Commander of Awesome;1772553 wrote:Didn't we used to have spoiler tags? What happened to them?

I'm not sure what happened to them but they don't work for me anymore.

No I watched it on Bobby Movie Box an apple app has it for free

Watched Concussion 7/10 makes you feel dirty about watching the NFL for sure

Hateful eight. Loved it.
9.5/10

hangonsloopy;1772544 wrote:I'm also still pissed. I couldn't stand the prosecutor and his girl voice.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

lol this. If I was watching with my eyes closed, I would have pictured an old woman.

Finally saw the new Star Wars tonight: 9/10

Watched a couple during Christmas break...
Legend - 7/10. Tom Hardy is the man.
Making a Murderer- yeesh. Makes you never want to make the local police upset. A couple of spoilers below...











Why didn't they go after Colborn more after the fact he called in the license plate of the missing RAV-4 BEFORE it was reported found on their lot?

Making a Murderer- wow, I won't say too much for those who haven't seen but it was a very well done documentary. I probably changed my mind half a dozen times.

Will be interesting to see what happens with all the attention this is getting now.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

sportchampps;1772575 wrote:Watched Concussion 7/10 makes you feel dirty about watching the NFL for sure

Why only a 7 if you don't mind?

Benny The Jet;1772914 wrote:Watched a couple during Christmas break...
Legend - 7/10. Tom Hardy is the man.
Making a Murderer- yeesh. Makes you never want to make the local police upset. A couple of spoilers below...











Why didn't they go after Colborn more after the fact he called in the license plate of the missing RAV-4 BEFORE it was reported found on their lot?

Did you also notice that even after Colburn was trashed in the trial, they show him later In the show at like sentencing and hearings escorting the guys in. Why the hell was he still allowed around that case! ?!?!?!

I gave Concussion a 7 for a few reasons.

ill start by saying I did enjoy the movie. It just wasn't groundbreaking. The acting was just okay. Will Smiths accent was horrible. It did make me feel shitty about watching the NFL and how much they tried to cover up the story.

The Reveant 8.5/10 a little slow in the middle but I loved the storyline and Leo was incredible as always.

Midstate01;1772551 wrote:If you haven't finished it, don't read any more of this post.



The prosecution basically never ever proved anything. It was all theory. Also the defense didn't take advantage of some things.

I really felt for the cousin. He was a very uneducated kid who literally was pressed into saying things just to tell them what they wanted to hear.

I feel like I could write a novel on this, but I'll stop since people haven't finished it

******************SPOILER ALERT***********************************

I disagree. the state found actual direct evidence. the blood in the car, the bloody bullet, the key, the car, the bones...and that's not including things that weren't in the documentary like the Avery's numerous calls to the victim that he used *67 or whatever to hide his number and the Avery DNA on the inside of the hood of the car showing he removed the battery on the car. The defense's theories were just that. they had no proof anything was planted and the state blew up their theory that the blood came from the vial of Avery's blood. they tried to claim the test wasn't perfect, but A) no test is B) it was the FBI who independently tested it C) the defense never brought any expert on to disprove it. Remember, the defense can make up whatever stories they want without needing a shred of proof. And most of the public thinks every crime scene ever is just ripe with DNA evidence in an orgy of blood and semen just like CSI.

I do however agree they shouldn't have charged the kid. I also think the local sheriff's were idiots and shouldn't have been with in 50 miles of that crime scene. And I think for the most part it was a good documentary.

Glory Days;1773014 wrote:******************SPOILER ALERT***********************************

I disagree. .

shocking

Glory Days;1773014 wrote:******************SPOILER ALERT***********************************

I disagree. the state found actual direct evidence. the blood in the car

which doesn't indict him of anything. and I find is hilarious you don't mention anything of Steven Avery's evidence being tampered with lol.

Glory Days;1773014 wrote:******************SPOILER ALERT***********************************

the bloody bullet,

It wasn't bloody. Had her DNA and was also cross contaminated with the testers DNA.

Glory Days;1773014 wrote:******************SPOILER ALERT***********************************

the key,

which only had his DNA on it and not hers after she used it for 6 years? lol

Glory Days;1773014 wrote:******************SPOILER ALERT***********************************

the car, the bones

which also doesn't indict him considering he had no finger prints on the car and they couldn't rule out the bones weren't moved from another burn location.

Glory sticking up for the crooked cops? Shocker

Also the prosecution based it's evidence and case off the boys testimony. So they tied her up with chains and rope to a bed and she fought them, yet no markings on bed. They stabbed her, no blood on the sheets or bed, or floor... Avery and that boy weren't smart enough to find ways to clean that sort of mess up that good

Get the fuck out with spoilers for a fucking TV SERIES. I just started it, pricks!


Back to the topic....

