Omni's Random Video Noise

→ in
Tools    





Are you suggesting some people prefer it be IN the way?
Leaving the questions up in the air rather than resolved.... yeah, some people probably do keep it that way. Some people probably don't wanna know a person's sexual history. It might be better for them that way. The less they know, the better. For some people, it's just easier to deal with. There's all kinds of issues that can pop up over knowing about your lover's relationship/sexual history. Love is NOT an easy thing, I think. Not in every case. It can't always be cleanly looked over as you may think it can.

What if Holden found out about her past BEFORE they started an intimate relationship? He was learning new things about her already, what if he learned that she'd been in a threesome before?

Can you imagine that ruining their friendship, does that seem like the kind of thing that would prevent him from talking with her, laughing with her, and hanging out?

I don't think so, and I say that because a lot of people have this weird separation in their heads where you can be friends, more than friends, or nothing. There's no room for "let's try a deeper relationship and see if it works out, if not we'll just be friends" and suddenly things that would have been overlooked as a friend are personally accosting as a sexual partner.
Here's an example of what I was just saying -- you're right. You're right. What if Holden had found out earlier, before the relationship started, that she had been with men? What if that made it easier to ignore?

BUT -- what if that had also caused Holden to not seek a relationship with Alyssa if he knew about the men? It's VERY possible, I think, that the deep affection for Alyssa might have grown because of the idea that Holden thought she was a lesbian and hence a virgin when it came to men. He might have just wanted a virgin woman, ya know? Sex with women might have just been silly, non-sexual things to him -- in case, that is the case, because it's like when they had their chat on the swings and she said "there's more ways to make love than just penetration." But he didn't buy that. And I noticed in your review that you, yourself, didn't seem to buy into the many different ways you can "make love." As in, fisting is not sex to you. Or licking genitals, as I believe you put it. Ohhhh, but it is. It can be considered sex, absolutely.

Anyway, Holden didn't buy into the idea that her lesbian sex was real sex. He basically thought she was a virgin. And she didn't reveal that she was otherwise.

So... probably.... Alyssa's appeal to Holden probably depended some on Alyssa being a lesbian. He was, basically, a lesbian chaser. He LIKED the fact that she had no other men to compare him to. But when he found out she DID.... the passion started to go away. The fantasy was over.

It's possible Holden and Alyssa may not have even become a couple if Holden knew about her thing with men, or about how "experimental" she was. Banky and Holden could have talked it over and Holden could have been like, "You know what? I don't want her. She's been with too many guys - I don't like that." But he finds out DURING the relationship.... that makes it complicated. It's complicated because he really doesn't wanna lose her... but he hates the change in direction.

It's all very psychological. Love is a messy, complicated business because so much of it is about our own psychologies. What works depends on our own minds and if we can resolve conflicts without screwing it up. But resolving those conflicts isn't as simple as 1-2-3. It may SOUND easy in theory, but it's NOT always easy in practice. Thus, I think you might be a bit naive about all this. You seem to me.... rather optimistic. Like a newbie. Or else you've just been lucky with your own love relationships. You seem to have simple, sweet answers to everything. I say it's not always so simple.

So being her first penis is some sort of badge of pride that he didn't want to lose so he broke it off? Even if she lied to his face that's profoundly shallow.
It's his issue. It might be shallow, but it's his issue.

You're suggesting again that she's just nuts.

The problem with that is there's no narrative confirmation of it and women being fickle emotional idiots is a common trope in movies. It's far more likely that she was just written poorly.
She seems nutty to me. And it isn't just because of the sex stuff. I mean, just look at her - always screaming and freaking out in that high pitched voice. Changing her mind severely in a matter of seconds. For the sex stuff, it's the way she seems to like to change her mind a lot, while also perhaps recklessly engaging in a lot of recreational sex. I mean, sex is great and all that, but rationally, in this day and age, if you're too hypersexual, it can be a problem and maybe even a mental problem. Someone who walks a dangerous line with sex, risking their life with the possibilities of HIV and diseases, can be seen as someone with a serious problem. Not just as someone who's happy and sexually liberated. Being VERY sexual isn't always a good thing, I feel.

That's not confirmed by the movie either. In fact, Alyssa outright tells Holden why it bothers her. It reinforces his slanted perspective of her in his mind by assuming that she'd just be cool with it when she's stated that she's not that kind of person anymore.

