MovieChat Forums > Costumer > Replies
Costumer's Replies
Ah, my apologies, then. I took your comment the wrong way.
I loved them both, but if I had to choose I would say Benny.
Its all going to depend on who you know and what you follow. I had no idea who the internet guy was. But I follow Ice Skating and the Olympics and Johnny Weir is very well known in those circles.
No one can know everyone. Other than Ice Skating I wouldn't know any athletes. I don't follow internet celebrities. That you or I don't know a particular celebrity doesn't mean they aren't well known in their circles and don't deserve their distinction in that area.
And I really hate the term has-been. Everyone cycles up and down. Just because a celebrity is not currently popular or is retired or semi-retired they still deserve the respect that earned in their own field.
I completely agree on your first paragraph. This has always bothered me. The boys were handcuffed and put into police vehicles. It is disingenuous to say they were not under arrest. Any reasonable person would think they were and, I believe, most courts would agree. The police cannot force someone into a car and take them away without either arresting them or executing a material witness warrant.
Even if they are convinced he is only a witness, he is completely within his right to demand a lawyer before questioning. If he is not under arrest the state doesn't have to supply one, but the witness has the right to require one. He would have to pay for it if he isn't under arrest, but he is still entitled to a lawyer if he demands one.
And if he isn't under arrest or being held under a material witness warrant, he has the right to leave at any time. They cannot force him to stay.
The situation was the Jesuits was specific. She certainly was not showing any deference.
The priest who was killed was not found in his rooms in the rectory. It was not a crime scene. She had no right to insist on going into his room or preventing anyone from taking anything from it. She had no right to threaten the priest who was collecting his papers or the woman who managed the rectory.
She certainly had a right to attempt to get a warrant on those papers as part of her investigation. Whether she could convince a judge to issue a warrant could go either way.
The compromise she worked out helped her find the clue she needed. And it had nothing to do with priestly misconduct, did it?
I completely agree that Hans and his crew are wonderfully drawn characters. They may have been evil but they were intriguing, fully conceived characters. While serving a common goal the henchmen were not just less sophisticated versions of their boss, Hans.
A film which is pitting good against evil often succeeds on the strength of the villains. Hans and his crew were some of the best I've ever seen.
I disagree. I see a lot of potential in Malcolm Bright (Tom Payne's character). How alike is he to his father? Is he faking empathy or does he really feel for the victims. And honestly, how many protagonists
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
have cut off a victim's hand to save them from dying? While we have seen similar shows, I think this one has a lot of originality in it. I'll be watching.
I think it is fairly common. Do the majority do so? Unlikely. But 10 to 25%? I would believe that. And seeing something alive that that they love, that they KNEW they would never see alive? I think that's a reasonable reaction.
Nor was there any indication Hans was planning to give the money to the "poor." He intended for his gang to become rich and he didn't care who he hurt or killed in the process. Yes, he was evil. He was in no way a Robin Hood.
People due react to thrilling and awe inspiring sights by crying. Just like some people cry when they are happy.
Nobody said the T Rex was blind. What they said was it was sensitive to movement and would tend not to notice something not moving.
Now, whether that is accurate is debatable. Many predators are more sensitive to movement than stillness. I doubt most are completely unaware of animals that stay still. However, I can believe they are going to be more attracted to moving animals.
>>>Oh, and Jackie Gleason too, the one who plays Uncle Fester in The Addams Family.<<<
I think you mean Jackie Coogan.
From what I have heard (I was only 3 when this came out) Charles Herbert was one of the most popular child actors of his day. Apparently William Castle (the director) really wanted him in the film; so much that he was offered top billing.
He was given top billing at the time.
A correction: The executioner and the head go together. The other ghost is the lion.
I'm going to make one other comment regarding Tarkin's saying Dantoine is too far away to make an effective demonstration. I never interpreted that as too far away to reach. I interpreted as too far from the "center" of the Empire for its destruction to be an effective lesson.
Assume for a moment an American Empire. (Please, no references to current politics). The runners of this Empire want to impress on its citizens that it has a weapon which can destroy any rebels.
So, is it effective to go out and destroy a small island somewhere in the South Pacific where no one can see it. Or does it make more sense to destroy New York, or Kansas City or some other major city in the Empire proper. The latter of course.
If that could be proved it could result in severe charges.
I haven't seen the video and have no interest in doing so. However, in fairness, minor accidents can cause major injuries. People have died from minor bumps on the head that most would say ouch to. Bones break for minor falls.
Her bones may be fragile, but it could just the way she fell or how her arm twisted. It isn't unheard-of.
Then there is nothing to move against. If the "camera" is focused on the field of stars, the ship would show no movement against that field. Against a closer object, asteroid, comet, planet, you would see them move.
If you are traveling within the Solar System, the stars are not going to "move" regardless of how fast you are moving. You are simply not traveling far enough for any discernible change in the star field.