Jump to content

Netflix Recommendations

kevwun

By kevwun
in Movies and TV

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Caver60
Caver60

Here it is, in short. I would need to cross check some things to make sure it is all correct, but this is the story in brief: Some time in March, 1944, the 45th was moving into Germany in near co

Stringer
Stringer

You’re mad that a service you weren’t paying for got turned off?

aggie08
aggie08

Posted Images

Goo Punch

Goo Punch 4275

Posted
Posted
On 6/18/2019 at 1:22 PM, PilotsError said:

Everyone said Black Summer was a smarter Walking Dead.  Fuck those people.  This is the stupidest fucking show I've seen in a while.  Bailed after three episodes.  

the walking dead is already one of the stupidest shows in recent memory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pam Cummings

Pam Cummings 9579

Posted
Posted
On 6/11/2019 at 6:29 PM, CDAK said:

The detective played by Felicity Huffman in When They See Us wrote an op-ed in the WSJ.  Unsurprisingly, she disputes some of the info presented in the show.  There is some interesting info in her op-ed, but she agrees with the decision to vacate the convictions.  So, still a tragedy even if the writer/director took some factual liberties. https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflixs-false-story-of-the-central-park-five-11560207823

 

  Reveal hidden contents

At about 9 p.m. April 19, 1989, a large group of young men gathered on the corner of 110th Street and Fifth Avenue for the purpose of robbing and beating innocent people in Central Park. There were more than 30 rioters, and the woman known as the “Central Park jogger,” Trisha Meili, was not their only victim. Eight others were attacked, including two men who were beaten so savagely that they required hospitalization for head injuries.

Reporters and filmmakers have explored this story countless times from numerous perspectives, almost always focusing on five attackers and one female jogger. But each has missed the larger picture of that terrible night: a riot in the dark that resulted in the apprehension of more than 15 teenagers who set upon multiple victims. That a sociopath named Matias Reyes confessed in 2002 to the rape of Ms. Meili, and that the district attorney consequently vacated the charges against the five after they had served their sentences, has led some of these reporters and filmmakers to assume the prosecution had no basis on which to charge the five suspects in 1989. So it is with filmmaker Ava DuVernay in the Netflix miniseries “When They See Us,” a series so full of distortions and falsehoods as to be an outright fabrication.

It shouldn’t have been hard for Ms. DuVernay to discover the truth. The facts of the original case are documented in a 117-page decision by New York State Supreme Court Justice Thomas Galligan, in sworn testimony given in two trials and affirmed by two appellate courts, and in sworn depositions of more than 95 witnesses—including the five themselves. Instead she has written an utterly false narrative involving an evil mastermind (me) and the falsely accused (the five).

I was one of the supervisors who oversaw the team that prosecuted the teenagers apprehended after that horrific night of violence. Ms. DuVernay’s film attempts to portray me as an overzealous prosecutor and a bigot, the police as incompetent or worse, and the five suspects as innocent of all charges against them. None of this is true.

Consider the film’s most egregious falsehoods. “When They See Us” repeatedly portrays the suspects as being held without food, deprived of their parents’ company and advice, and not even allowed to use the bathroom. If that had been true, surely they would have brought those issues up and prevailed in pretrial hearings on the voluntariness of their statements, as well as in their lawsuit against the city. They didn’t, because it never happened.

In the first episode, the film portrays me at the precinct station house before dawn on April 20, the day after the attacks, unethically engineering the police investigation and making racist remarks. In reality, I didn’t arrive until 8 p.m., 22 hours after the police investigation began, did not run the investigation, and never made any of the comments the screenwriter attributes to me.

Ms. DuVernay depicts suspects Yusef Salaam and Korey Wise being arrested on the street. In fact, two detectives went to the door of the Salaam apartment on the night of the 20th because both had been named by other rioters as attackers in multiple assaults.

 

The film claims that when Mr. Salaam’s mother arrived and told police her son was only 15—meaning they could not question him without a parent in the room—I tried to stop her, demanding to see a birth certificate. The truth is that Mr. Salaam himself claimed to be 16 and even had a forged bus pass to “prove” it. When I heard his mother say he was 15, I immediately halted his questioning. This is all supported by sworn testimony.

Ms. DuVernay would have you believe the only evidence against the suspects was their allegedly forced confessions. That is not true. There is, for example, the African-American woman who testified at the trial—and again during the 2002 re-investigation—that when Korey Wise called her brother, he told her that he had held the jogger down and felt her breasts while others attacked her. There were blood stains and dirt on clothing of some of the five. And then there are the statements of more than a dozen of the other kids who participated in the park rampage. Although none of the others admitted joining in the rape of Trisha Meili, they admitted attacking male victims and a couple on a tandem bike, and each of them named some or all of the five as joining them.