This is backed up by their argument in the parking lot when she said she liked the way he originally felt about her. She doesn't want to lose that which is why she glossed over the truth. Now he's suggesting we feed directly into that so that HE can get over it, but that fails to consider her feelings on the matter.

It'd be kind of like finding out your partner accidentally killed a kid in a car crash and despite them feeling really guilty about it, you weren't able to let it go. Then you come back to them and suggest getting into a car together and running over some children so you can get over it. It's missing the point of why they concealed that information in the first place.
Like I've said... Holden and Alyssa both have their issues. Perhaps the issues with Holden are even more complex. If someone wants to get in a car with someone who accidentally killed a kid, and they want to see what it's like to run over kids themselves.... that's obviously an indication that the person has issues. More profound, more disturbing issues than what Holden has.

Holden's issues seem to point to him wanting to know what it's like to be "experimental" just like she was. Why else does he come to the idea of having a threesome with Alyssa? Is it really because he wants to work things out with his girlfriend and his best friend -- or is it because he wants to work out something going on WITH HIMSELF? Probably the latter. I mean, if you date someone who accidentally ran over kids with your car, and you wanted to know what that was like, wouldn't that mean you probably ALWAYS wanted to do something crazy like that?

All of this is of course assuming that a threesome X many years ago is even that kind of a moral atrocity to begin with.

Holden doesn't appear capable of being able to accept that people can change. I'm sure he's done some stupid **** before. They emphasize the liberal/conservative angle wherein people look at things with different general perspectives. Alyssa may not have thought sex like that was that big of a deal, but what if she learned about something Holden had done that he didn't think was that big of a deal?

All of this just goes to inform that these kinds of things should be dealt with before they can become problems.
Well, Alyssa didn't deal with them. She played with Holden's mind -- for her benefit. She LIKED the way he was when he believed he was the only guy, okay? That means she's enjoying it for her own benefit. But when Holden finds out the truth -- BOOM. Volcano.

They were feeding off of each other. She gets the cute guy who thinks he's a macho stud, her FIRST real man. He gets the virgin lesbian who's never had a man. Neither are real. The relationship was all a fantasy. For both of them. But if you ask me -- she started it. She started it because she fed him the idea that she was a virgin with men. She seduced this little puppy dog with issues into following her around, thinking she had a bone he wanted, and instead, the bone had already been devoured by other dogs. Then when the dog actually tries to forget about the bone and act more like how she acted to get her love, she doesn't want the dog anymore.

I know she's a woman and I know you probably think I'm ripping her apart because she's a woman, but I'm sorry, she's a woman who plays head games. Even at the end of the movie, when she's with her new lesbian lover at the comic convention, the lover asks about Holden, "Who was that guy?" Alyssa coyly responds, "Oh, just some guy." Does Alyssa tell the total truth? Nope. Covers it up. Let's not talk about it! That's okay if she wants to cover it up, but I think it's another sign that she's a sly, sneaky girl, who wants things to be exactly as she wants them to be.

Mind games require an exchange and a lot of what Holden was dealing with was contradictions to his assumptions.

His claim to Banky that "she's totally into me" reads as pure delusion to me.
It might have been. Yes. Absolutely. Especially since we saw her freak out at first about Holden liking her, then she changes her mind real quick.

Unless you put a presumptive weight on everything she says being veiled and read-between-the-lines kind of dialog, but playing those mind games, whether you're the speaker or the listener is almost ALWAYS a source of problems.
Well, yes, I might put a presumptive weight on everything she says.



When I think of a really depressing and emotionally draining movie I think of Grave of the Fireflies.
I thought Grave of the Fireflies was very well done, but it wasn't anywhere near as draining for me as Schindler's List. I also think Schindler was a far more effective dramatization of the holocaust than The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, though the latter was good too.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.

The Nightmare Before Christmas

I struggle to explain what it is I exactly like about THIS MOVIE.

Sometimes I make mistakes, sometimes I make BIG mistakes and despite good advice I have to learn the hard way where it is I ****ed up, should have stepped back, and reconsidered.

Ultimately all I really have to do is say, "Look, the movie may be flawed and you're free to point out those flaws to me and explain why Coraline or ParaNorman or whatever is an objectively better movie, but you know what? I don't care. I love this movie. And you'll be hard-pressed to do one better in my book."

