|
Alan Smithee posted:Anyone got any so bad it's good 80s movies to recommend? Interzone is a great post-apocalyptic genre movie that has some pretty cool set design, costuming, and plotting.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
Finally trying to push through the first season of Parks and Rec. I originally thought Lesley was just a female version of Steve Carrels character from the Office but shes starting to grow on me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
priznat posted:I had started watching The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus earlier in the day but had to quit because there was too much of a commotion going on in the house. Pretty interesting so far. I remember hearing about the movie mostly because it was Heath Ledger's last performance. I like Terry Gilliam quite a lot and thought I'd check it out fairly cold. Definitely make some time for this if you can. It's very well done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Finally trying to push through the first season of Parks and Rec. I originally thought Lesley was just a female version of Steve Carrels character from the Office but shes starting to grow on me. The second season is an incredibly huge improvement over the first and it's just gotten better since.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
Wilhelm Scream posted:The second season is an incredibly huge improvement over the first and it's just gotten better since. The recommendations to skip the first season are in most cases entirely justified.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Yeah, the "female Michael Scott" thing is a common and valid criticism of Leslie in the first season, but in the second they start to paint her as a more fundamentally idealistic person, and the show itself starts to take on a bit more of a Capra vibe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
Yeah Parks and Rec went from a "meh" show for me (Season 1) to one of my favourite shows now. I just love the cast and their characters, and the show's development really makes this love feel earned. To be honest I had given up on it when it was originally aired during Season 1, got back into it in season 4 and then caught up by watching all the Netflix seasons. It's pretty cool how it can be so warm-hearted and hilariously funny at the same time. Even Jerry, he may get teased/mocked a lot but married to Christie Brinkley with 3 beautiful daughters, hell that's not bad. Also yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
I was legitimately moved when Leslie gets into the voting booth and gets overwhelmed for a moment before casting her ballot in season 4. Its a great show, can't wait for more episodes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:I just caught this and I agree completely. The movie never addresses the notion that accepting the crazy Frenchman with the transparent story would do nothing to hide the kid's murder and would in fact attract more attention. If the family had killed the son, they had gotten away with it already. The only sane move for them would be to expose the guy immediately and leave him in Spain. The narrative that comes through despite the film's attempt to bury it is the one about the family driven so insane by grief and lack of closure that they accept the impossible because it was what they longed for for so long. Maxnmona: I know, that's why I say it was a bait and switch, not that I misunderstand what happened. While I find your interpretation interesting, Jack, I don't think it's like exit through the gift shop, where looking back you think oh my god mr brainwash is banksy's greatest creation!. To rephrase, I think you make excellent points about the FBI agent and the PI possibly getting duped again, and there's a strong argument that the boys familial murder is another imposter hoax. After all, it's the imposter alone who says "oh yeah, the half-brother gave me crazy eyes, he's buried in the yard, etc etc". But it wasn't clear tonally that the movie was trying to explain this -- the dramatic crane down to the grass shot, the ominous music. I agree that the final sequence makes it clear that we are to question everything the narrator has told us up to that point. But the movie seemed to ask us to side strongly with the murder theory -- the cross cutting in the final sequence, the ominous music. There was no aesthetic communication of what you're saying, that this is hoax #2. So I agree with your interpretation of the documentary's subjects, but strongly disagree with the delivery. The murder is only questionable because the movie strongly leads us on with its narrative choices, and doesn't give us the cinematic distance to say, "wait a sec..." That's why the final shot is less a giraldo Rivera oh man the emperor has no clothes moment and more "wait, you seemed to imply this would end with a boys body." Is that a better explanation?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
