Interesting. So even though literally "shit" the impact is more like "damn".

BTW, if I want to track down the original was it also called "A pain in the ass" not that Brel won't be enough to let me google and IMDB it, but if anyone knows offhand without needing to look it up...

Interesting. So even though literally "shit" the impact is more like "damn".

See also "Bugger". Actually, come to think of it, that does translate at both levels to "a pain in the arse".

megan, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't "con" and all its derivatives also much milder in French than their literal translations?

BTW, if I want to track down the original was it also called "A pain in the ass" not that Brel won't be enough to let me google and IMDB it, but if anyone knows offhand without needing to look it up...

No idea if it was released here. I think IMDB has it as L'emmerdeur.

"Con" et al is very versatile. It can mean everything from stupid to *sshole/b*tch depending on context and tone. I'm not sure I would use either con or merde in front of my elderly aunts, but either could easily occur in the office or similar setting without people thinking twice about it.

Strega,

I meant for life in general. The motivation for the last half of the movie is clear, but why does he live life like he does? I get it is supposed to be part of the masculine mystery, but I would have liked a bit more emotional connection.

Well, I don't think you can connect to him emotionally. It's sort of about that. He lives life as he does because it functions, and he doesn't need anything else. I took him as sociopathic, basically. Not sadistic, but he’s a career criminal who lives in a world where other humans are inherently dangerous. I thought the "Want a toothpick?" line was funny because it revealed how unsocialized he is.

You get a few hints like that about him, and obviously the jacket (which I do think got too anvil-y). But when he tells Irene that the couple of days he spent with her & the kid were the best of his life? I'm was sure that was true. And I don't think he'd have gotten drawn into that relationship at all if it weren't for the kid. I was sort of speculating about his background during the movie, so I looked up the book to check my guesses. I just skimmed a bit but in the novella you do learn that his father was a burglar who used him for jobs when he was little, then his mother killed his father in front of him, and after a few years in a foster home he hit the road. So...yeah.

oh, well thanks for those details. I kind of wish that had been in the movie with brief flashbacks. but don't you also think that someone with a burglar for a father would have a basic distrust of people? Nevermind foster care. I would have appreciated more distrust on display earlier in the film.

Upon further reflection, I'm pretty impressed with the dedication to realism in Warrior. Obviously you are going to sacrifice some by casting actors who aren't fighters as your leads, but then I remembered they cast Amir Perets in a role with no fighting in it. I think he holds pads, and runs.

Amir? Most fucking terrifying man at the krav centre. The things he can do, the speed and flexibility with which he can do them? Scary as shit. Which just makes me figure that even more people who didn't have to turn out a big acting performance were there for authenticity in the local colour.

Has anyone ever seen The Group? I read the novel years ago and loved, although I don't remember why -- it might have been high school -- and I've never caught the movie before today.

Great cast -- Jessica Walter, Shirley Knight (who is lovely so young!), Hal Holbrook, Candice Bergen, Larry Hagman -- but it's supposed to be the 1930s, and they all look straight from the early 1960s. Very disappointing.

Read the book, never saw the movie.