Final Verdict:
[Friggen' Awesome]

Great review of The Nightmare Before Christmas. I love that you said "I struggle to explain what it is I exactly like about THIS MOVIE." because I feel the same way about it. I've watched the movie several times, and I like it more each time I see it, but I'm not sure what I like about it either. I just know that it's fun, and it has some catchy songs.



Leaving the questions up in the air rather than resolved.... yeah, some people probably do keep it that way. Some people probably don't wanna know a person's sexual history. It might be better for them that way. The less they know, the better. For some people, it's just easier to deal with. There's all kinds of issues that can pop up over knowing about your lover's relationship/sexual history. Love is NOT an easy thing, I think. Not in every case. It can't always be cleanly looked over as you may think it can.
If it's easier to ignore those things, then those things should ACTUALLY be ignored. It's one thing to ignore something, it's another to be ignorant of it.

Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity
Here's an example of what I was just saying -- you're right. You're right. What if Holden had found out earlier, before the relationship started, that she had been with men? What if that made it easier to ignore?

BUT -- what if that had also caused Holden to not seek a relationship with Alyssa if he knew about the men? It's VERY possible, I think,
As in a sexual relationship? Then there would be no issue. What's the argument here? That it's better to not know and have it tear the relationship apart later rather than not having one at all? I don't think so, not when they could still be friends.

Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity
He might have just wanted a virgin woman, ya know?
Well **** him, then.

*laughs*

That just seems shallow to me. There's nothing special about virginity beyond a bizarre fetish or some obsessive compulsive idea of living out some unrealistic romantic ideal.

Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity
Sex with women might have just been silly, non-sexual things to him -- in case, that is the case, because it's like when they had their chat on the swings and she said "there's more ways to make love than just penetration." But he didn't buy that. And I noticed in your review that you, yourself, didn't seem to buy into the many different ways you can "make love." As in, fisting is not sex to you. Or licking genitals, as I believe you put it. Ohhhh, but it is. It can be considered sex, absolutely.
I didn't say it wasn't I just said it's a problem when these things aren't previous established and you're attempting to inject new meaning into them.

It's pretty commonly held now, so I wasn't even saying Alyssa's wrong, I just thought the scene was pointless and she came off smug by telling him the words he was using were wrong when for all intents and purposes they were perfectly serviceable to him.

Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity
Anyway, Holden didn't buy into the idea that her lesbian sex was real sex. He basically thought she was a virgin. And she didn't reveal that she was otherwise.

So... probably.... Alyssa's appeal to Holden probably depended some on Alyssa being a lesbian. He was, basically, a lesbian chaser. He LIKED the fact that she had no other men to compare him to. But when he found out she DID.... the passion started to go away. The fantasy was over.

It's possible Holden and Alyssa may not have even become a couple if Holden knew about her thing with men, or about how "experimental" she was. Banky and Holden could have talked it over and Holden could have been like, "You know what? I don't want her. She's been with too many guys - I don't like that." But he finds out DURING the relationship.... that makes it complicated.
And so because he didn't ask the "important" questions up front it created unnecessary conflict later.

Your argument seems to be that if he asked those questions there'd be no relationship.

EXACTLY.

Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity
It's all very psychological. Love is a messy, complicated business because so much of it is about our own psychologies. What works depends on our own minds and if we can resolve conflicts without screwing it up. But resolving those conflicts isn't as simple as 1-2-3. It may SOUND easy in theory, but it's NOT always easy in practice. Thus, I think you might be a bit naive about all this. You seem to me.... rather optimistic.
Or realistic.

Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity
Like a newbie.
*laughs* That's cute.

Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity
Or else you've just been lucky with your own love relationships. You seem to have simple, sweet answers to everything. I say it's not always so simple.
I don't think it's simple I just think people over-complicate things.

Even if I forgave Holden for not asking about these things up front (which I did), I still think he overreacted and was unreasonably uncompromising in the face of fair argument.

Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity
Holden's issues seem to be point to him wanting to know what it's like to be "experimental" just like she was. Why else does he come to the idea of having a threesome with Alyssa? Is it really because he wants to work things out with his girlfriend and his best friend -- or is it because he wants to work out something going on WITH HIMSELF?
I think he confirms that when he goes on to explain his rationalization for it.

Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity
Probably the latter. I mean, if you date someone who accidentally ran over kids with your car, and you wanted to know what that was like, wouldn't that mean you probably ALWAYS wanted to do something crazy like that?
*laughs* Probably.

Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity
I know she's a woman and I know you probably think I'm ripping her apart because she's a woman,
Not really.

Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity
but I'm sorry, she's a woman who plays head games. Even at the end of the movie, when she's with her new lesbian lover at the comic convention, the lover asks about Holden, "Who was that guy?" Alyssa coyly responds, "Oh, just some guy." Does Alyssa tell the total truth? Nope. Covers it up. Let's not talk about it! That's okay if she wants to cover it up, but I think it's another sign that she's a sly, sneaky girl, who wants things to be exactly as she wants them to be.
It's also, and again, FAR MORE LIKELY a total cliche because I knew exactly what she was going to say before she said it.

"Who was that guy?"

*meaningfully* "Oh... you know... JUST SOME GUY..."

It's writer's shorthand. There's no point in explaining on the spot and dismissing it moves the scene along without opening up the subject to questions which would ruin the sensation of a forgotten romance which is almost always the goal of these sorts of movies. They want to convey the idea that these characters are moving on, BUT that this was significant albeit secret milestone in their lives.
__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel



I also think Schindler was a far more effective dramatization of the holocaust than The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, though the latter was good too.
I would agree, I just think seeing one possibly tainted my experience of the other.

Originally Posted by gbgoodies
Great review of The Nightmare Before Christmas. I love that you said "I struggle to explain what it is I exactly like about THIS MOVIE."
Thanks. I only noticed the narrative tie-in while I was writing it.



Alright, well, forget about all this. I've had enough.

Now you have to watch and review Hedwig and the Angry Inch because I really do wanna see your review for that. We all do.



Alright, well, forget about all this. I've had enough.
Okeedoke.

Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity
Now you have to watch and review Hedwig and the Angry Inch because I really do wanna see your review for that. We all do.
DUUUUUUUHHHHI think I'll resume my current watchlist for now.



DUUUUUUUHHHHI think I'll resume my current watchlist for now.
No no no. You put that on your watchlist. Or I'm never coming back in here again.





The Hurt Locker
Action Thriller / English / 2008

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
Rrreeeaaasssssseeessssssmmmeeennntt*BOOM!*

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
Cats, Goats, Donkeys, Cows, Burgers, Butchers GET THE **** OUT OF MY MOVIE YOU PIECE OF ****!!!

And thus concludes by biggest complaints about the movie.

Other complaints would include the off-duty brouhaha and ultimately the last fourth of the movie which ends greats, but includes a ludicrous scene in which our main three characters LEAVE SAFETY... to SPLIT UP... to go HUNT FOR UNKNOWN BAD GUYS... in the DARK.

And one of them gets kidnapped and shot.

Way to go... you dumbasses.

At least they acknowledge it later so it's at least somewhat mitigated, but STILL this wasn't just the actions of one person, this was THREE DIFFERENT PEOPLE. You'd think ONE of them would dig their heels in.

Anyway, EVERYBODY thinks that part of the movie is stupid, but how's the rest?


Well... ****in' great. I mean I don't like movies that glorify the military, but I can actually dig this one because it's not really about the military at all, it's about an adrenaline junkie bomb disposal guy and it's basically a two-hour collection of his exploits.

"Fast-paced slow-burn" comes to mind. It's combination of gradual clenching and releasing of the background ambiance combined with increasingly quick camera cuts intermixed with each character's growing agitation because as time passes things become more dangerous. They could be attacked by a sniper, the bomb could be rigged to a timer, or the owner of the bomb could show up to detonate it. It's almost all totally engaging save maybe the overuse of shaky cam. That was kinda distracting.

It's all set into motion with a fantastic and memorable opening that shows you exactly what you're in for when we see the last bomb disposal go wrong, before our guy takes over.

Admittedly I have difficulty remembering the characters names beyond their callsigns "Blaster 1" and "Specialist", but while we see development arcs in all three of our main characters, it's our adrenaline junkie who takes center stage for his reckless (and therefor more exciting to watch) approach to his job. Sure, it may not be TOTALLY realistic, but I can totally buy this character as person.

I understand why he does the job he does and by the end of the movie we're presented the last of many contrasts to show us that living in that life or death situation is a kick and it's a kick with a job market.

I really enjoyed this movie. It IRRITATES THE EVERLASTING **** OUT OF ME that the creators cannot ****ing help themselves, but include animals both dead and alive in it,
BUT...