Cocoa Ninja posted:Maxnmona: I know, that's why I say it was a bait and switch, not that I misunderstand what happened. Nah, watch the last 5 minutes again. The film goes from dangling questions in the air to making a very hard stance with every action and line spoken at the end. Shot for shot: As the sister talks about the absurdity of hiding a stranger to cover up a murder, we go to the imposter smiling and signaling to the camera led off to jail where it's revealed he's calling up dozens of families saying he has information on those cases too. Again, the sister emphasizes the absurdity of listening to a compulsive liar (the brother reiterates the point) and the sister talks about the pain that causes with her final lines of the movie "gently caress him". The epilogue text plays to intercut scenes of the The Imposter dancing around, and his final lines "I didn't give a drat what other people were thinking, or what they were feeling. I care about myself. Just myself. And gently caress the rest of them." The text reiterates these points: the closing of the murder investigation due to lack of evidence, his perjury and fraud conviction, his attempt to impersonate after release. And The Imposter dances on... leading to the ominous music as the PI intensely stares on with the crane up to the ultimate shot: an empty grave as a fool digs eternally deeper. Why? Because "Nicholas Barklay is still listed as a missing person" I could see why someone would walk away thinking it was neutral, but looking closely at the information presentation it takes a very, very hard stance. The culmination of the film isn't presenting an ambiguous murder theory, it's all about the blinding pursuit of hope in the face of the obvious. The imposter dances on EvilTobaccoExec fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Mar 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
I gotta disagree with all about P&R, and that's as a fan-ish. First, Leslie was never close to a Michael Scott, who is rude, arrogant, selfish, incompetent, ignorant, idiotic, and a psychopath. A couple of those qualities are shared but that's seriously not even a thing. On point, S04 was a travesty. S03 was excellent but already began showing signs of wear as the program continued on sans Mark Brandanowitz, who was the only straight-man in the show. Okay, you can argue Ann (I used to think it was Anne, and finding out made me feel weird. Or something.) serves that role but that's strenuous at best. There's no normalizing force in the show, though April has became a mule for that cause, and only somewhat successfully. This has snowballed into three fatal flaws. 1) Most characters are now cockamamie. Ron jumped sharks all S04 with his tending to the campaign, proving once and for all his views are without actual constitution. Tom's clown evolution continued to sometimes thinking I saw makeup. The continued berating of Jerry err Garry is in no way interesting given his wife, daughters, and freakishly huge cock, making everyone's purposeful obliviousness as purely hateful and mean spirited bullies. And what the tits was the campaign bus, luxury and custom for one day of rolling? And what was with the band of loons in the debate, which was bigger and nicer than a loving presidential debate. Is this the same small town with big problems (countless obese people of which zero have ever been seen) and the plucky government workers who get some of it taken care of? No, because we only saw anyone doing their job maybe four times the entire season. 2) Leslie and Ben is literally insane, creepy, and devoid of heart. So, Ben gets to Pawnee and is a little hosed-up and feels like an orphan. Leslie has a tyrannically unholy love for her charismatic piece of poo poo town. Ben comes to love Pawnee and Leslie is Pawnee so Ben loves Leslie and Pawnee loves it's citizens so Leslie loves Ben. That's literally it, and in one of the episodes the two of them, flirting, even said so themselves in nightmarish metaphors! I would love to go on and on about how gross and baffling it is to me that I'm supposed to care and not be repulsed by the excruciatingly overwrought relationship they have based on mental disorders and simply telling the audience, "Hey, these two characters are now just going to be soul mates. No, you're insufferable!" but I'll spare you. 3) Leslie should have lost the election. She needed to have the piss taken out of her, be made humble again, but the writers were just having too much fun letting the train come off the rails. It's not like she couldn't have come into still having the job down the line, what with a single headline more on the morning paper about Paul Rudd being such a retarded person that he took his boat to and now lives in some landlocked country, or whatever refuse. It could have been a major, telling moment about the nature of these characters but instead we got celebration, everything being perfect, and a final joke of how awful Jerry is. Terrible direction and an even worse squandered moment to fix the now irreparably damaged show. I watched the first few episodes of S05, didn't laugh once or silently find a single thing amusing, and stopped watching. Being the Netflix thread, I'm sure I'll watch when it goes up on streaming but until then I'm just being glad that I still have the option not to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
soapgish posted:I gotta disagree with all about P&R, and that's as a fan-ish. Congrats on a 600 word essay on a TV show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
Ben and Leslie love each other because sometimes people love each other. I don't ascribe any grand metaphor for it, it's just, they've got similar personalities and they just click.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
I didn't read all of that but I will say that I disagree with your final point cause I can just watch the news if I want to see stupid, rich people who are only out for themselves win elections. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