Nor does the film note that Mr. Salaam took the stand at his trial, represented by a lawyer chosen and paid for by his mother, and testified that he had gone into the park carrying a 14-inch metal pipe—the same type of weapon that was used to bludgeon both a male schoolteacher and Ms. Meili. Mr. Reyes’s confession changed none of this. He admitted being the man whose DNA had been left in the jogger’s body and on her clothing, but the two juries that heard those facts knew the main assailant in the rape had not been caught. The five were charged as accomplices, as persons “acting in concert” with each other and with the then-unknown man who raped the jogger, not as those who actually performed the act. In their original confessions—later recanted—they admitted to grabbing her breasts and legs, and two of them admitted to climbing on top of her and simulating intercourse. Semen was found on the inside of their clothing, corroborating those confessions.

Mr. Reyes’s confession, DNA match and claim that he acted alone required that the rape charges against the five be vacated. I agreed with that decision, and still do. But the other charges, for crimes against other victims, should not have been vacated. Nothing Mr. Reyes said exonerated these five of those attacks. And there was certainly more than enough evidence to support those convictions of first-degree assault, robbery, riot and other charges.

It is a wonderful thing that these five men have taken themselves to responsible positions and community respect. That Ms. DuVernay ignored so much of the truth about the gang of 30 and about the suffering of their victims—and that her film includes so many falsehoods—is nonetheless an outrage.

Ms. DuVernay does not define me, and her film does not speak the truth.

 

That lady can try to spin it all the wants. The fact is that they coerced those kids and they publically smeared them to boot, making it impossible for a fair trial. And the worst part was the real rapist being free to rape and murder again.

 

Fuck her. Seriously.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go Pokes

Go Pokes 979

Posted
Posted

I watched the new Sandler movie, Murder Mystery, last night.  I am not a fan of most Sandler movies.  Actually, I hate almost every one of them.  Especially the stupid voice movies.  I can't believe how much I enjoyed this movie.  Shocked I tell you!  Aniston and Sandler were perfect together and totally hilarious.  I'm worried I might have a brain tumor.  Did I somehow miss how terrible this movie was or is it actually a pretty decent movie?  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8691

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Go Pokes said:

I watched the new Sandler movie, Murder Mystery, last night.  I am not a fan of most Sandler movies.  Actually, I hate almost every one of them.  Especially the stupid voice movies.  I can't believe how much I enjoyed this movie.  Shocked I tell you!  Aniston and Sandler were perfect together and totally hilarious.  I'm worried I might have a brain tumor.  Did I somehow miss how terrible this movie was or is it actually a pretty decent movie?  

It’s funny. You’re overthinking things 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyHoffa

JimmyHoffa 1188

Posted
Posted
On 6/22/2019 at 10:11 AM, Pam Cummings said:

That lady can try to spin it all the wants. The fact is that they coerced those kids and they publically smeared them to boot, making it impossible for a fair trial. And the worst part was the real rapist being free to rape and murder again.

 

Fuck her. Seriously.

 

That was my thoughts as well. 

"Hey they spend 7-10 years in prison for a crime they didn't commit but they were harassing people in the park!!!!!!!" 

 

The fact that they just looked past the DNA evidence to convict on top off all of the other things they fucked up on is comical that she would try and save face with that awful excuse. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pam Cummings

Pam Cummings 9579

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, JimmyHoffa said:

 

That was my thoughts as well. 

"Hey they spend 7-10 years in prison for a crime they didn't commit but they were harassing people in the park!!!!!!!" 

 

The fact that they just looked past the DNA evidence to convict on top off all of the other things they fucked up on is comical that she would try and save face with that awful excuse. 

 

One set of footprints at the crime scene, some totally random person's DNA....what a cunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyHoffa

JimmyHoffa 1188

Posted
Posted

For game show fans-

Awake- Contestants stay up for 24 hours counting quarters, compete in mindless tasks that are tougher without sleep and try and win their pot, the combined pot or $1M. That's an awful explanation just watch the trailer. (My kids love it) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
On 6/22/2019 at 11:11 AM, Pam Cummings said:

That lady can try to spin it all the wants. The fact is that they coerced those kids and they publically smeared them to boot, making it impossible for a fair trial. And the worst part was the real rapist being free to rape and murder again.

