

This is, inarguably, a movie about choosing family above all. It features a POSITIVE message. Yet you refuse to admit as much because, for some insane reason, you find purpose/identity/satisfaction in perceived persecution and arguing in favor of your pre-established political biases on the internet.