Cameron H.

If anyone is interested in seeing King Kong, but not purchasing it, it's for rent on iTunes right now for 0.99.

Um...that should be Cameron and Cameron Attorneys at Law you narcissist.

No apologies necessary! I love tangents

After Om Shant Om, I’m excited to see this

Oh my goodness, neither was I! I hope it didn't come off that way. My point was more about how premeditated that decision was on the writer's part. As we said earlier in the thread, Law Enforcement is one of the *only* jobs that you can get fired for for being married to a criminal. The writer wanted her her get fired for that reason, but because being a former FBI Agent probably looks pretty good on a resume, he didn't want her to have any apparent advantages. The writer wanted her to be in a position where she was not only fired for reasons beyond her control but also have work experience in a field that might not necessarily result in a well-paying job right away. Again, my point wasn't to knock her as a secretary, but to point out the mental gymnastics it took to get his character into a very specific predicament. And if he put that much thought into that, then he must have put just as much effort into every other questionable thing that happens in the movie. Which, for me, makes the whole thing a million times worse. Also, I agree with you, Taylor. Even if it were "less realistic" or whatever, I feel like it would have been more satisfying to have her solve the mystery on her own. Hell, she doesn't even need to be an agent. You could just throw in a line like, "You work for the FBI long enough, you tend to pick things up." I think she even does say something like that at one point... ETA: God damn it...This is what I get for being too verbose.

I want to talk about cause of death - for the cockroach. Based on the care Shad employs to place the cockroach in the yogurt, he seems to want to make it look like it died from natural causes. This makes sense, of course, as if foul play is suspected it might ruin his chances of his huge payout. As he’s probably anticipating some sort of insect autopsy to be performed, he definitely can’t use pesticides and stepping on it would leave too much physical evidence. I really like the idea that might have used a tiny garrote, but who knows, that might have trace evidence, as well. So I guess my question is, do you think Shad pre-drowned his roaches in yogurt to make it look like an accident? And don’t think it escapes me that, if this is the case, it mirrors the exact cause of death of Stalker Jerry. This movie - it’s just wheels within wheels.

I wasn't in anyway trying to say that B&T = Crank. Obviously, B&T is a better movie. I was just saying that what was acceptable at one point often becomes unacceptable over time. We can make excuses for B&T and say that they weren't being intentionally homophobic, but I could make the same argument and say that Swing Time wasn't trying to be maliciously racist. Yet, that scene in Swing Time soured the whole thing for me. It's at the bottom of my AFI list specifically for that reason. For some people watching B&T now for the first time, their use of a homophobic slurs is going to be just as offensive. They aren't wrong to feel that way and we aren't right for giving it a bit of a pass. It is offensive, but the movie is still good. The funny thing is, as turned off as I was by the racism in Swing Time, I'll probably be more forgiving of the racism in Gone With the Wind simply because of my own personal context for that movie. How this is applies to Crank is, yes, it was deliberately trying to be offensive, but even just 10 years ago, a lot of people were still kind of looking the other way. Watching Crank for the first time now is like watching it in a completely different world. What was offensive then has become *really* offensive now. As far as taking everything out of it and it still being a bad movie? Absolutely. It's fucking trash. It's the type of movie that makes me simultaneously sick and angry while I watch it.

BTW - Thank you AlmostAGhost for posting these. I've been stepping away from Twitter so this is extremely helpful.

Extra! Extra! Quasar Sniffer to Paul, Jason, and the rest of the boards:

Lol. As soon as Charlie started his VO, all I could think was:

In terms of pacing it could be a result of you seeing so many movies since then. What seemed groundbreaking then seems sort of pedestrian now. It could be the result of the Flynn Effect.

We’re on a mission from God...to watch:

I think Grudlian’s right in it being a Goonies Conundrum thing. I think it matters when you were presented the material. For example, no one will ever tell me that Bill and Ted aren’t amazing, but they still call each other “f*gs” when they hug. I think a part of your brain has to be willing to view a movie in its original context, but I also can’t blame people being introduced to B&T for the first time for thinking that it’s terrible and homophobic. I mean, this debate is older than Shakespeare. I don’t know if there will ever be an easy answer.

I watched Platoon soon after watching Apocalypse Now. I had to laugh that both starred a Sheen doing voiceovers during Vietnam. They also both end in Cambodia.

It just occurred to me that Jason and Paul loved Gamer. I couldn’t even get through that movie. I hated it for the same exact same reasons that I hate the Crank movies. So that kind of throws my “What we were like ten years ago” theory. I have no idea why they would still like it.