 

Fuck her. Seriously.

It's telling that the best she could come up with is so utterly unpersuasive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LonghornD

LonghornD 49

Posted
Posted
On 5/13/2019 at 5:33 PM, Scraps said:

Perfect Bid doc on Price is Right memorization nerd was kind of interesting, but about an hour too long.

They could've told me this shit in a 15 minute 20/20 segment

I just watched this. If you're someone who grew up watching The Price is Right on sick days (and over the summer), watch this. Also, definitely not flattering for Drew Carey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scraps

Scraps 13542

Posted
Posted
Exhibit A is pretty good if you follow the various true crime docuseries.  It's only 4 eps but it covers some examples of flawed forensic science in criminal cases.  The first case is about the video evidence in the Killeen Valero robbery case.
I've always hated dogs in cases.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chips O'Toole

Chips O'Toole 1317

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Scraps said:

I've always hated dogs in cases.

I had never heard of dogs being used as evidence in these cases, it seems completely fucked to use a dog's reaction as evidence rather than just as a means of finding a body.  It blows my mind, it could be so easily manipulated and even if it wasn't, it's still bullshit that you would take an interpretation of a dog bark as admissible evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deej

Deej 76566

Posted
Posted

Yeah, using dogs as evidence is more than suspect. Damn things want nothing more than to make their owner happy. What makes a cop happy? Getting an arrest. A handler can give off any subtle indicator to a dog, and a handler can read anything into a situation. Not saying dogs aren't capable, but once you introduce a cop into the situation, all bets are off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
I had never heard of dogs being used as evidence in these cases, it seems completely fucked to use a dog's reaction as evidence rather than just as a means of finding a body.  It blows my mind, it could be so easily manipulated and even if it wasn't, it's still bullshit that you would take an interpretation of a dog bark as admissible evidence.


Have you watched the docuseries on Netflix about the Madeline McCann case?

I won’t spoil anything but there was use of cadaver/blood sniffing dogs in that case and maaaaaaaaan it’s some bullshittery.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BBQ2Bayou

BBQ2Bayou 807

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 


Have you watched the docuseries on Netflix about the Madeline McCann case?

I won’t spoil anything but there was use of cadaver/blood sniffing dogs in that case and maaaaaaaaan it’s some bullshittery.

 

That was the first I'd ever heard of that and it was actually not believable to me. I kept having to tell myself that was actually happening as part of the case. 

On a different note, I must have been under a rock because I hadn't heard of the Kalief Browder story or forgot everything about it, but I just watched that and it's all sorts of holy shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29784

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Turkleton said:

Really enjoyed the 1st season. 2nd just as good?

It is. They have two storylines involving the local murder from last year and then looking into the murder case that haunts the lead detective from his past. I think it's very, very solid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bschoolprof

bschoolprof 6232

Posted
Posted
On 7/2/2019 at 12:07 PM, Chips O'Toole said:

Exhibit A is pretty good if you follow the various true crime docuseries.  It's only 4 eps but it covers some examples of flawed forensic science in criminal cases.  The first case is about the video evidence in the Killeen Valero robbery case.

I watched the blood spatter case from Texas.  Then I googled the court filings because these types of documentaries tend to leave out important, often incriminating, aspects of the case. This one was no exception.  It's misleading and frustrating.  I wish they were more honest.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89427

Posted
Posted
On 6/27/2019 at 8:19 PM, Walden Ponderer said:

Watched "Manson Family Vacation" last night. Really good flick that I can't believe I hadn't heard of before.  You can see then ending coming from five miles away, of course, but it doesn't lessen the emotional impact one little bit. 

 

Speaking of the Duplass brothers, I saw a guy who looked just like Mark Duplass slogging some audio equipment through Ramsey Park this morning during the 4th of July celebration.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nycHorn

nycHorn 2967

Posted
Posted
I've really enjoyed Dark. German series about evil things happening in a small town. Finished season one last night and moving on to season 2 now. 

Yes! I haven’t started season 2 yet but I loved season 1. Honestly it’s such a complex and layered storyline I really need an in-depth recap before starting season 2.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ernest_t_bass

ernest_t_bass 1196

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, nycHorn said:


Yes! I haven’t started season 2 yet but I loved season 1. Honestly it’s such a complex and layered storyline I really need an in-depth recap before starting season 2.

 

29 minutes ago, blacklab said:

yeah,  so many characters it gets confusing at times.

https://dark.netflix.io

Hit pause and visit this when you're stumped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...