| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 14:41:27
Forget 2012. Forget The Titanic. This is what I call a disaster movie!
I guess if you're in a coma you might register a few frames of this saccharine sack of shit. Hopefully, you'll flatline and not have to watch any more.
PS Some of the acting is terrific ... well, the two people who have anything to do that requires acting, namely Stanley Tucci and Susan Sarandon.
Everyone else is either in that coma with you or wishes they were.
I'll bring an open mind to The Hobbit, Peter, I promise.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 01:30:18
I would have thought that for the paroloe board (in this case) the easiest decision would be to continue denying parole. It's not as if the public are demanding his release. And who wants to be the guy who lets him out only for him to repeat the crime? You can never trust a guy like that again, at least not until he's so old that he's harmless. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 01:15:25
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I've never really understood why life doesn't mean life. Why call it that? Why not call a life sentence a twenty year sentence if that's what it is? Life imprisonment, which should be the hardest time, should mean it.
I suppose they would explain it by saying he was sentenced to 25 years to life. He was tried for 2nd degree murder, not 1st. The district attorney explained that it was very difficult to get a 1st degree conviction at that time unless it involved killing a police officer. Personally, I think it was premeditated since he had spoken to her once before that morning and went back to "see" her again. He went back to within 75 feet of the babysitter's back door where he caught up with her. We've never been given an explanation of what he did exactly to get her where he left her. Personally, I don't buy that she went willingly, and knowing where he was going to take her proved to me that he planned it. This parole hearing was at the end of the 25 years, and we realize that more effort will have to be made in the future, since he was denied his FIRST pass at parole. It seems to me that the parole board may think "Well, he was denied before, MAYBE..." Well, maybe NOT. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 01:12:38
Yes, that nomenclature frustrates me too. However, I don't agree with those who want conditions in prison to be bad -- the punishment should be the loss of liberty and nothing else. On top of that, I agree with Sean that the only unquestionably valid point of imprisonment is to stop people committing similar crimes, and secondarily rehabilitation (although that doesn't by definition need to be in prison, and also has limited success), rather than punishment or retribution. |
| demonic |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 01:03:12
I've never really understood why life doesn't mean life. Why call it that? Why not call a life sentence a twenty year sentence if that's what it is? Life imprisonment, which should be the hardest time, should mean it. |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 00:12:52
I agree that for such killers life should mean life. That's nothing to do with punishment, it's simply to make sure he can never do it again. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 23:53:03
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I can't imagine that anything that could ever be done to the psychopath who killed one's daughter could ever be cathartic. Not prison, not execution, not torture. The only thing that makes sense to me is for the living victims (relatives etc) to accept that the killer is a crocodile in human form and try to forget about him, and that the 'system' makes 100% sure that they never get a chance to do it again.
Well, it seems quite important that this douche bag never gets out of prison and his stay be as demeaning and fraught with beatings and other unmentionable things for his entire life. We know he hasn't had an easy row of it from reports from the prison.
As it turns out, to our great relief, the parole board found him to be unfit for release and set the date for the next hearing in 2012. I personally want life to mean life. That gives us a couple years not to be concerned about this same thing happening to some other little eleven year old girl. The reason he gave at the trial was that she was just such a nice little girl, that he wanted to be her friend. Imagine that!?! The thing about that is that Sunshine would have been a friend if he hadn't killed her. That's just how she was. |
| Sean |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 06:52:19
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I empathise with the desire for the perpetrator to have to pay for their crimes (by which I mean face up to what they have done and be made to explain why if possible).
The only reasonable explanation a psychopathic serial killer could ever give was that they did it because they enjoyed it. I think there's no chance of them ever feeling remorse.
quote:
It does seem deeply unfair when they get to just kill themselves and get away with it.
But is that very different from someone else killing them? Execution isn't a punishment (as far as I'm aware) as psychopaths don't fear death. They don't care about their own life or death as they don't care about anything.