I gotta admit the good aspects mostly distracted me from the bad aspects. MOSTLY.

This'll be another movie that falls into that category of, "Would have LOVED to give you a 5/5, but you ****ED UP!", but will still find a place among my favorites because I JUST KEEP WATCHING IT.


Final Verdict:
[Pretty Good]

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	hurt_locker_poster_m_0.jpg
Views:	844
Size:	113.4 KB
ID:	25719   Click image for larger version

Name:	3704331248_1abe89c0b2_o1.jpg
Views:	1281
Size:	106.2 KB
ID:	25720   Click image for larger version

Name:	The-Hurt-Locker-001.jpg
Views:	796
Size:	36.6 KB
ID:	25721  





12 Angry Men
Drama / English / 1957

WHY'D I WATCH IT?
I've been in a BIG HONKIN' ARGUMENT with Yoda about objective morality, empirical evidence, GOD, lots of big word stuff. Anyway, it's made me very interested to see this kind of debate in the movies he watches. The 50s Countdown has had people throwing "12 Angry Men" back and forth a few times and wasn't that on Yoda's favorites list?

OH! It's his number one. A favorite shared by ScarletLion, Spaghetti, DrSoup007, Horroist, and even Jackojacko2000.

And it's about a jury arguing over a court case? PER~FECT!

WHAT'D I THINK? *SPOILERS*
WELL.

Ummm...

It's just a great ****in' movie.

I was honestly surprised, AGAIN, I rarely watch black and white movies and I don't know any of these actors, seen anything else by this director, hadn't the plot spoiled for me, totally blind and I thought it was good. Really good.

I mean I hate courtroom drama (what don't I hate, right?), but this obfuscates out all of that petty legal system ******** and just presents 12 guys, all sitting in a room, a situation on which to make a judgment on.

Sure enough, 11 of them are for the guilty verdict except 1 (for predictable dramatic effect of course) and the rest of the movie is an intellectual dispute in an effort to overturn this certainty.

This concept definitely appeals to me, BUT NATURALLY I have to be very critical of how it's presented, if for no other reason than critical accuracy is precisely the point of the movie.

Did the arguments make sense? YES! THEY DID! It does look to be an open and shut case at the beginning and even by the halfway point where only half of the room is in agreement I WAS STILL ON THE FENCE RIGHT THERE WITH THEM! If we're all sharing the same information we should all be in agreement, but if there is still left unsaid and the collective is unsure then I should ALSO be unsure.

And in the end, I was convinced there was reasonable doubt!

BUT, they could have also ****ed this up by failing to present crucial information to the viewer before this point (so they can, "Surprise! New evidence!" and they did that once early on with the knife, but whatever it was a good stinger). Sure, the jurors reach new conclusions not previously considered, but all significant evidence is laid out for us right away so we can pick it apart along with them.

Admittedly, it's not a terribly surprising movie, all the arcs you would expect to see are here, but I had big grin on my face every time some ******* got called out for his ********.



AAAGGGHHHHH~that's satisfying.

Another impressive thing about this movie is that not only are the whopping cast of 12 characters nameless, but they each, ALL OF THEM, manage distinct separate personalities. They all seem like PEOPLE and some of them, particularly Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb have quite a presence to them.

It's just a very well-made minimalist drama with a couple neat little touches (anyone else glean the fan starting to work when it's matched 6 to 6 as "the winds of change"?) and manages to be equal parts emotionally charged and insightful.

NOW FOLLOWS MY COMPLAINTS:

But let's be real, I can only nitpick at this point.

When the rain kicks in we get a got of annoying background ambiance that while it doesn't make it too difficult to hear the characters, it's sufficiently loud enough to be distracting.

Some of the dialog between characters outside of the debate seems like needlessly feeble exposition like it's trying to squeeze everything it can out of each character, even though it's comparatively trivial next to the regular dialog.

The "prejudice" scene really caught me off guard because the theme was brought up before, and now it seems really uncharacteristic for so many people to react so acutely to it. Upon rewatching it, it's a bit easier for me to understand since he is saying some pretty objectionable things even by the standards of our other "antagonists", but it still sticks out to me.

PROBABLY because of my biggest issue with the movie which is the maddeningly immersion-breaking habit of so many characters standing up out of their chair and wandering around the room.

Maybe if one character was fidgety or another just didn't like sitting in general I can get that, but it's like half of the cast cannot stand to sit at the same table with somebody they disagree with and it's on principal that they stand up in a huff and walk away.

