TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

Thread: What have you watched lately?

  1. #2951
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    For the record though, in the novel (which is great by the way) there actually is an important storm near the second site, and it's a huge plot point in the book because during his long drive to it he's losing sun light each day without realizing it at first, and later without knowing which way to get out, and if he gets caught in the center he'll be stranded without power. Fortunately he works it out in time. It's left out in the movie except in one image in the driving montage you can see the storm in the background.

  2. #2952
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2008
    Location: on a mission to civilize
    -Now that works and makes sense, and also explains those giant Dust Devils in the background. Thanks, demagogue.

    -NV, it's rare for me to actually make it out to a theater, though my wife and I have been going on "dates" lately and have seen more films in the theater (and have had more BBQ brisket from this place in Old Town Lansing called 'Meat' with shots of really expensive whiskey) within the past two-months than we've seen in the past ten-years; we simply prefer to snuggle at home with homemade popcorn and real butter. Plus, I'm never too keen on a Scott film.

    ...and I can't watch a movie in the theater while just in my underwear.

  3. #2953
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Queue View Post
    ...and I can't watch a movie in the theater while just in my underwear.
    Not with that attitude you can't.

  4. #2954
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2004
    Location: Back Home
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    The problem is how much was left out of the documentary.
    Given how the documentary was made from a Steven Avery bias and I still felt unsure by the end doesn't make it easy to conclude one way or the other.

    Still, was a gripping watch - I binged it in 2 days.
    Well yeah, I was aware of some of his afterwards. Still, a lot of it boils down to painting him as an undesirable who probably did it rather than definitive proof beyond doubt.

    And I simply don't know what to do with anything said by Brendan, manipulated by the cops or his family? Who knows?

    As I say, it's almost impossible for anyone to know conclusively without some groundbreaking new evidence or discovery, and I think one of the lawyers echoes this when he says, when you can't be sure, which side do you err on?

  5. #2955
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    I agree that it's best to go with the err on the side of innocence thing, but then I think it's easy to have strong opinions based on the trial we saw. I just wish I could watch an unabridged version with less of the back and forths between the two defence lawyers weaving their narrative around it.

    Because let's face it - their whole skill set is taking the facts and putting them in the most favourable light possible for the defendant, which is what I think the documentary may have been.

  6. #2956
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Ireland
    Quote Originally Posted by Queue View Post
    -NV, it's rare for me to actually make it out to a theater, [...]

    Oh, I was just thinking of either digital streaming/download or blu-ray.

  7. #2957
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: I think I've been here
    It's been a few years, so last night I watched an old familiar again: Fight Club
    Of course it's still entertaining, but not as mind blowing as it seemed to my fragile younger self. And all that romanticism of founding a terrorist group has gone since everyone does it.
    Marla ist still sexy as hell though.

  8. #2958
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2008
    Location: on a mission to civilize
    I'm binge watching 80s music videos on Youtube.

    ...I had figured that by age of 45, I'd have a life. I guess I was wrong.

    You love the Heroin Chic, Kolya. I didn't realize Janeane Garofalo was slated to be Marla, but, according to her own account told during a recent interview, Edward Norton felt he didn't have any chemistry with her--though Wikipedia links to an article stating that she objected to the film's sexual content. I would have loved Janeane, and still find her oddly hot.
    Last edited by Queue; 15th Jan 2016 at 15:08.

  9. #2959
    Member
    Registered: Jun 1999
    Location: Procrastination, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    The problem is how much was left out of the documentary.
    Given how the documentary was made from a Steven Avery bias and I still felt unsure by the end doesn't make it easy to conclude one way or the other.