I can't imagine that anything that could ever be done to the psychopath who killed one's daughter could ever be cathartic. Not prison, not execution, not torture. The only thing that makes sense to me is for the living victims (relatives etc) to accept that the killer is a crocodile in human form and try to forget about him, and that the 'system' makes 100% sure that they never get a chance to do it again.
The psychology of Cumbrian-style mass murderers is quite different though. To be honest I think those characters do society a favour with their suicide. The victims can then be left to grieve without being eaten alive for years by the 'need' for vengeance. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 02:32:03
I can't really offer you any comfort, w.h.l., but I hope that whatever decision is made you and her other loved ones are able to come to terms with.
I empathise with the desire for the perpetrator to have to pay for their crimes (by which I mean face up to what they have done and be made to explain why if possible). It does seem deeply unfair when they get to just kill themselves and get away with it. I particularly feel this about the Natascha Kampusch case and the murder sprees where they shoot themselves at the end. While she didn't know anyone affected, the recent Cumbrian massacre was in and around my mum's home village of Seascale (my grandpa was a nuclear physicist at Sellafield) and even I feel frustrated that the gunman will never have to answer to his family for killing his own twin brother amongst many others.
Anyway, I hope the outcome is bearable whatever it ends up being. |
| demonic |
Posted - 07/20/2010 : 02:06:24
God, how awful. If you can bear to share I'd be interested to hear how that turns out.
In reference to some of your points: the book is infinitely better written so do consider giving it some time. It's redemptive and satisfying in the way the film adaptation is not. I know what you mean about vengeance - you really want him to pay, if not suffer, for what he did. Again it's clearer in the book that Susie actually has a very significant role in his demise. In the film I don't think it's particularly clear (or that he is graphically dispatched enough - Jackson copping out again I'm afraid). |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 07/19/2010 : 22:29:37
Actually, I knew it was about a serial killer, which is a topic that I rarely shy away from. I didn't know that the serial killer in question was a pedophiliac one. I was mostly drawn by the nomination for Stanley Tucci, and I wasn't prepared for the looks similarity of Saoirse Ronan to Sunshine, or what I think she would have looked like if she'd lived past the age of 11. Perhaps if it had been better written, or they'd found the body, or if Tucci's character had outwardly paid for the murder and not just killed. There is that innate desire for vengeance there. Or maybe it is because her murderer is coming up for his first parole hearing this week... |
| demonic |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 13:34:41
That's awful Livie. I'm interested that you must have known the subject matter before you went to see it though - I wonder if you were looking for some sort of cathartic experience or understanding? Another way in which Jackson failed miserably in adapting the book is I believe much of the point of the original novel is to comprehend Suzie's violent death and give some hope or peace to people who've lost children, in similar situations or otherwise. If he'd nailed it I should think this would be exactly the sort of film Sunshine's parents might have appreciated and be glad of seeing as a way to deal with their own loss. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 07/18/2010 : 07:17:33
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by wildheartlivie
As I noted somewhere else on here, this film struck home. Mostly, it is because Saoirse Ronan has my goddaughter's eyes and at times she looked like Sunshine. That Sunshine died a similar death made it sting.
That sounds horrible, w.h.l. 
It was horrible. The film fairly much was a "rub your nose in it" sort of experience. I called Sunshine's mother up and told her to avoid this film at all costs. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 07/17/2010 : 23:40:33
quote:
Originally posted by wildheartlivie
As I noted somewhere else on here, this film struck home. Mostly, it is because Saoirse Ronan has my goddaughter's eyes and at times she looked like Sunshine. That Sunshine died a similar death made it sting.
That sounds horrible, w.h.l. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 07/06/2010 : 02:48:41
As I noted somewhere else on here, this film struck home. Mostly, it is because Saoirse Ronan has my goddaughter's eyes and at times she looked like Sunshine. That Sunshine died a similar death made it sting. I think that when a film touches too close to home, one can't really have an objective opinion on it. So, I was taken with it in my subjective way. It isn't necessarily that it was a stellar film, more that it hit way too close to home. |
| randall |
Posted - 07/04/2010 : 22:14:53
Not as bad as you've heard.
I've read the book. |
