Oh right, in Hollywood you're the bad guy if you use a racial slur. What a cuck movie.
I think it deserves best pic except for some heavy handed muh racism and muh land stuff and needing to break up the movie with Leo thinkin bout fields with Indians he fucked in it.
He killed the son because of a bad situation he found himself in. He didn't want it to happen that way.
He stole the money because he was fucked and needed to escape because Leo went bad on the deal he made with him.
he was also putting up resistance to following hugh the whole time, and wasn't listening to his squad leader, you could tell what he planned to do the minute he said he'd stay behind
He was obviously in the wrong for killing the son. He killed the son for essentially no reason at all.
That said if you believe he didn't do anything wrong, then you're complaining about a well written villain.
>because Leo went bad on the deal he made with him
Leo didn't make a deal with him though.
1. Leo maintained unbroken eye contact when he said blink.
2. He closed his eyes. He did not blink.
3. If he made a deal to be snuffed out, why was he grunt-screaming and contortions his face while Fitz was trying to suffocate him
4. He said at the end of the movie: "we had no deal"
Leo actually blinked very clearly and deliberately but no one in their right mind would think that sort of deal is valid because someone who is in Leos condition is not fit to take decisions like that. He had a weak moment, and you can clearly see he immediatly regrets it.
Do you have autism, or are just defending him because you're an edgelord?
He killed his son in cold blood. "Muh bad situation" isn't an excuse. You don't go from try to explain yourself to immediately stabbing someone unless you're clearly an immoral person.
Are there any movies made in the last 20 years that have a racist character who doesn't get killed, jailed or punished in some manner and ends up in a good place at the end without "redeeming" his racism?
>namecalling bc no argument
He killed his son in a panic because the son was flipping his shit like a chick. If he would have shut up for literally a second it would have been fine.
>le no argument poster meme
A good character, the Ron Weasley actor guy, also says racist shit about Indians and is shown consistently sympathetic. It was pretty much accurate for a bunch of fur traders to start spouting off epithets right after surviving an Indian attack.
Stop being perpetually triggered you /pol/ neckbeards
I'm not /pol/ I'm legitimately curious because making a character racist is flat out the easiest thing a screenwriter can do to make a character hated by the audience or to make the audience know they're a bad guy.
Well the character who later helps and bond with Leo and consistently demonstrates a moral compass gloats about how he's going to go "shoot some civilization into those savages".
Why do you literally watch any form of entertainment with human characters if you have an intrinsic inability to understand character motivations and follow narratives?
lel I understand why he wanted to leave but his decisions and problem solving ultimately boils down to him being an unreliable criminal who can not be trusted, has no morals or honour and who has no qualms murdering members in his own group for his own selfish reasons.
The fact that he was more like a real person rather than some cartoonish Hollywood villian was refreshingrefreshing and probably intentional. While obviously he commits amoral acts, the writers and directors repeatedly give the viewer chances to sympathize with him.
Nothing, thats the point of the movie, its a revenge flick but the bad guy isnt pure evil, sure he was a murderer and thief, but the point is that it could have been anyone, leo and hardy are just men.
>Hey bro, you need to stop calling for help or I'm gonna kill you
Fact of the matter is he murdered him.
>muh ad hominem ergo your argument is immediately invalid