Finally got around to watching Trainwreck. Even though I find Amy Shumer disgusting, it was a damn good movie. I can't recall the last comedy to make me laugh that much. Ending was lame though.

Automatik;1773098 wrote:Get the fuck out with spoilers for a fucking TV SERIES. I just started it, pricks!


Back to the topic....

Finally got around to watching Trainwreck. Even though I find Amy Shumer disgusting, it was a damn good movie. I can't recall the last comedy to make me laugh that much. Ending was lame though.

I didn't like train wreck. Wasn't that funny and Schumer annoyed me.

SportsAndLady;1773103 wrote:I didn't like train wreck. Wasn't that funny and Schumer annoyed me.

Just watched it. Had a few funny moments, but overall I agree.

Concussion 7/10 - I liked it, wasn't anything special though.

Sisters 7.5/10 - I'm an Amy & Tina fan, so I thought it was hilarious. Definitely predictable, but who cares. They got to make a movie with a bunch of their friends and it's funny. I'm jealous, because I'd love to do that one day.

San Andreas 5/10 - Could have gone my whole life without seeing this one. Didn't expect it to blow my mind, but it was boring. Also, Alexandria Daddario has nice....teeth... :RpS_razz:

http://www.avclub.com/article/read-damning-evidence-against-steven-avery-making--230224

I just watched 12 years a slave. The acting was great and the story wasn't bad, but it was really really depressing. Obviously that was the point and I do think it's important that movies like that are made. But good grief that was depressing.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1773026 wrote:which doesn't indict him of anything. and I find is hilarious you don't mention anything of Steven Avery's evidence being tampered with lol.

Well, because there was absolutely zero proof any of the evidence was tampered with, none. and if it was, the defense would have filed motions to dismiss the evidence and would have brought charges against the cops who tampered with it. They didn't do either of those before the trial, during the trial, or during appeals. you bit hook, line, and sinker into the defense's THEORY. heck, I have seen defense attorney's file motions over something as minor as typo's, surely if they had proof evidence was tampered with they would have argued to get rid of that evidence. not only that, the FBI tested the blood and proved it wasn't from the vial. you can tell the defense, although claiming the blood was from the vial, assumed the blood test would not be ready for the trial. which means they could argue the blood in the car came from the vial. but when the prosecution rushed the test and finished it during the trial, it blew up the defenses theory, which is why they tried to get the test results thrown out.

It wasn't bloody. Had her DNA and was also cross contaminated with the testers DNA.

how else does her DNA get on a bullet found in his garage....from a gun that had been in evidence for months? So you are saying, the cops took the gun out of evidence, fired a bullet, then magically got her DNA 6 months after the fact? that is far from reasonable. even though it was contaminated with the tester's DNA, the tester was able to separate it and identify it.

which only had his DNA on it and not hers after she used it for 6 years? lol

which also doesn't indict him considering he had no finger prints on the car and they couldn't rule out the bones weren't moved from another burn location.

DNA and fingerprints arent some magical things. they disappear, get smudged, and in the case of fingerprints, don't stick well to many surfaces.

remember, its not 100% certainty to prove guilt, its beyond a reasonable doubt. also, about 6 hours of the documentary was spent on the trial and murder investigation related to Avery. 6 hours of a 2-3 week trial. I like watching people claim his innocence based on a documentary.

Glory Days;1773578 wrote:Well, because there was absolutely zero proof any of the evidence was tampered with, none. and if it was, the defense would have filed motions to dismiss the evidence and would have brought charges against the cops who tampered with it. They didn't do either of those before the trial, during the trial, or during appeals. you bit hook, line, and sinker into the defense's THEORY. heck, I have seen defense attorney's file motions over something as minor as typo's, surely if they had proof evidence was tampered with they would have argued to get rid of that evidence. not only that, the FBI tested the blood and proved it wasn't from the vial. you can tell the defense, although claiming the blood was from the vial, assumed the blood test would not be ready for the trial. which means they could argue the blood in the car came from the vial. but when the prosecution rushed the test and finished it during the trial, it blew up the defenses theory, which is why they tried to get the test results thrown out.





how else does her DNA get on a bullet found in his garage....from a gun that had been in evidence for months? So you are saying, the cops took the gun out of evidence, fired a bullet, then magically got her DNA 6 months after the fact? that is far from reasonable. even though it was contaminated with the tester's DNA, the tester was able to separate it and identify it.






DNA and fingerprints arent some magical things. they disappear, get smudged, and in the case of fingerprints, don't stick well to many surfaces.

remember, its not 100% certainty to prove guilt, its beyond a reasonable doubt. also, about 6 hours of the documentary was spent on the trial and murder investigation related to Avery. 6 hours of a 2-3 week trial. I like watching people claim his innocence based on a documentary.

You're the fucking worst