<PERSON>
They liked this movie back then. They gave it ten Academy Award nominations, <PERSON> gave it a four-star review. Meanwhile, you all are giving it a 3.3?!
Some explanations for why are intriguing to me.
1. "It's <PERSON> casting, they say. He doesn't seem like a murdering mobster." True, but he does seem like the most lecherous philanderer you've ever met, so that works.
2. "<PERSON> hairline." They had to do this. Otherwise, <PERSON> would look and act more alpha than <PERSON>.
3. "What is this movie's point?"
That's the one I think we should discuss. It does seem that "Bugsy" wants it all ways. It wants to denigrate Mr. <PERSON> a bit, showing his flaws and foibles, his hypocrisies too. Note that the title is making a dig at him. He hates being called <PERSON>. So why is the title pawning him?
But the movie wants us also to glory in this city-founder of Las Vegas. It takes cues from 1930s movies, as signaled early on, to show off its main characters as Movie Stars to be no less than adored. It doesn't matter if <PERSON> is cheating on his wife with a floozy movie star. 378
It also doesn't matter if he kills guys wantonly. It also doesn't matter if he's a lecher, hothead, fool, mobster, you name it.
No, he's handsome, and you should want to bang him. This straight-up is signaled all over the movie, a prime example being the scene where he forces a minion to oink like a pig. His mistress, listening, decides that he's no longer a terrible person but the hottest hunk you could ever procreate with. The way the movie's shot, it's obvious we should all feel this too.
He's also a great American entrepreneur, a visionary with the ultimate dream of fulfilling people's desires and catering to their wants. Now in a just society, he'd be called what he is -- a mobster. Most civilizations would be embarrassed by this guy. And in my view, entrepreneurship doesn't involve mobstering. Where Bugsy gets his money is, mostly at least, from illicit and illegal activities. But nevermind, the movie says, this guy is a visionary. And at heart, he's a hunky movie star, so stare away at those close shots of our handsome lead!
It's hard to decide if that's worse than the other thing: this movie wants to praise <PERSON> and <PERSON>'s monogamous relationship. Talk about a movie dream! The movie has a prescriptive mode only selectively, and the selectivity involves praising a guy who dumped his wife after sleeping around so much that he probably gave gonorrhea more chances to mutate than <PERSON>.
I will go back to your #1. The lead should've been <PERSON>. Well, <PERSON> was too old for the part. Who then? I don't know, but suave handsome likeable bro was the wrong pick. Give this movie to <PERSON> and <PERSON> and let's see what dark meanings they can come up with! (Oh wait ...) 698