seagal72's Replies


I've never been too fussed by him (or his movies) but have been slowly watching his back catalogue during lockdown and (to be fair) he's made some fair (always serviceable) interesting movies. But (alongside Warren Beatty) he has zero personality (outside of semi-adequate line recital) Other than his looks, he never seems committed as an actor. It's as if he's on autopilot throughout (incapable of genuine emotion, regardless of the role) his 'performance-dial' turns up no further than mediocre. Yet he has an interesting 'presence', because you always expect a tonal shift (that he seems either incapable of, or disinterested in giving?) It's an acting-straightjacket of his own making (sadly) There seems to be another 'theme' I've noticed in his mid-to-late output, that dictates he's always the calm, collected, nobel, go-to-guy, invariably in charge and usually pitted against corruption or dishonesty. Irregardless of the threat and/or problem, he stoically walks through either (plus his surrounding cast) with an (almost) vague disinterest. Which is a shame, because there's always the threat of substance (to match his matinee idol demeanour) lingering underneath all his movies! I'm not defending pedo's....I am defending EVERYONE'S right to a fair trial (be they innocent or guilty) Why is that so hard to understand? Do you think that if I was merely 'trolling'...I'd go to the lengthy posts that I have.....When I could just as easily write something 'controversial' (and leave it there?) whilst letting the likes of 'JestersDead' get heated up about it, regardless? If you care to re-read my comments, I didn't even bring up Jimmy Saville.....'FootOfDavros' did. I merely gave my opinions on how tabloids like to 'sleaze' things up (and that in reality, a lot of what you've read about the less-than-saintly Saville, are likely fabricated) I've already expressed my upset that Saville was never brought to justice DURING his lifetime. You can accuse anyone of anything if they're dead and have zero chance of reply. I've even wished both posters the same fair trial and due process in court (should they ever need it?) Hardly the actions of a troll, is it? I'm not doubting your stance on such political matters, however I am questioning why sane people are (seemingly) playing along with the falsehoods of this diseased minority. It's far more courteous to keep things real and not encourage them in their madness. You're only making it worse not only for them (but for everyone) It's not about 'pronouns, nor equality, nor inclusivity.....it's about taking the proverbial mile from the given inch. It's about majority rule for minority numbers. If you, I (and everyone else) 'respected pronouns'....do you think it would end there? Do you not think they'd be some new (perceived) 'social justice' that they'd suddenly want you to bow down to? (same with these BLM chancers) Calling a chicken a donkey (in the name of progressivism) doesn't help the chicken, nor anyone else around it....it just furthers the (obvious) madness. All this 'pronoun' stuff is shit....Bruce Jenner *is* (and always will be) a man. No amount of surgery or medication will ever alter this fact. Pay courtesy to facts (instead of trying to appease a mentally ill minorty, that give less than half a wet-fart for your acceptance, courtesy and/or existence) I'm not saying Saville was a saint, and that there wasn't loads of inside jokes about his lecherous behaviour. The fact that (by your own admission) that these were "jokes" backs up my assertion that (unfortunately) these were different times, when lots of celebrities and indulged in sex with underage children....and not only was it condoned, but also came with bragging rights. I wish (if only for the sake of justice for his alleged victims) that Saville was openly called-out for his crimes when he was alive. Other celebrities were called out before him (and I find it hard to believe that he was *that* powerful to avoid prosecution in his lifetime?) The likes of Michael Barrymore, Matthew Kelly, etc were likewise cash-cows for their respective studios, but still faced the police for any wrongdoing (unecessarily so, in Kelly's case) during a time when Saville was alive (but was already long off the screen) But let's not forget that there's also plenty of nasty people out there, that will cry rape for financial reasons and go straight to civil court? But more often than not, are usually weeded out in a fair hearing. Gotta love the internet tough guy....pulling the uber-fanny "ignore" copout. That's the online equivalent of calling someone a name from afar, then running away. I'd suggest you delete such comments (not because you're fooling anyone....yourself, especially) but because you're making *yourself* look like a right cunt (and that's *my* job) I'd call you a coward twice (to both of your faces) and you'd do fuck all about it, other than worry why you didn't stay hidden behind the anonymity that the internet has (clearly) afforded you. Obviously I've touched a nerve (for you to be threatening violence against random strangers) haven't I? I'm gonna enjoy ripping the shit out of you (despite your "ignore" protestations) Your idiocy (and fake wannabe tough-guy act aside) your biggest crime is suggesting that The Guardian is a (Quote) "Reputable newspaper"?...ha-fucking-ha....Game fucking over Buttercup, do you intend to knock my teeth out with your handbag? Your choice in 'Newspapers' would certainly indicate so? The fact you refer to him as 'her' is part of the bigger problem, that will (eventually) put America (if not the planet?) In serious trouble. In an ideal world, he'd be gone. But he's proven to be a useless (therefore 'usefull') tool for the handlers behind him. As it stands, he'll likely step down (sooner than later) leaving (Obama/Clinton 'marionette') Harris to step up....But the Dems have now perfected the sure-fire 'polling' formula/con.....and will be going nowhere until Republicans take a genuine stand (and I don't mean a Soros manufactured 'tiff' on Capitol Hill either) I'm making excuses for no-one, but If you believe half the shite in the tabloids, it's *you* that"s got their head buried in the sand? Please feel free to list his 'crimes' (and cite evidence, other than sensationalistic hearsay) Or better yet, try addressing the points I made about other celebrities from that era (who also committed paedophilia offences)...or are you too (conveniently) hypocritically 'selective' with your moralistic finger wagging? I fully stand by my belief in a "fair trial" and "innocent until proven guilty" .....not "trial by media".....it's both a shame Saville never got his (then we'd have genuine evidence, not just salacious one-sided conjecture) but likewise it's a blessing that Noel Clarke will get his day in court) and if found guilty, I'll cheer such conviction with the rest of you? But pointing out both extremes, doesn't mean I condone either individual. Invariably, with trials, the 'truth-will-out' (as they say) and clarke will have to answer to (and for) his crimes.....Saville (sadly) wasn't afforded such justice (and will forever be the fodder of questionable eternally-one-sided tabloid gossip, and little else) I would also hope that same rule of law be applied to you, should you ever need it? But feel free to project your own (double-standard) cowardice onto strangers at moviechat, who (at very least) respect the notion of a fair trial....if that labels me a 'paedophile supporter', then I'm thankful you're not in any way, shape or form connected with judiciary? Why? A few possibilities: 1) Bruce Jenner (Provided HE convert to Islam and have limbs removed?) 2) Noel Clarke (I'll wager he's having trouble 'breathing' at the moment too?) 3) Derek Chauvin? (Physician Kneel Thyself?) Excessive Force II - Force On Force I've seen it go for around £40-£50 on E-bay (and noticed a scaled-down 4 disc 4K version, minus the books & CD's for £30 in HMV last week) Jimmy Saville (whilst no angel) is likely nowhere near as guilty as people say he was? I don't buy into this 'He Was Too Powerful' to stop bullshit either. He was regulary at live televised events (which could have been easily hijacked for victims to come forward) And regardless of such, I'm always wary about people making allegations against those that can't answer back. If you were to believe every tabloid story about Saville, then it's no wonder he was always dressed in Sportswear/Marathon attire, as he would have had to (numerically, according to press allegations) be constantly dashing/running/racing to his next rape/assault every day for over 30 years (which is bullshit, plain and simple) but a lot easier (and financially rewarding for both accuser and tabloid) when your attacker has zero chance of reply. Saville was likely just a product of an different era, when (like it or not) teenage girls would readily sleep with celebrities. Just as well the likes of Paul McCartney, Jimmy Page and Co have better lawyers (and a more loyal fanbase) as they could just as easily be labelled for the same stuf that Savile was accused of? It's a selective, hypoctitical, double-standard that says a lot more about society, than it does about the alleged crimes. As for Noel Clarke, like I said, I can't stand the guy (regardless of his alleged crimes) so will take a minor victory in not having to endure him in the media....But he's entitled to a fair trial (and should always be presumed innocent, until proven otherwise) It's not a perfect system of justice....But it's what seperates us from savages. I'd hate to think YOU were in court, and the notion of (quote) "Innocent until proven guilty" were thrown away? Can't stand the guy (but would like to think that everyone is innocent until proven guilty) Although with ITV, it's likely a case of; Black. Rapists. Lives. Matter. 'Cinnamon Cola' is quite nice too Saying "He was taken too soon" is hardly a tribute. It's not that I'm failing to make a point, it's likely because everyone is clearly in denial of what constitutes a 'tribute' nowadays (or are just too jaded to recognize genuine sentiment, beyond fifth-hand, lazy platitudes?) I guess tributes aint' what they used to be, eh? His was neither original, substantial or heartfelt. I guess I expected more substance for the (usually) eloquent Hopkins...His declaration of intent to pay tribute to Boseman, was longer than said tribute. Arphhhhhh!!! My problem is not with the following: Hopkins (per se) Boseman AMPAS My problem was with the fact that Hopkins expressed an interest in paying 'Tribute' (but then proceeded to say little or nothing) I'm well aware of the 'politics' behind everyone fawning over Chadwick Boseman (because there's nothing more valuable to BLM and the like, than dead black people....George Floyd has proven that) *However* my ONLY gripe here, is that Anthony Hopkins said (quote) "I want to pay tribute to Chadwick Boseman" then pretty much abandoned such a tribute. Regardless of *why* he (and others) fawn over (the mediocre) Boseman is neither here nor there. Every time I've brought this up, EVERYONE proceeds to misunderstand what I'm saying (and start talking about Racism or Hopkins age) For the record, I have no problem with Hopkins wanting to pay tribute to Boseman (or anyone else) my problem was that he expressed an interest to do such....but didn't? Hopkins was fairly lucid (and coherent) throughout the rest of his acceptance speech....it's just the vagueness of his tribute that irked me (none of the obvious political reasons that warrant such tributes) only the fact that he said he would pay tribute (then promptly didn't) Personally, I think Hopkins still has all his marbles and faculties .....Which makes his half-arsed tribute all the more baffling? Yup, I get that....it's just his 'tribute' was pretty much non-existent (other than saying "He was taken too early") It read (and was certainly delivered) with all the sincerity of a last-minute, hastily-read shopping list. There's a slew of 'Anthony Hopkins pays tribute to _____" posts on Moviechat....and whilst humourous in content, they do highlight the Blasé nature of Hopkins' 'tribute' here. I'm baffled not only by it's authenticity (or lack of?)....but even more intrigued that it isn't getting called out? is "HITS" an anagram?