I can totally picture Ben presenting this list on why the show sucks to the group at the parks dept. He lays out his case and all the reasons why it is a bad show in a thorough, academic way. It would be meta. Then April says "God, shut up!" And Andy throws a football into Ben's crotch. Or possibly Tom says "Shut up, nerd!" Cold open idea?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 07:57
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Anyone got any so bad it's good 80s movies to recommend? Search for a bad movie podcast website and look up their list of seen movies, and just look for stuff from the 80s. Order of the Black Eagle is available on Netflix and is a pretty enjoyable bad movie. Steele Justice isn't bad, but I think it peaks a bit too early and the rest of the movie doesn't really pay off. RoughDraft2.0 posted:On a non-Renner note, can anyone explain why Saturday Night Live episodes are butchered beyond all recognition? I was kind of jazzed about pawing through the earlier seasons, but many of them are only 30-40 minutes long. (I'm guessing an average complete episode runs at least an hour, subtracting commercials.) The 80s were a lovely time for SNL and they refuse to reair the vast majority of stuff from 80-85. I'm surprised they're released at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
EvilTobaccoExec posted:Nah, watch the last 5 minutes again. The film goes from dangling questions in the air to making a very hard stance with every action and line spoken at the end. Shot for shot: As the sister talks about the absurdity of hiding a stranger to cover up a murder, we go to the imposter smiling and signaling to the camera led off to jail where it's revealed he's calling up dozens of families saying he has information on those cases too. Again, the sister emphasizes the absurdity of listening to a compulsive liar (the brother reiterates the point) and the sister talks about the pain that causes with her final lines of the movie "gently caress him". The epilogue text plays to intercut scenes of the The Imposter dancing around, and his final lines "I didn't give a drat what other people were thinking, or what they were feeling. I care about myself. Just myself. And gently caress the rest of them." The text reiterates these points: the closing of the murder investigation due to lack of evidence, his perjury and fraud conviction, his attempt to impersonate after release. And The Imposter dances on... leading to the ominous music as the PI intensely stares on with the crane up to the ultimate shot: an empty grave as a fool digs eternally deeper. Why? Because "Nicholas Barklay is still listed as a missing person" The only thing that throws me off is the PI. I didn't take him to be the crackpot the other poster did, he was positioned in the narrative as the guy who cut through the bullshit, even if his ear forensics seems out there. I get the visual metaphor of the final shot, but what are we to make of the odd circumstantial evidence of the broken home, the falsified break-in report? We can ignore the imposter's characterization of the half brother. But whats the point of interviewing the childhood friend if not to start convincing us of the possibility of the murder? none of that is the imposter's doing. Its the movie deliberately leading us. I didn't get the sense that we should be saying of the PI in the final scene, lwhat a pointless wacko!" But instead we closely align ourselves with him as a truth seeker. Are we to see the final sequence as indicative of the warning that anyone can be convinced? Put another way, of course we reject outright if the movie just had the imposter at the end in context say oh, he was MURDERED. But the movie very carefully sets up these suspicions independent of his believability, and so it seems disingenuous to say that this one imposter has single-handedly pulled the wool over everyone's eyes (including the viewer) AGAIN But otherwise I agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
Tennis Ball posted:Congrats on a 600 word essay on a TV show. Don't get me started! Also, thank you. priznat posted:I can totally picture Ben presenting this list on why the show sucks to the group at the parks dept. He lays out his case and all the reasons why it is a bad show in a thorough, academic way. It would be meta. I actually saw and heard that transpire in my mind as I read. I think it's a solid idea, nor I wouldn't object to a credit on a primetime major network show, but mostly I think I'd just like to get pissy about my trite opinions being conveyed in any manner short of flawless :/
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
Cocoa Ninja posted:The only thing that throws me off is the PI. I didn't take him to be the crackpot the other poster did, he was positioned in the narrative as the guy who cut through the bullshit, even if his ear forensics seems out there. I get the visual metaphor of the final shot, but what are we to make of the odd circumstantial evidence of the broken home, the falsified break-in report? We can ignore the imposter's characterization of the half brother. But whats the point of interviewing the childhood friend if not to start convincing us of the possibility of the murder? none of that is the imposter's doing. Its the movie deliberately leading us. I didn't get the sense that we should be saying of the PI in the final scene, lwhat a pointless wacko!" But instead we closely align ourselves with him as a truth seeker. Are we to see the final sequence as indicative of the warning that anyone can be convinced? The film pretty clearly sets up the murder suspicion as the second hoax to show that all it takes for the impostor to succeed is the desire for more explanation or better-understood motivations. The PI is portrayed as a crackpot immediately jumping to assumptions about spying and military sabotage and *A REAL CASE* because those are the narratives he understands. He sees through the Nicholas deception not because he's immune to bullshit, but because the emotional deceptions aren't aligned with his interests (unlike the family) nor are the kidnapping/justice ones that deceived the sex trafficking investigator.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