    Still, was a gripping watch - I binged it in 2 days.
    Most of that stuff has been countered in one way or another, for the sake of it. The sweat find wasn't sweat. Kratz said it was because the sample was too small to say it was blood, so sweat was assumed. But one theory is it was contamination from one of the investigators. The cuffs were pink fluffy sex shop ones that had a number of safety features.
    They actually don't know it was Avery who called those times (if memory serves), even though there's other things that suggest he might have liked her and been a bit of a creep.
    If you're going for a police planting evidence angle, the cops had the rifle for ages and could test fire it with ease and drop a shell or whatever in the garage. The match wasn't to that individual gun either. It was to distinguishing marks made by that make and model of rifle
    http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/...t-out-20160115

    Anyway, it's true leaving this stuff out doesn't help since now you have to have this war of words play out after. It's kind of hilarious. I'm torn on this sort of thing. I think the fiilmmakers said that stuff wasn't all that important at trial so they left it out. But now it can be made to seem so.

    What's also interesting is comparing this with something like Serial. Getting people to talk in that case was like pulling teeth. If they did they wouldn't be recorded. It was only when the show hit it big that some people came forward and just for one short interview or a quote. And that was months after. Baltimore is good at the low profile.
    By contrast Calumet county/Manitowoc law seems packed to the gills with people who can't wait to get in front of a camera or talk to the press. They just won't shut up.

  10. #2960
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Finally got around to watching Mad Max Fury Road. Thoughts:

    * Acting - Good
    * Action - Excellent
    * Story - Excellent (by Mad Max standards)

    Choice of Lead Character - Half half. He doesn't bring that much of a personality to the character really. Seems like a nearly wordless barbarian. Mel Gibson in-comparison added real personality and actually spoke a fair bit. So I'm half half on Tom Hardy's portrayal of the character.

    Still a very good movie though.

    8/10.

  11. #2961
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    My impression of that movie was summed up by the fact the speakers playing the sound muffled most dialog beyond recognition, and not only was that not a bad thing, I think it probably made it a better movie to watch, definitely with my father. It was a visual spectacle and didn't need to be any more or less.

  12. #2962
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2006
    Location: On the tip of your tongue.
    I quite liked the way Max was almost a secondary character. I think it sold him as a guy who really has no vested interest in the plot, instead being caught up in other people's problems just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  13. #2963
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2000
    Location: sup
    Quote Originally Posted by Fingernail View Post
    Well yeah, I was aware of some of his afterwards. Still, a lot of it boils down to painting him as an undesirable who probably did it rather than definitive proof beyond doubt.

    And I simply don't know what to do with anything said by Brendan, manipulated by the cops or his family? Who knows?

    As I say, it's almost impossible for anyone to know conclusively without some groundbreaking new evidence or discovery, and I think one of the lawyers echoes this when he says, when you can't be sure, which side do you err on?
    It's interesting because I think the documentary does a couple of things, one of them controversial:
    - the introduction effectively paints a picture of potential gross negligence and police misconduct
    - it also serves to diminish a series of crimes that Avery had committed prior to his wrongful conviction (for the record, this is the controversial one when you consider the last point)
    - it shows a significant volume of evidence, sometimes the same evidence repeatedly, that builds the defence's case
    - as has been demonstrated it neglects to provide evidence that paints a distinctly different shade to the proceedings that would prejudice the audience against Avery

    Ultimately I think even the documentary itself manages to be a proof of the point it makes about the problems created by bias and absolutism in the criminal justice system. People/media/jurors snap into judgement mode because that's what the system demands - it needs a right or wrong, a yes or no. Despite all the talk of "reasonable doubt", this is a clear case where it doesn't actually happen, either because the presumption of innocence is superceded by the 24 hour news cycle or society's blinkers prevent objective assessment of all the evidence.