I think this is probably true. Because of how far we have yet to go, I think it’s sometimes hard to see how far, and how quickly, we have actually come. For example, in my most recent listen through of HDTGM, I was shocked that in one of the earlier episodes, one of the hosts used the word “retarded” to describe something as stupid. I want to say it was a couple times, too. For me, I grew up using the word “gay” as a synonym for lame. I can’t even imagine *any* of us doing that now. This is why you’re seeing a massive pushback right now. It might seem like a long time, but this cultural shift is happening rapidly. There are people like myself and HDTGM who recognize their past insensitivities and are able to evolve (with maybe some stumbles) and there are people who simply refuse. For those people, it feels like they are being forced into a new way of thinking. They resent it and they are lashing out. They can’t understand why this movie they loved nine years ago is “suddenly bad.” So, yeah, I can see why Crank might have been appealing to people in 2009, but I really question people who still love it in 2018. And this is why I’m glad I missed this month

That’s very cool

I totally agree. You can just see how crushed she is when he says that.

To be fair, she wasn't suing because she spilled her coffee. She was suing because the coffee was served too hot (190 degrees). When she spilled her coffee, it caused third degree burns which required hospitalization and skin grafts. She also only sought money for her medical expenses and time lost from work (approx $18,000). McDonalds only offered her $800. That's why she sued. She didn't make millions off of the deal, either. Cam and I aren't saying the lawsuit isn't frivolous. We're just saying he's probably going to lose.

I know, but I was referring more to how that behavior seems to presage her need for something new. It doesn't seem to matter that her life is full of bank robberies, gun fights, and dramatic escapes. If she's gravitating toward dumb drivers with tattoos again, it seems like her life of crime has become just as mundane as her life as a waitress.

I mean, we can dig into this if you want... In order for Shad to get the biggest payout, he has to prove that the roach got into his cup of yogurt where it was packaged. If he can't do that, then the defense will probably argue that the roach got into his yogurt cup sometime during distribution and would make the case that they cannot guarantee the condition of their products during transit. At best, Shad could maybe sue the distributor or seller, but it would be a lesser payout, and more than likely, they will point to the fact that if roach got in there after packaging, it means that the seal was already broken. They could then make the argument that he shouldn't have been eating it anyway (caveat emptor - let the buyer beware). So the *only* way for his plan to conceivably work is if he can prove the roach got into the cup during the packaging process. While the name of the yogurt company is never specified in the movie (for good reason), we do know that it is the "best-selling" brand in America. The only yogurt brand at that time that could probably come close to that distinction is Yoplait. Yoplait is a French company that has only one franchisee in America: General Mills. General MiIls is headquartered out of Minneapolis, Minnesota, but has 49 production facilities across America. Of those facilities, only ONE (in Covington, GA) is located in an area that is within the natural habitat for the Florida Woods cockroach (or Palmetto bug). Does Shad even know if that facility packages yogurt? I mean, his case is going to fall apart really quick if he they don't. What if they only do cereal there? I'm just saying, unless he's just hoping for a cash settlement, he better be aware that's it probably going to take a little more than "put bug in yogurt, make money."

Thanks, Quasar for picking this. I really did like it a lot, I just didn’t have much to say about. I’m glad I finally got the chance to watch it from beginning to end, though.

At the beginning of the movie, when Clyde profiles Bonnie, he says: Those truck drivers come there to eat your greasy burgers, and they kid you and you kid them back, but they're stupid and dumb boys with their big, old tattoos, and you don't like it. They ask you for dates, and sometimes you go, but you mostly don't, because all they're trying to do is get in your pants, whether you want them to or not. So you go on home and you sit in your room and you think: Now when, and how am I ever going to get away from this? What I find interesting about that bit of dialogue is that it seems to be called back later in the film when Moss gets his own tattoo. We know that Clyde is *almost* spot on in his assessment of Bonnie, so I found it a bit strange that this tattoo-hater would actually pick out a “big, old” tattoo (“L-O-V-E) for Moss - their “stupid” and “dumb” driver. It seems to suggest that whenever Bonnie is dissatisfied and wants to “get away,” she tends to run toward the same type of man. Not out of love, but out of desperation. And in the absence of anyone else, she creates a surrogate lover in Moss.

If Shad thinks whatever the fuck was going on with Stuart Pankin’s face in the morgue looks “like lasagna,” remind me never to eat over at his house.