Last movie you watched

[Midvillian1322]

Tried watching Valerian and boy the dialogue was unwatchable. Visuals are nice but from the moment Valerian starts talking about being a bad boy I want him to die. Is the movie worth sticking out or does Dean Dehaam stay awfull throughout with dialogue that would be corny on a Soap opera

[Kirby101]

Alien Covenant. I liked it more than Prometheus, but then I didn't like Prometheus that much.
Until the end anyway, I hated the end.

[ed2962]

The Villainess. A Korean action flick from last year. Probably at least half if not 2/3rds of the plot was lifted from La Femme Nikita. Having said that it's a really well made rip-off at least. Well shot with very involving action scenes. The actors were pretty engaging. If you can get past the recycled plot elements, I'd recommend it for someone who likes action movies.

[ed2962]

Some unknown superhero movie about sci-fi jungle cat people based loosely on some kid's comic book. I enjoyed it. If it gets good word of mouth I suspect it'll probably break even.

[Midvillian1322]

Some unknown superhero movie about sci-fi jungle cat people based loosely on some kid's comic book. I enjoyed it. If it gets good word of mouth I suspect it'll probably break even.

I have no clue what your talking about but it's got my interest. Sounds Avatarish lol

[TomServofan]

Tried watching Valerian and boy the dialogue was unwatchable. Visuals are nice but from the moment Valerian starts talking about being a bad boy I want him to die. Is the movie worth sticking out or does Dean Dehaam stay awfull throughout with dialogue that would be corny on a Soap opera

What do you expect from the director of Leon aka The Professional, Nikita and Fifth Element?

[Kirby101]

What do you expect from the director of Leon aka The Professional, Nikita and Fifth Element?

Those were good, Valerian was not.

[Kirby101]

I have no clue what your talking about but it's got my interest. Sounds Avatarish lol

Here's a clue, said cat is black.

[Kirby101]

Tried watching Valerian and boy the dialogue was unwatchable. Visuals are nice but from the moment Valerian starts talking about being a bad boy I want him to die. Is the movie worth sticking out or does Dean Dehaam stay awfull throughout with dialogue that would be corny on a Soap opera

The visuals continue to be stunning, the two lead actors continue to be lame.

[Soubhagya]

Thor The Dark World: Had to see this as Thor 3 is quite important for Infinity War. Okay film. Nothing home to write about. Except for Tom Hiddleston as Loki. I still say he is the best villain in MCU. Its one thing to be good in a very good film. To brighten up the screen which was 'okayish' is something else. Some nice visuals and action. Good enough to watch once. I will rank it slightly above X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I don't hate that film. But despite some good moments here and there, there is a feeling of going through the motions. Now up to Thor 3 and then Infinity War.

[Vegan Daddy]

Blade of the Immortal(2017)

This was a lot of fun. I might check out the manga.

[Soubhagya]

12 Angry Men: Watched it for the second time. Love it even more. I can't think of a standout. A really special performance. A really special scene. But the whole film rocks. Terrific character work. Really engrossing watch.

I have a question for people who have watched it. I get that 'reasonable doubt' means they aren't 100% sure. But can't that be said for every kind of crime? Granted there are sufficient questions to say that the boy is 'possibly innocent' but at times it looked like they were stretching it. Or at least trying to stretch it. Isn't such a job meant for the cops/detectives? And what happens after that? If the jury says not guilty can a person go free?

[Melchior]

12 Angry Men: Watched it for the second time. Love it even more. I can't think of a standout. A really special performance. A really special scene. But the whole film rocks. Terrific character work. Really engrossing watch.

I have a question for people who have watched it. I get that 'reasonable doubt' means they aren't 100% sure. But can't that be said for every kind of crime? Granted there are sufficient questions to say that the boy is 'possibly innocent' but at times it looked like they were stretching it. Or at least trying to stretch it. Isn't such a job meant for the cops/detectives? And what happens after that? If the jury says not guilty can a person go free?