    The documentary is so pro-Avery that I was firmly in Camp Avery until the closing statements were delivered. All of a sudden, the defence felt flimsy and circumstantial, not the prosecution. There felt like there was real heft in the delivery of the prosecution's closing statement that I couldn't reconcile with the prior presentation of evidence. Of course, this is because we didn't know a number of things, like Avery calling for Halbach to come out to take photos but put under his sister's name - why? Perhaps he knew that she was uncomfortable with him after the towel wearing incident... Or it could be more, remember she was receiving phone calls that her colleague said seemed to be upsetting her - who was this? The documentary presents this like it could be "someone else" but what if it was actually Avery? Whilst the testimony of a jailbird isn't necessarily going to be completely reliable, we are inherently guilty of a similar cognitive bias as the police and media if we utterly dismiss claims that Avery wanted to build a "torture dungeon to rape and murder women" given what happened on his property. Most damning of all perhaps is the physical evidence that clearly suggests that her body was definitely burned on site. The burn barrel had her belongings and the fire pit had bone fragments fused with car parts from the yard. Pretty conclusive.

    But what about the key and the tell tale blood spatters? These things stink! Surely given the history here and the fact that the Manitowoc police department were involved again - many of whom were in the firing line of a civil case set to cost the State millions and to lose their jobs - means that we should be considering every possibility that Avery is innocent?

    Sure. My question is - why can't there be two stories here? Why is it an absolute?

    What if Avery absolutely murdered Theresa Halbach but had managed to cover his tracks so well that it created exactly enough reasonable doubt that the police felt he might actually get off. Even Avery's lawyer said it, if police plant evidence they would do it to people who they think did it... Maybe that's what happened here. They planted the key and the blood to ensure there was no reasonable doubt. Is that wrong? Absolutely. But it would be even worse if Avery did do it and the lawyers uncovered the evidence to show that the police planted the blood and a murderer walked free under the guise of innocence. I only shudder to think of the feeling of power that could create in a murderous psychology...

    I might be hoping for too much, but it would be pretty amazing if Netflix did a bait and switch, producing a season 2 from the completely different perspective - that of the pro-State camp. I'd like to hear a retelling of Avery's youth that doesn't downplay the cruel torture and murder of an animal as "being a stupid kid", that shows a man who escalated from B&E to running a woman off a road with a gun and also had accusations of sexual impropriety made against him. This would also reveal the crucial pieces of evidence above that may paint the case in the complete reverse of season 1 and by doing so again highlight the dangers of the criminal justice system, too focussed on being right and not focussed on uncovering the truth and trying to get effective solutions to the real problems underlying the crimes rather than chucking people in cells for 60 years.

  14. #2964
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Rounding out my Linklater trip with Bernie. Gay Christian mortician is impossibly beloved by town even when his demons overcome him. I'll give Jack Black credit for taking a ridiculous character, milking how ridiculous he was to very funny effect, while still being completely true and respectful to him. It's a real person, and I have to think he had to have loved JB's portrayal. But the guy was so genuine and genuinely good at heart.

    Aside from that, this movie again confirms that Linklater has distilled the spiritual essence of life in Texas down to every drawled syllable. (I'm a Texan far from home, so that's why it strikes me.)

  15. #2965
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Scots Taffer View Post
    What if Avery absolutely murdered Theresa Halbach but had managed to cover his tracks so well that it created exactly enough reasonable doubt that the police felt he might actually get off. Even Avery's lawyer said it, if police plant evidence they would do it to people who they think did it... Maybe that's what happened here.
    This is something I kept coming back to, which is ironic since it was the defence's statements which got me to thinking it.

  16. #2966
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Scots Taffer View Post
    But it would be even worse if Avery did do it and the lawyers uncovered the evidence to show that the police planted the blood and a murderer walked free under the guise of innocence.
    Really? Cripes, the whole point of "presumed innocence" is that it's worse to convict the innocent than to fail to convict the guilty. Sure, cops are more likely to plant evidence on those they think are guilty anyway, but the system is set up to avoid simply convicting whomever the cops may be biased against. As much as possible...

  17. #2967
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2004
    Location: Back Home
    Yeah, that's what I meant when I said it's better to err on that side.

    The documentary is definitely biased, but it was probably made in mind of the fact that the media coverage up until then (whilst not familiar to me or many, I guess) was definitely anti-Avery in a hugely biased way, even prejudicing the jury pool.