Tennis Ball posted:Congrats on a 600 word essay on a TV show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 08:34
|
|
|
Watched Shaolin Grandma, and was underwhelmed. There were only a few funny moments for me--some of the opening fight moves and the Vol. 3 and 4 gags--but the rest just fell flat for me. I can appreciate how the cast enjoyed making the movie, but I didn't really enjoy watching it. And then I followed that up with Compliance, and holy poo poo is that movie an emotional train wreck. It's beautifully shot, I loved the musical cues, and the acting was great, but it makes my soul feel as greasy as the fried chickens in the film. Awesome movie, but be prepared. On a plus side, Dreama Walker is really pretty. Yah know, before poo poo hits the fan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:The film pretty clearly sets up the murder suspicion as the second hoax to show that all it takes for the impostor to succeed is the desire for more explanation or better-understood motivations. The PI is portrayed as a crackpot immediately jumping to assumptions about spying and military sabotage and *A REAL CASE* because those are the narratives he understands. He sees through the Nicholas deception not because he's immune to bullshit, but because the emotional deceptions aren't aligned with his interests (unlike the family) nor are the kidnapping/justice ones that deceived the sex trafficking investigator. Because I'm sitting here writing paragraphs about it my first reaction is that it's not as obvious as you two make it out to be, but maybe you're all right. I'll have to rewatch it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 08:49
|
|
|
Tennis Ball posted:Congrats on a 600 word essay on a TV show. Eat poo. Words rule. Cocoa Ninja posted:Because I'm sitting here writing paragraphs about it my first reaction is that it's not as obvious as you two make it out to be, but maybe you're all right. I'll have to rewatch it! This is definitely not a bad idea. I plan to do the same pretty soon. I wouldn't necessarily call it obvious, just that close examination of the information flow and arcs they construct makes side-taken clearer which helps in unraveling the grander narrative. More about The Imposter notice how they construct the image of the PI next time you watch the movie. He's almost this "Inspector Gadget" (for lack of better analogy) figure, where he manages to insert himself into this case after a coincidental encounter, and fall upward. While right about the kid, his primary motivation was based on uncovering a grand conspiracy infiltrating the US. The larger than life conspiracy of international European military operating a child sex slavery ring by shipping in American kids is toppled by someone constructing their own larger fiction where that's a just front story used to cover terrorists or political subterfuge. The scene in the dinner where he's eating hot cakes is paramount to his narrative; after all this work and everything about to come to conclusion, it's viciously anti-climactic. His folk-friendly descriptions of the moment with him so astonished that he can barely scarf down his hot cakes totally undercuts his legitimacy. There's even a hilarious comment by The Imposter after he starts getting too close, something like "After all this, the last thing I need is getting Columbo'd." It's all set up for him to be deceived as well, just once The Imposter's lies line up with his hopes of a greater mystery. It's the same with the polygraph woman. Basically, that statement is presented to us as "we tested, but it didn't feel right, we tested again, but that didn't feel right either, and the last time was what we wanted so it felt right". Which is meant for us to start going, wait a minute, that's bullshit and you should know it. But it's about her willingness to deceive herself so she doesn't realize it. From there on the film undercuts her constantly by following up her statements of encounters with another interviewee going "well I did feel this way/say this thing, but that's not what happened" About the break-in elements, I recall their questioned authenticity being less than clear. But I could be wrong on that, I think part of establishing the grander narrative of blinding desire involved setting up that doubt in the audience. For the first time we're put in a position of uncertainty (separated from our all-knowing manipulative narrator) and must be shown both what evidence could lead someone to think that, while countering with the family's responses denying or partial acknowledgment with explanation. While dangling the question, the presentation of information often undercuts the the murder allegation to prepare the audience for hard stand made in the last few minutes. The nature of responses even shifts from the specific to the absurdity of how simply the second deception has been perpetrated: blaming the dead brother who can not contradict the story, accepting another grandiose story of murders hiding the imposter of the child they killed to divert suspicion, and, of course, trusting the deceiver to bare the truth they want to hear
