I’ve never seen the movie but that YouTube clip was what told me he could pull it off.
In this version, Mike Trout successfully kills the Queen and 6 bodyguards, but the Angels still lose.
5 Likes
He played an excellent straight man in “A Million Ways to Die in the West”.
Let’s not joke about anybody losing.
1 Like
We don’t exactly have the high road on that one, do we.
1 Like
How do people figure this out?
Why? is the better question.
2 Likes
Jon Hamm as Fletch was pretty solid. This was my favorite deadpan thing that he did before that, and 30 Rock:
2 Likes
That’s a perfect airplane movie.
1 Like
Someone make this make sense.
This sounds promising
2 Likes
It make$ perfect $en$e.
1 Like
Sure. A fundamental rule of evidence is that evidence of prior misconduct, or evidence of crimes other than the crimes charged, can’t be used as proof that the defendant committed the crime at issue (outside very limited circumstances). It’s a complex analysis to determine whether those limited circumstances exist, and that was the subject of the appeal. After reading the opinions I think reasonable minds can disagree in this case, as shown by the 4-3 split, but I don’t think anyone could argue it’s a slam dunk that the evidence should have been admitted in this case.
Also, it’s not like Weinstein is now a free man. He’s still locked up in California for what will probably be the rest of his life.
So the ruling here is that the judge erred in allowing those witnesses to appear?
More or less. The question is whether the testimony was admissible to prove Weinstein’s intent to force the victims into non-consensual sex. The dissents argued that despite the victims in this case testifying to their non-consent (verbal and physical resistance), jurors may well have believed the victims about that resistance and still believed Weinstein thought he had their consent—and that the testimony of other victims established that Weinstein had known in similar situations that he lacked that consent.
It’s a bigger question than this case. It’s about how sexual assault cases get prosecuted, particularly in cases of “acquaintance rape” (as the opinions put it) versus cases where there’s no preexisting or ongoing relationship between the victim and the defendant. The dissents argue that juries may have antiquated notions about rape and are historically inclined to find that defendants may have believed there was consent when there really wasn’t. Perfectly defensible position from the dissenters, imo—juries can believe some wild shit—even though I don’t think there was a snowball’s chance in hell that the jury would’ve bought that defense from Harvey Weinstein.
These high-profile cases really turn the justice system on its head: yes, a rich and powerful defendant gets advantages that a poor defendant doesn’t. This issue probably doesn’t reach the NY Court of Appeals without Weinstein as the defendant. But at the same time, it clarifies the boundaries of a fundamental rule that protects everyday defendants from bullshit prosecutions. Similar to what happened with Bill Cosby’s conviction and appeal.
2 Likes
Well put, Moriarty. The specific rule says:
(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
There’s a lot of grey area in the balancing act.
1 Like
I am taking this as a good sign for the coming Alien movie.
1 Like
The comments are hilarious.
2 Likes
The marketing for “The Fall Guy” has been next level. I fondly remember Heather Thomas the TV show; I hope the movie is as good as its marketing campaign.
Of course, it would be hard to fuck up the press tour when you’re sending out Gosling, Blunt and Waddingham…
1 Like
The early reviews were really good.
1 Like
Fall Guy, Simon and Simon, and Charlie’s Angels were top shelf “guy tv” in that era