Yes, actually. US legal code states that the evidence and the arguments of the prosecution must hold up beyond reasonable doubt. At least for murder trials - the more sever the crime, the less doubt allowed to the prosecution. This is acknowledged to be subjective, which is why strong evidence and arguments are needed. Otherwise, you should vote not guilty. If everyone votes not guilty, the person is acquitted. They go free. If everyone votes guilty, the person is charged. The judge sentences them according to the law and their own judgement (which can be later overturned). If the jury cannot all agree, you have a hung jury. In that case, while the defendent is not found guilty or non-guilty, no verdict can be given. It is not quite letting them free, but unless the prosecution can present new evidence and convince the judicial department to retry the case, the person goes free. "Innocent until proven guilty".

What happened was that the 8th Juror felt that the evidence supplied was treated as solid rather than more circumstantial, and that there was not enough decent evidence to prove that it happened as the prosecution claimed. Could the kid have stabbed his dad? Yes. Did the prosecution prove it happened the way they said it did? That's what the 8th Juror was arguing against. The prosecution not only has to prove the crime occurred, but that the defendant performed the crime, and how the defendant did it. While the charge was plausible, the evidence supporting that had holes or other issues that the jurors could discover and identify, which made the entire thing suspect. Basically, all of the questions brought up during the play/movie should have been things the cops/detectives on the case had already researched, and should have addressed during the trial. They did not, thus the actual evidence became much more shaky, introducing the doubt. Thus the vote of "not guilty".

My last term of jury duty was actually a hung case. While there was no doubt in our minds that a crime had been committed, and that others had performed it, the actual defendent's active participation was not proven (basically, he was either a victim, or a willing dupe). Some of us thought he should have been aware enough to realize what was going on and that continuing to do what he was doing violated the law, while others thought the people not currently on trial managed to fool him into being an unknown accomplice.

I... took a lot of law and civil rights classes in high school and college? And lit?

[Soubhagya]

Yes, actually. US legal code states that the evidence and the arguments of the prosecution must hold up beyond reasonable doubt. At least for murder trials - the more sever the crime, the less doubt allowed to the prosecution. This is acknowledged to be subjective, which is why strong evidence and arguments are needed. Otherwise, you should vote not guilty. If everyone votes not guilty, the person is acquitted. They go free. If everyone votes guilty, the person is charged. The judge sentences them according to the law and their own judgement (which can be later overturned). If the jury cannot all agree, you have a hung jury. In that case, while the defendent is not found guilty or non-guilty, no verdict can be given. It is not quite letting them free, but unless the prosecution can present new evidence and convince the judicial department to retry the case, the person goes free. "Innocent until proven guilty".

What happened was that the 8th Juror felt that the evidence supplied was treated as solid rather than more circumstantial, and that there was not enough decent evidence to prove that it happened as the prosecution claimed. Could the kid have stabbed his dad? Yes. Did the prosecution prove it happened the way they said it did? That's what the 8th Juror was arguing against. The prosecution not only has to prove the crime occurred, but that the defendant performed the crime, and how the defendant did it. While the charge was plausible, the evidence supporting that had holes or other issues that the jurors could discover and identify, which made the entire thing suspect. Basically, all of the questions brought up during the play/movie should have been things the cops/detectives on the case had already researched, and should have addressed during the trial. They did not, thus the actual evidence became much more shaky, introducing the doubt. Thus the vote of "not guilty".

My last term of jury duty was actually a hung case. While there was no doubt in our minds that a crime had been committed, and that others had performed it, the actual defendent's active participation was not proven (basically, he was either a victim, or a willing dupe). Some of us thought he should have been aware enough to realize what was going on and that continuing to do what he was doing violated the law, while others thought the people not currently on trial managed to fool him into being an unknown accomplice.

I... took a lot of law and civil rights classes in high school and college? And lit?

Thank you very much.

Your answer is most appreciated. I can now understand the film. On top of the jury system of which i can at least claim a basic understanding. Misunderstanding that was coloring my perception of an otherwise fantastic film. Thanks yet again!

[comicscollector]

Thor.Ragnarok.
Quite a fun movie,did not disapoint.
Was it just me that was hoping to see Thor fight other champions in the Arena before fighting the Hulk?
The way the movie progressed it looked like Thor would had to fight other champions before fighting the Grandmaster champion,but the way Thor went to fight right away the Grandmaster champion in his first fight in the Arena was disapointing.
While watching the movie i thought that in the Arena Thor would had to fight other gladiators before facing the Champion.