The Movie Thread

[SkywalkerAC]

It's not documentary-of-the-year-good but it's good. I'm about halfway through Making of a Murderer, now that's really good.

[tonious35]

It's not documentary-of-the-year-good but it's good. I'm about halfway through Making of a Murderer, now that's really good.

Son of a bitch, I might PS3 subscribe to the Netflix tmrrrr.....aaaaggg. Free month subscription tooooo

[Scraptor]

This new documentary about systemic rape issues on American college campuses (not sure about the Canadian stats) should be seen by more young men and women.

Here's the bit about Erica Kinsmen, the victim of accused rapist and #1 NFL pick Jameis Winston.

PS - it's on Netflix.

Jesus christ. That poor girl.

I'm not sure I can watch the whole doc without exploding in rage and destroying my house.

[Nilanka]

Isit any good?

Has anyone seen the Netflix doc...Making of a murderer?

It's not documentary-of-the-year-good but it's good. I'm about halfway through Making of a Murderer, now that's really good.

According to Kratz, there's evidence omitted from Making a Murderer that makes Avery look a lot "less innocent".

[Snooch]

Here is someone else possibly articulating this better than me:


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8850324

The article made me chuckle a bit. I liked the film overall as well but damn were there some issues.

she was trained as a child, and then had portions of her memory wiped as Luke ran away fearing for her safety.

She is a skywalker.

She is very powerful, she has forgotten.

And Kylo has no teacher and is being torn between light and dark side of the force, and most likely, was not supposed to kill Rey. Just as vader did with Luke. ( and remember Kylo was wounded)

As with the sith, there is never only 1 and Kylo most likely has been instructed to not kill Rey.

[slaw]

This new documentary about systemic rape issues on American college campuses (not sure about the Canadian stats) should be seen by more young men and women.

PS - it's on Netflix.

Take everything in this movie with a grain of salt. Lisak's research and conclusions are highly dubious and the film itself only tells one side of the stories in the movie.

https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/20/h...eads-lies-abou

Nineteen Harvard University law professors have denounced the film for (among other faults) misrepresenting the case of Harvard law student Brandon Winston, whose life was put on hold after a night of drunken, drug-fueled sexual contact resulted in his expulsion from the university and criminal charges.

But, as Slate’s Emily Yoffe discovered in her groundbreaking investigation of the dispute earlier this year, the real story was much different. There is no evidence that Winston drugged the women; on the contrary, Willingham and Winston both consumed cocaine that Willingham herself had supplied. Willingham used a bloody condom she discovered in her wastebasket as evidence that her friend had been violently raped, but DNA evidence ruled out the possibility that the condom had been used by Winston (though it did match Willingham).

Nor is it true that Winston escaped wholly unpunished, as The Hunting Ground implies. Harvard initially recommended his expulsion, and repeatedly placed him on academic leave, but reinstated him after determining that insufficient evidence existed to brand the encounter as assault. A grand jury declined to indict him on any charges having to do with Willingham; he was eventually convicted of a misdemeanor charge of nonsexual touching of Willingham’s friend. The film’s only reference to these facts is through some text briefly displayed at the very end

Kinsman says in the film that she’s “fairly certain” the drink Winston (or one of his friends) gave her was spiked, but two separate toxicology reports established that there were no date-rape drugs in her system on the night of the incident. Indeed, Kinsman has repeatedly changed the details of her story, first saying she passed out after consuming the drink and was unable to recall how she got into a car with Winston, and later saying she was coerced or intimidated into the car (something investigators thought was dubious, given that there were a lot of other people around at the time). The facts undermine the idea that she was preyed on by Winston, who was eventually cleared of sexual assault during a university hearing run by a retired Florida Supreme Court justice. Winston is now suing Kinsman for defamation.

[SkywalkerAC]

Take everything in this movie with a grain of salt. Lisak's research and conclusions are highly dubious and the film itself only tells one side of the stories in the movie.

https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/20/h...eads-lies-abou

Cherry-picking, from an expected source in Harvard Law, about an accused assailant whose name was not mentioned in the film and who was accused of sexual assault and convicted of a misdemeanor offense in a court of law. In any case, here's the filmmakers' response:

1. The professor’s statement falsely asserts that the film portrays the perpetrator as using force against Kamilah. This is false. Nowhere in the film is that mentioned or even suggested.
2. The professors fail to mention the findings of both the Independent Fact Finder hired by Harvard Law as well as the findings of the Harvard Law Administrative Board. Both found Kamilah Willingham credible and the accused not credible, and found him responsible for sexually assaulting two women who were incapacitated.
3. The professors fail to mention that Willingham was wrongfully not included in the appeals process, nor was she even informed it was happening until the process was complete, both of which were a violation of Title IX guidelines.
4. A body of Harvard Law professors, which included many of the signatories of the statement, conducted the final review of the case and overturned the findings of two Harvard Law entities. To date, Willingham has not been informed of the specific reason for the reversal, who participated in the vote, and what the vote count was.
5. These professors’ direct involvement in a process that violated Department of Education guidelines raises questions regarding their objectivity and the motivation for their attack on the film.
6. The professors fail to mention that the Harvard Law process was found in violation of U.S. Department of Education guidelines and policies. In particular, the Department found that Harvard Law’s policies unfairly favored perpetrators.
7. Rather than acknowledge the fact that the Harvard Law process was flawed, the professors suggest that because the Department of Education didn’t “vindicate Ms. Willingham’s claims” they found them to be false. This is not true, and misleading – the Department of Education does not assess the veracity of the claims of individual cases. It critiques overall procedures.
8. The professors also comment extensively on the criminal case, which is not the focus of The Hunting Ground. The film’s focus is on adjudications of sexual assaults on college campuses, and is an accurate representation of these procedures. In the Willingham case, there was also a criminal process. The filmmakers elected to include a card at the end of the film about the outcome of that process, which accurately states, “A grand jury indicted the accused with felony sexual assault of Kamilah’s friend and a jury convicted him of misdemeanor non-sexual assault. He was never tried for assaulting Kamilah.”
9. The professors fail to include that Winston was found guilty by a criminal court of a non-sexual assault charge (for touching the naked breast of the other victim while she was incapacitated), a victory for survivors since any kind of criminal conviction in a sexual assault case is so rare.
10. The professors claim that the filmmakers named the perpetrator of Willingham’s assault. The Hunting Ground did not ever name the perpetrator. Winston was first named by journalists, and then in the statement by the professors.