    Scots, you mention the closing statements, but isn't it incredible for Ken Kratz to stand up and definitively state that this murder was committed by "One man. One", when he'd appear in court weeks later claiming than Brendan Dassey had also done it? Both sides will say anything to persuade the jury, I'm not absolving the defense of their bias either.

    And still no one has mentioned Brendan, who, however you look at it, is a victim of abuse either by his uncle and family or the system.

  18. #2968
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2000
    Location: sup
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Really? Cripes, the whole point of "presumed innocence" is that it's worse to convict the innocent than to fail to convict the guilty. Sure, cops are more likely to plant evidence on those they think are guilty anyway, but the system is set up to avoid simply convicting whomever the cops may be biased against. As much as possible...
    I'm speaking very specifically in this case, not generally as a principle. I know that's not how the law works.

    And yes, Fingernail, it is incredible, but I wanted to smash that smarmy fucker's face in from the first second I heard him speak so nothing surprises me.

  19. #2969
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Scots Taffer View Post
    I'm speaking very specifically in this case, not generally as a principle.
    That doesn't make the sentiment better; it makes it worse. In essense, it proves the point. We have laws precisely to avoid people throwing the principles out when it suits them.

  20. #2970
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2000
    Location: sup
    Yeah, I was being a biased human being when I said that. We can focus on that one statement all day if you like, I think I raised a heap of other general issues though.

  21. #2971
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2004
    Location: Back Home
    Quote Originally Posted by Scots Taffer View Post
    And yes, Fingernail, it is incredible, but I wanted to smash that smarmy fucker's face in from the first second I heard him speak so nothing surprises me.
    Something about that tiny moustache, high voice and the way he'd pause whilst describing the brutal circumstances of Teresa's murder in order to give each gruesome detail its maximum impact.

    Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

  22. #2972
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    I'm a bit confused why people seem to assume there was reasonable doubt on the basis of a very biased documentary probably made exclusively to give this suggestion.

    I'm not saying there wasn't reasonable doubt, but assuming it on the basis of MaM is dubious.

  23. #2973
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Currently re-watching The Walking Dead. Up to season 2. Great stuff.

    And none done with all of the seasons of the US version of The Office. They really should have ended it when Steve Carrel left, as the last season is very meh.

  24. #2974
    Member
    Registered: Jun 1999
    Location: Procrastination, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    I'm a bit confused why people seem to assume there was reasonable doubt on the basis of a very biased documentary probably made exclusively to give this suggestion.

    I'm not saying there wasn't reasonable doubt, but assuming it on the basis of MaM is dubious.
    The usual things apply. They're backed by a somewhat reputable organisaton. One that doesn't want to get off on the wrong foot anyway. They don't appear to have gotten into much trouble after the fact (only sued for defamation I believe). And media obsessed DA's don't really offer a whole lot of damning evidence the show left out after the fact. A few things they probably should have made clearer perhaps and a couple of other details, but little of it answers the questions the series throws up.

    Shows like this tend to highlight more how often we - the public, the press - assume that there is no reasonable doubt and go along with the verdict (or even the mere accusation) without question.

  25. #2975
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Trouble is that the documentary isn't neutral - it starts with an assertion and then leaves a breadcrumb trail to lead the viewer to the same place.
    I had my doubts at the end. Things seemed awry at both ends. I'm not sure the documentary provides enough evidence to really allow for a clean conclusion.
    There was way too much of Avery proclaiming his innocence (like he'd do anything else in either situation) and his lawyers making foregone conclusions, which is kind of annoying as the makers said they cut a lot of the parts which shone an unfavourable light on Avery because of time constraints.

    I'm not calling it one way or the other, but I don't like the taste of it.

Page 119 of 205 FirstFirst ... 1969747984899499104109114115116117118119120121122123124129134139144149154159164169 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •