The Big Short trailer? No, it's Vice (2018)

northerncrane4 said:Not quite—it’s about the parallel editing with the dead heart. The intention seems to be suggesting that his decision effectively drained whatever little heart he had left. 🤷

Whatwhatwhat? I wasn't even waiting around for the end credits. 😵

I swear on everything, my gut was telling me there’d be one more twist coming while all those little clues were being dropped. 🥳

Your intuition is officially broken. 🙂

Nah, don't you dare turn it off; you have to see this scene.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:It seems like there might be a slight language barrier here, honestly.

"For sheep are stupid, and have to be driven. But goats are intelligent, and need to be led."

In plain English:

"Because sheep are mindless and need to be herded, whereas goats are smart and just need some guidance."

They need to be driven and led—to be precise. And what’s confusing you here? The New Testament is far more interested in those who need to be herded into the pen than those who stand alone. And those independent types? They just happen to be the personification of Satan.

northerncrane4 said:Not quite—it’s about the parallel editing with the dead heart. The intention seems to be suggesting that his decision effectively drained whatever little heart he had left. 🤷

Whatwhatwhat? I wasn't even waiting around for the end credits. 😵

I don't know, I didn't necessarily connect it to that specific situation—honestly, not at all—but rather to his entire track record of just being a general nightmare.

And man, if this whole thing with his daughters was supposed to be the "mic drop" moment, then I completely missed the mark.

I'm reading up on those two and that whole LGBT scandal mess right now. Give me a break. It’s like a hundred bucks for them to sit there and laugh about the whole thing over dinner. Both of them just milked the publicity, shoved themselves right into the spotlight, and used the chaos to fuel their political agendas and whatever else.

northerncrane4 said:Not if they're being forced into it by the idea itself.

That’s exactly my point regarding McKay's manufactured drama. It’s all just trivial—the way he sells Ford and Kissinger on the idea of fooling around on the White House lawn, or how he and the lady play Shakespeare while the maître d' offers them ways to bypass the Constitution. That isn't drama; it's just antics. Real drama within the opportunistic existence of Dick Cheney was either non-existent or tied up in legalities, so he settles for gags instead. We never actually witness Cheney's transformation from a certain kind of white trash turtle into a political mastermind—it happens entirely in the ellipses. Even those two meetings with Bush are, frankly, a total mess from a dramaturgical standpoint.

But that’s exactly what I asked—how exactly did he sacrifice his family by supporting one daughter while leaving the other practically untouched?

I mean, I guess you can't call an idea's didacticism a violation as long as we all have the choice to just walk out of the movie theater, right?

northerncrane4 said:Not if they're being forced into it by the idea itself.

That’s exactly my point regarding McKay's manufactured drama. It’s all just trivial—the way he sells Ford and Kissinger on the idea of fooling around on the White House lawn, or how he and the lady play Shakespeare while the maître d' offers them ways to bypass the Constitution. That isn't drama; it's just antics. Real drama within the opportunistic existence of Dick Cheney was either non-existent or tied up in legalities, so he settles for gags instead. We never actually witness Cheney's transformation from a certain kind of white trash turtle into a political mastermind—it happens entirely in the ellipses. Even those two meetings with Bush are, frankly, a total mess from a dramaturgical standpoint.

But that’s exactly what I asked—how exactly did he sacrifice his family by supporting one daughter while leaving the other practically untouched?

The Unitary Executive theory is basically the Holy Grail for McKay's version of Arthur. So, his character actually has some sort of quest going through the end of the film, whereas she kind of finishes her thing halfway through.

northerncrane4 said:Not if they're being forced into it by the idea itself.

That’s exactly my point regarding McKay's manufactured drama. It’s all just trivial—the way he sells Ford and Kissinger on the idea of fooling around on the White House lawn, or how he and the lady play Shakespeare while the maître d' offers them ways to bypass the Constitution. That isn't drama; it's just antics. Real drama within the opportunistic existence of Dick Cheney was either non-existent or tied up in legalities, so he settles for gags instead. We never actually witness Cheney's transformation from a certain kind of white trash turtle into a political mastermind—it happens entirely in the ellipses. Even those two meetings with Bush are, frankly, a total mess from a dramaturgical standpoint.

But that’s exactly what I asked—how exactly did he sacrifice his family by supporting one daughter while leaving the other practically untouched?

You realize that sounds exactly like Orange rhetoric, right? Like, if I don't personally see a problem, then maybe there isn't one.

quietdriver3 said:I mean, I guess you can't call an idea's didacticism a violation as long as we all have the choice to just walk out of the movie theater, right?

The Unitary Executive theory is basically the Holy Grail for McKay's version of Arthur. So, his character actually has some sort of quest going through the end of the film, whereas she kind of finishes her thing halfway through.

You realize that sounds exactly like Orange rhetoric, right? Like, if I don't personally see a problem, then maybe there isn't one.

The Orange guy, and Mary too.

The real issue here is that it’s damn hard to feel any sympathy for someone—in this case, Mary—who, up until this exact moment involving HER, has used that same exact rhetoric and that same level of hypocrisy just to score political points.

It’s not like she was some little girl sitting in the corner painting landscapes all day while her dad’s political games flew right over her head; she was an active participant and a helper in those very same power plays.
So, it was totally fine to follow whatever the hell he thought and shape opinions to fit his agenda just to get what they wanted. You know, like inventing a specific enemy nation—ideally one loaded with oil—because "Al-Qaeda" is way too abstract a concept for regular folks to actually grasp who they're supposedly fighting.

She was perfectly fine with tailoring her politics by telling people exactly what they wanted to hear just to hit her targets, even if it wasn't true, because otherwise, you lose your base.
That is, until that same logic was applied to something affecting HER personally, rather than just some anonymous group of people out there.

You're forgetting that she's a conservative Republican, and if she hadn't been born gay, she would have been singing the exact same tune about gay marriage in public. Because it wouldn't have touched HER.

If she had just been busy painting scenery while the rest of the family was digging through the dirt, maybe I’d have a different take on the whole situation.

Jesse Thomas7 said:The Orange guy, and Mary too.

The real issue here is that it’s damn hard to feel any sympathy for someone—in this case, Mary—who, up until this exact moment involving HER, has used that same exact rhetoric and that same level of hypocrisy just to score political points.

It’s not like she was some little girl sitting in the corner painting landscapes all day while her dad’s political games flew right over her head; she was an active participant and a helper in those very same power plays.
So, it was totally fine to follow whatever the hell he thought and shape opinions to fit his agenda just to get what they wanted. You know, like inventing a specific enemy nation—ideally one loaded with oil—because "Al-Qaeda" is way too abstract a concept for regular folks to actually grasp who they're supposedly fighting.

She was perfectly fine with tailoring her politics by telling people exactly what they wanted to hear just to hit her targets, even if it wasn't true, because otherwise, you lose your base.
That is, until that same logic was applied to something affecting HER personally, rather than just some anonymous group of people out there.

You're forgetting that she's a conservative Republican, and if she hadn't been born gay, she would have been singing the exact same tune about gay marriage in public. Because it wouldn't have touched HER.

If she had just been busy painting scenery while the rest of the family was digging through the dirt, maybe I’d have a different take on the whole situation.

But, look, a movie about Mary Cheney should definitely dive into that issue. That paradox with conservative gay people.

But this isn't that kind of movie. I can't really say it's entirely her fault just because she's young and doesn't have a major role outside of being a sacrificial lamb here. Based on what we see in the film, maybe she really was just painting landscapes and bickering with the elders at Sunday dinners. Who knows? I'm not claiming to know who the real Mary is.

This whole discussion started from the idea of how sad it is to sacrifice one daughter's lifestyle just so the other can gain more power, since nobody actually killed anyone. Yeah, true, but it's about a line that acted as the last defense against the total dehumanization of the main character. And then that line gets crossed just for a little extra influence.

northerncrane4 said:They need to be driven and led—to be precise. And what’s confusing you here? The New Testament is far more interested in those who need to be herded into the pen than those who stand alone. And those independent types? They just happen to be the personification of Satan.

So it's perfectly fine to lead them around because they're independent? 🙂 because they're autonomous.

Just tell me, what is the actual difference here? 😁

You sound exactly like a middle-aged coach trying way too hard to hide his gray hair by dyeing it jet black. 🙄 🙂

quietdriver3 said:But, look, a movie about Mary Cheney should definitely dive into that issue. That paradox with conservative gay people.

But this isn't that kind of movie. I can't really say it's entirely her fault just because she's young and doesn't have a major role outside of being a sacrificial lamb here. Based on what we see in the film, maybe she really was just painting landscapes and bickering with the elders at Sunday dinners. Who knows? I'm not claiming to know who the real Mary is.

This whole discussion started from the idea of how sad it is to sacrifice one daughter's lifestyle just so the other can gain more power, since nobody actually killed anyone. Yeah, true, but it's about a line that acted as the last defense against the total dehumanization of the main character. And then that line gets crossed just for a little extra influence.

Fair enough, I can agree that the film completely ignored that massive, non-negligible piece of the puzzle that would have fundamentally shifted the big picture. Without it, you could easily walk away thinking Mary is just some pure liberal angel trapped in a family that doesn't vibe with her (at least politically), but honestly, that's just the standard issue with most biopics.
As a viewer, it’s hard for you to unlearn what you already know, even when the director tries to stay silent about it. Even if you try your hardest to soak up nothing but the message the director wants to feed you—because hey, it's their movie and you intend to respect it—everything you know and everything they chose to omit keeps buzzing too loudly in your head to let you hear them clearly.
That’s why discussions around movies like this always end up revolving around whether something vital to the point and its timing is accurate, wrong, twisted, or just left out. It turns into these debates about why the author cut or changed a specific detail, and whether you're going to just roll with it or if the missing pieces will keep screaming at you.

For me, things were buzzing way too loud during that scene, so it didn't hit the effect the director (apparently) intended. For you, it did. 🙂

And that's totally fine.

The vibe of this movie is honestly pretty close to The Big Short; it’s got that same punchy storytelling style with a ton of creative, offbeat touches that keep things from ever feeling stale or boring
My only real gripes would be how the pacing drags toward that final scene—it feels like it's pulling in one direction without actually giving you any real closure or a solid explanation for why the lead character does what he does. It almost pivots into this weird, low-budget mockumentary style right at the end
Plus, I feel like they spent way too much time on the setup and his early moves before he even hit the White House. By the time the plot finally reaches the most interesting part, you might already be losing steam
That said, Bale was absolutely incredible—he played that "man behind the scenes" role with such calm, perfect precision. Carrell was great, and Rockwell was doing his usual thing, though Bush felt a bit too much like a caricature, and Amy Adams didn't really leave a lasting impression, but whatever
All in all, it's a super interesting and unconventional flick. It doesn't follow the typical biopic formula, and while it might not be one of those cult classics people talk about for decades, I'd still give it a solid 4/5

The acting was solid (especially Amy Adams) and those makeup effects were seriously top-tier, which is basically the first thing you notice about this flick. It honestly feels more like a caricature, some kind of Hollywood satire or whatever... As far as the actual plot goes, it’s just super banal, shallow, biased, and heavy-handed. I wouldn't even call this a biopic; it feels more like some propaganda piece inspired by Michael Moore. I mean, it did make me laugh a couple of times, though...
Bale's performance was leagues better than Malekova's, and Viggo totally outdid them both, but we all know who's actually getting the Oscar. In my book, it's totally undeserved.

Honestly, the movie felt pretty mid to me. There are definitely some bright spots—the makeup was solid, the casting worked, and the acting was on point—plus a few decent jokes here and there. But overall? It just felt thin. The subject matter they were trying to tackle didn't feel big enough to carry a full feature like this. You could’ve easily turned the core story into a tight 60-minute documentary that would've hit way harder without all the filler. Plus, it felt a bit too much like propaganda. Like, okay, the thesis is "Dick did this and that," but then what? The script didn't really do the heavy lifting to make that argument stick. I'm not saying it wasn't true, but if you're making a film like this, the whole thing relies on being truthful. If you start stretching the truth or pushing an agenda too hard, the whole concept falls apart. And honestly, it's nearly impossible to tell when the movie is just making stuff up or mocking people versus when it's actually shedding light on something the public doesn't know.

Personally, I'm really hoping McKay doesn't take that same chaotic, messy approach with his next project, Bad Blood, about that Holmes woman who scammed everyone with her company, Theranos.

The movie is just a total joke—a complete caricature. Honestly, the only things worth watching are Amy and Bale.

It’s a decent flick for a bit, but man, the constant hand-holding really bugs me. They just can't stop explaining things, which totally insults the audience.

Take an old classic like Oliver Stone’s JFK, for example. He didn't feel the need to pause and explain who Jack Ruby was, let alone Castro, Johnson, or Bobby Kennedy.

But here? They felt the need to spell out absolutely everything, like we’re all sitting there with zero clue what's going on.