It just seems so unnatural that I couldn't help but focus on it. They must have been desperate to put some sort of movement into each shot to keep things visually interesting, but I'd have preferred that they just sat down and stayed sitting, or stayed standing, JUST MAKE UP THEIR ****IN' MINDS!



REWATCH UPDATE:

So I've watched this three times now and while my original complaints are hardly mitigated and I've even found new things I can criticize (some obvious points are drawn out unnecessarily, a couple performance stumbles, the last break period is a definite, albeit brief, lull), I've come to appreciate other aspects of it more, particularly how Cobb's character is foreshadowed.

He makes a brief overlookable comment about kids implying his bias at the beginning of the movie which is followed shortly by his primary introduction in which he articulately presents himself as "Now I have no personal feelings about this, these are just the facts..." which is a great little deceit. Later on when he offers his story, his most obvious piece of foreshadowing is pretty negligible. It obviously seems important in the moment but it occurs so early in the movie and he doesn't really even particularly stand out among all the other detractors for quite a while that there's no obvious sign that it'll be reincorporated later, particularly thanks to all the other moments where the characters interact and reveal a little bit about themselves. I STILL DON'T LIKE those scenes because they're transparently unimportant by the end of the movie, but if they were added to obfuscate this foreshadowing then I can at least understand why they're there.

Ultimately as much as crime solving may be an interesting idea for a movie, it doesn't appear to be the purpose of this movie. We never see the defendant again after the opening and really the movie neither seems to be about the characters themselves or the legal process. It seems to be about nothing less than the value of rationality in the pursuit of justice.

We have a sort of Inception moment partway through the movie where Fonda's character, Davis (he's one of maybe 3 characters ever named, but not referred to by name), is in the bathroom and another character asks him, "What if you convince all of us he's innocent and he really did do it?"



That's a good question, what if he really did do it? Reasonable doubt is not proof, so even if everybody sides Not Guilty, it's still possible the kid committed the crime and gets away with it.

The movie never explores this question, but perhaps because the answer should be reasonable to infer given the course of reasoning offered to us? Okay, let's say he did it: What does that mean?

It doesn't mean he'll kill again. It doesn't mean he didn't feel bad about it. It doesn't even mean the murder wasn't justified. All it means is that a criminal wasn't punished.

The inverse of that is an innocent who is punished.

Not punishing a criminal isn't an inherent moral wrong, it's a neutral judgment. If the punishment is death then it's a crime we are committing which is morally excusable. It's not morally "good" to put criminals to death, but it's not morally "bad" either, SO LONG... as the criminal in question is actually guilty and deserving of that level of judgment.

That's what's in question here. Davis begins the movie with no hard evidence to suggest the kid's innocence, but circumstances provoke him to question the fairness of such a verdict. Maybe he is guilty, but is he guilty a crime worth killing him for?

Even if none of that were in question though, the original question still remains an important one: What if he's guilty and he gets away with it?

Well, then that presents us a new conundrum: Which is worse? To give a killer a second chance or to condemn an innocent to death?

I think the implications speak for themselves: What we have to lose letting a killer go free is indefinite, and while it could potentially prove far more disastrous than one innocent death, one innocent death is precisely a consequence we can be certain of if we make the wrong decision. And even then it begs the question of whether condemning innocents can even be justified given a certain outcome.

What sort of justice is that?

Anyway I'll shut up now. My new rating for 12 Angry Men is 5 out of 5.


Final Verdict:
[Friggen' Awesome]

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	960__12_angry_men_blu-ray_3.jpg
Views:	913
Size:	213.2 KB
ID:	25738   Click image for larger version

Name:	12-angry-men-1957.jpg
Views:	862
Size:	43.9 KB
ID:	25739   Click image for larger version

Name:	12_angry_man.jpg
Views:	693
Size:	111.1 KB
ID:	25814  



Originally Posted by Omnizoa
I've been in a BIG HONKIN' ARGUMENT with Yoda about objective morality, empirical evidence, GOD, lots of big word stuff.
Oh, no. Not you too.



Great review of 12 Angry Men, but only "Pretty Good"?
Any movie I give a 5/5 becomes an indefinite part of my personal collection, and often times I need to see a movie a few times before I've cemented my feelings on it. It's the same for Strange Days and Imaginaerum.