"In many ways the professors’ statement is a perfect example of what The Hunting Ground shows has been so common throughout higher education: institutional denial. Rather than doubting survivors, denying the science around college sexual assault, and attacking a film that exposes the reality of what is happening across higher education, the professors should respond in the way that Harvard President Drew Faust did. In a letter to students and alumni, she said: “The prevalence of sexual assault represents a deeply troubling problem for Harvard…but the difficulty and severity of the problem make it all the more important that we come together to address it.”

The real injustice at the heart of this issue is that these Harvard Law professors have been completely silent regarding the thousands of assaults that have happened on their campus over decades that have not been investigated or appropriately adjudicated. Not once in their statement do they ever acknowledge that nearly 30 percent of women are sexually assaulted while at Harvard, nor do they express any concern about them. Their silence contributes to the ongoing problem of sexual assault at Harvard and Harvard Law"

http://www.thehuntinggroundfilm.com/...aw-professors/

[slaw]

Oh, the filmmakers disagree that their outlandish movie has issues? Who woulda thunk? My broader point was that the entire doc is based on the findings of a psych professor whose findings are highly dubious at best and have been thoroughly discredited at worst.

[SkywalkerAC]

Oh, the filmmakers disagree that their outlandish movie has issues? Who woulda thunk? My broader point was that the entire doc is based on the findings of a psych professor whose findings are highly dubious at best and have been thoroughly discredited at worst.

The entire doc is based around on-campus sexual abuse victims and their institutions' reluctance to take any action - individual stories pointing to a larger, well-documented issue. Have you watched it?

[007]

Saw The Revenant last night, enjoyed it more than I thought I was going to. Pumped for the first couple weeks of February, I definitely want to see Hail, Caesar!, Zoolander 2 and Deadpool.

[Joey]

Finally saw Force Awakens, so I can come back into this thread .. Lol

And now reading some of the posts, I'd like to add a bit ...

I really don't feel like they built Kylo Ren up too much in the beginning.
He's obviously not even a Sith, and yes he did some cool force stuff, but then he lets that General dude completely tear him down; which shows he's not even that high up in the Command. He's more emotional (throwing tantrums and spazzing out and destroying the computer and keyboards and shit.. rather than killing the guys like Vadar would) and conflicted than any other "villain" we've seen so far I'd say .. and he clearly knows he's not that strong (yet?), as Rey tells him that he has fears of not being as strong as Vadar. The fact he was bested by Rey works perfectly for me in the story, in my opinion.
His light-saber is even a perfect visual for who him as well .. looks like a) he built it himself, and b) it could blow at any minute.


The thing that really got me was the whole "absorbing the sun" thing ... and the fact they are STILL insisting on having a giant planet blowey-upy thing.

[Miekenstien]

Finally saw Force Awakens, so I can come back into this thread .. Lol

And now reading some of the posts, I'd like to add a bit ...

I really don't feel like they built Kylo Ren up too much in the beginning.
He's obviously not even a Sith, and yes he did some cool force stuff, but then he lets that General dude completely tear him down; which shows he's not even that high up in the Command. He's more emotional (throwing tantrums and spazzing out and destroying the computer and keyboards and shit.. rather than killing the guys like Vadar would) and conflicted than any other "villain" we've seen so far I'd say .. and he clearly knows he's not that strong (yet?), as Rey tells him that he has fears of not being as strong as Vadar. The fact he was bested by Rey works perfectly for me in the story, in my opinion.
His light-saber is even a perfect visual for who him as well .. looks like a) he built it himself, and b) it could blow at any minute.


The thing that really got me was the whole "absorbing the sun" thing ... and the fact they are STILL insisting on having a giant planet blowey-upy thing.

the rudimentary "we have a shield in the core to absorb the stars' power" bothered me too. and the fact that 5 seconds, if that, after the sun is gone every planet in that solar system freezes and dies while also being thrown into interstellar space. after gravity is gone they have no control of the direction of their weapon as it whips through space

[Joey]

the rudimentary "we have a shield in the core to absorb the stars' power" bothered me too. and the fact that 5 seconds, if that, after the sun is gone every planet in that solar system freezes and dies while also being thrown into interstellar space. after gravity is gone they have no control of the direction of their weapon as it whips through space

Not to mention the big ones make black holes when they die ... Lol But ya, that was a bit silly.

[Miekenstien]

Not to mention the big ones make black holes when they die ... Lol But ya, that was a bit silly.

i can give that one to them though because the star isn't collapsing on itself. it is being drained. if it were to become a neutron star or black hole it would happen in the center of the planet, depending on how compact they are mushing it together in the planets "force field"

[Joey]

Good points ...

So you figure they converted a planet into a base, or a base into a planet? Because that thing clearly had an atmosphere, and working weather systems and life forms (trees at least, figure more).