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
Agree with everything that has been posted. To me, the second half of The Imposter exists as a counterpoint to everyone's immediate thought of "how could this family be so stupid to be fooled by him?" The point is that anyone can be that "stupid". It's called confirmation bias. While I think it's reasonable to have at least a tiny amount of lingering doubt about the fate of the child in a family with a history of drug abuse, at the heart of it, those investigators are falling under the same trap of believing in the reality that they would prefer, despite the lack of evidence. Hell, even I feel for his deception. I was buying into his sob story about being too deep to admit the truth only to find out he's done this same routine a hundred times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 11:30
|
|
|
I'm working my way through Lexx right now and enjoying it - I remember Farscape used to be available, but it's apparently gone. Anything similar I should watch out for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
Imposter talk On the subject of the three tests, the New Yorker article does provide a more specific reason. They suspected she was on drugs which were affecting the results, and so made her wait long enough for drugs to wear off and then tested her again. And she admitted later that she was probably on heroin during the test. Polygraphs still are bullshit though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Tiny Furniture is the reason I still haven't watched Girls. While Tiny Furniture and Girls feature a lot of the same themes, subplots, and actors, and I mean A LOT, Girls is still leaps and bounds above Tiny Furniture. Girls benefits from having a strong guiding hand from Judd Apatow, and being on HBO instead of being a small indie movie. It's just so much more polished and fully realized, and while Tiny Furniture focused pretty much exclusively on Lena Dunham, Girls also focuses on its strong supporting cast. I highly recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 14:40
|
|
|
priznat posted:Yeah Parks and Rec ... It's pretty cool how it can be so warm-hearted and hilariously funny at the same time. For me, Parks and Rec is the only show that ever captured the spirit of Upright Citizen's Brigade improv. On stage, they can go to really dark places and still be very funny, because it's all imaginary. But when they actually SHOW improv jokes, you get something like the Upright Citizen's Brigade TV show, which is gross and cruel, and doesn't feel at all like the live show. P&R seems to have figured this out, and goes out of it's way to overcompensate. You can feel the tug of war between slice-of-life and improv humor. If you like Parks and Rec, and want to see it go slightly darker and more improvy, check out Wet Hot American Summer which is also streaming. And for the person looking for bad 80's movies, also check out Wet Hot American Summer. It's an 80's tribute with 90's actors filmed in the 00's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 14:40
|
|
|
Well, I guess it's interesting to know there's at least one person in the world who doesn't like season 4 of Parks and Rec. To me that was the best season and the culmination of everything that's great about the show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
To anyone who liked the Imposter, there's a drama based on the life of the French guy called the Chameleon also up for streaming. I haven't watched it yet, but it might be of interest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Finally trying to push through the first season of Parks and Rec. I originally thought Lesley was just a female version of Steve Carrels character from the Office but shes starting to grow on me. I watched the first episodes when the show came out, and the female version of Carell is exactly what I thought, and I gave up on the show until, like, the latter part of Season 3. I almost did the same thing to Community (in the sense that I gave up on it after the first episode, not that I thought that it had anything to do with Carell), but luckily my friend recommended it to me about six episodes in, so I was able to go back. However, after Season 3, I find myself wondering why I ever enjoyed the show in the first place. Also, this is probably my favourite thread on SA now. Every recommendation in this thread has been a huge hit, and something I may not have found on my own. Stuff like Paris is Burning, The Imposter, and eXistenZ (I didn't know this was on Netflix). Whenever I operate Netflix on my own, I end up watching stuff like Nature Calls or Word Wars, and it never ends up as good as I expected it to. Totally gonna hit up The Cook, Thief, His Wife and Her Lover and Naked soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Anyone who likes Exit Through The Gift Shop and The Imposter should watch Forbidden Lie$. It's not on streaming but seek it out. Go into it as blind as possible. Don't even read the short Netflix summary. Taken together the three movies could be a trilogy on documentaries that play with the reliability of the format.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
Twin Cinema posted:Totally gonna hit up The Cook, Thief, His Wife and Her Lover and Naked soon. The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, And Her Lover is absolutely gorgeous and utterly vile at the same time. It's much better than the Netflix description would lead you to believe. Plus the ending is one of those things that'll stick with you for a long time. "Cannibal."
