MovieChat Forums > Aylmer
Aylmer (416)
Posts
Wouldn't it be crazy if he's the man who history credits with...
An upgraded ending of the movie...
best sound design in film history?
First case of a rock / pop band being used to score a big budget feature?
Has directed about 4 features a year for the past 16 years?
similarities with THE FIFTH ELEMENT?
Wait, so it isn't "Shea Winningham"?
Has anyone else actually been to the Midway Cemetary in Georgia?
the impressive reverse-footage shorts that they'd show
Name of 70's/80's Horror movie opening with a woman dying on a hospital bed
View all posts >
Replies
The whole situation was unfortunate from the get-go and opens up a moral quandary. Is it right to shoot someone in self defense as he did with Rosenbaum? In my opinion, yes it is.
Now with the others it's a bit of a moral gray area, because I can't read any of their minds. But let's be charitable and assume that they actually believed that the shooting (which they most likely didn't see) was unjustified and that he was some mass-murdering lunatic. Does it make it their duty to try to violently subdue him, even if they don't know why he fired in the first place?
He did go on to kill / gravely wound two people who attacked him later, which is justified, but think of the implications of that.
Say there's a mass-shooter and a "good guy with a gun" steps in to stop him. Does that "good guy" need to know why the mass shooter is shooting in the first place before taking action? A lot of these situations are confusing and rely on split second knee-jerk decisions which can result in tragedy. It makes it hard to really legislate around it because the decision of a person to pull a trigger can be a very subjective matter of opinion which can almost always be justified somehow. Ignorance is no legal defense in our system, but at the same time morally justifies an awful lot because how can you truly blame someone for believing what they are told if that's the only thing they know (ie that the guy shooting and running away is a murderer)?
I'm trying to be as charitable as I can to both sides, but as it was, Kyle was in the right to defend himself and the media characterization of him as a racist psycho etc was completely insane and made me all the more glad he got off. As to why he cried, and likely continues to be haunted by the episode, I am sure because he does feel a certain amount of guilt because the people he killed also believed that they were doing the right thing, even if they turned out to be gravely mistaken.
We all knew Leno was a big Leftist privately (his wife is a top Dem donor) but he always refrained from taking obvious sides in his comedy. That's really the way it ought to be for these late night people. Kimmel doesn't even entertain the opposition's perspective as though everyone and everything on his side is sacrosanct and above criticism. This is anti-comedy.
Trump's playing chess while Leftists are playing checkers and chuckling to themselves in their little bubbles. They're busy thinking they're making a difference with random posts on Facebook and Reddit while having no desire to understand people in the rest of the country.
Notice how when anyone is brave enough to go against the establishment, they suddenly get hit with a bunch of accusations.
I heard the movie DIDN'T EVEN get a release on ANY streaming platforms when it came out! What a disaster! What were they even thinking??
Exactly. Right now there is zero accountability among the drug companies for putting out bad products. They are able to bribe the government and the media into just going along with whatever products they create, and endlessly increasing the amount of chemicals people are unquestioningly pumping themselves and their kids full of into eternity.
RFK Jr., though I disagree with him on many issues, is actually very pro-vax in general but also wants accountability and transparency in the medical industry, including with vaccines. He wants things safer for everyone, which may mean taking a few medications off the market.
While I am a Libertarian and heavy regulation is kinda anti-Libertarian, it does appear to me to be largely in the public's best interests, as long as you remove corruption from the regulatory bodies (to the extent that such a thing is actually possible).
I have yet to see that one as well, plus I hear there's a bunch of White Fang movies beyond the two Franco Nero and the one Maurizio Merli one. There's at least two that Alfonso Brescia did for instance, though it might be an instance of one actual movie being filmed and being split into two via stock footage.
All of the above are sadly rare and missing out on anything better than VHS-transfer level budget DVD releases.
An older friend of mine told me that he saw GATES OF HELL in 1983 when it played at the Egyptian Theater in LA. He said that some Italian filmmaker from the movie (he didnt remember if it was Fulci himself or some producer) came onstage after it was over to take questions and he was literally boo'd off the stage. I wish I had more information about the event but 4 decades later all we have is apocryphal evidence.
What's even cheesier, to me, is that in this age of CGI and Disney's billions of dollars it could use to recreate a shot or two of Greedo talking, that they had to resort to using existing footage of him saying "Yakoska" earlier in the conversation and re-dubbing it with "Maclunky". I mean, come on! Not only do they make changes to make the movie worse, but do so utilizing the absolute minimal possible effort.
There's a lot of snowy Spaghetti Westerns if you count all the "White Fang" movies they made around the same time. I also think they did a few Westerns set in Canada with mounties (such as one Aristide Massaccessi did called "The Red Coat") but unfortunately most of them are very obscure.
View all replies >