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
Imposter chat: i thought the PI was like a stopped clock. He was right once, but that doesn't mean anything following was correct. I also saw the imposter's ruse succeeding as a case of confirmation bias on the part of people who desperately wanted their son/brother back. Nothing that Bourdin person says should be taken seriously. He's an awful person who through sheer gumption, shamelessness and some cleverness manages to dupe people who are hoping for something by laying out a rough framework and letting them fill in the details themselves. He's like an rear end in a top hat psychic, basically. gently caress that guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
The best thing about The Imposter: Until the reveal that he was a dude who had done this multiple times before (multiple may not be the right word, since it doesn't seem to capture how many times he had done it), I did feel a degree of sympathy for him. I mean, it was obvious that he had some sort of mental issue, because how else could anyone deceive for this long without any remorse or second-guessing (to be fair, he did second-guess, but that led to him just dying his hair and getting tattoos)? But, they capture him as a reasonably sane person, and I don't think the documentary ever led us to believe that his word could be doubted, which is kind of the same position the family was in. Yeah, it was obvious that he did have issues, but at the same time, the way he presented himself was fairly normal in the interview scenes. That is, until we get to the point where we find out that he's been calling people from his jail cell pretending to be a missing kid, and then the crazy dance routine, which made me say, "oh right, why the hell did I ever believe this guy in the first place?" The murder case seems likely, but in actuality, there's not much evidence there. The only true "evidence" is that the family took in a dude who looked nothing like their son, that there was reports of violence in the household before the real Nicholas disappeared, and the family became hostile when they started to be questioned about it. I am not really sure about the reports of drug use, but it was really odd that a 13-year old would have some small tattoos, but I don't know if this is my suburban upbringing showing. These things are all weird, but none of it points to a cover-up murder. There was also the part of the documentary where he said something about the half-brother showing up, and just telling him, "good luck." As if he knew that the kid was dead, because HE HAD KILLED THE KID! But again, considering the source, it's doubtful this actually transpired. But see, now we are discussing the possibility of murder, rather than the fact that a dude spent months pretending he was a missing child, and has done it so many times before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
The Shield is on Amazon Prime Video. Season 1, and Seasons 3+, that is. loving bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
So is The Imposter real or not? I need to know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Twin Cinema posted:The best thing about The Imposter: Until the reveal that he was a dude who had done this multiple times before (multiple may not be the right word, since it doesn't seem to capture how many times he had done it), I did feel a degree of sympathy for him. I mean, it was obvious that he had some sort of mental issue, because how else could anyone deceive for this long without any remorse or second-guessing (to be fair, he did second-guess, but that led to him just dying his hair and getting tattoos)? But, they capture him as a reasonably sane person, and I don't think the documentary ever led us to believe that his word could be doubted, which is kind of the same position the family was in. Yeah, it was obvious that he did have issues, but at the same time, the way he presented himself was fairly normal in the interview scenes. That is, until we get to the point where we find out that he's been calling people from his jail cell pretending to be a missing kid, and then the crazy dance routine, which made me say, "oh right, why the hell did I ever believe this guy in the first place?" The murder case seems likely, but in actuality, there's not much evidence there. The only true "evidence" is that the family took in a dude who looked nothing like their son, that there was reports of violence in the household before the real Nicholas disappeared, and the family became hostile when they started to be questioned about it. I am not really sure about the reports of drug use, but it was really odd that a 13-year old would have some small tattoos, but I don't know if this is my suburban upbringing showing. These things are all weird, but none of it points to a cover-up murder. There was also the part of the documentary where he said something about the half-brother showing up, and just telling him, "good luck." As if he knew that the kid was dead, because HE HAD KILLED THE KID! But again, considering the source, it's doubtful this actually transpired. But see, now we are discussing the possibility of murder, rather than the fact that a dude spent months pretending he was a missing child, and has done it so many times before. Also he did it 20-30 times AFTER the case the movie is about, even pretending to be a real missing kid again. He was 23 at the time of this story, and the New Yorker has him doing it still in his early 30s
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Volume posted:So is The Imposter real or not? I need to know. It is a true story with real people, yes. Who you believe in it is a different question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
maxnmona posted:It is a true story with real people, yes. Who you believe in it is a different question. Then why does the IMDB for it list actors playing the people?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 17:03
|
|