MovieChat Forums > Boricanator > Replies
Boricanator's Replies
I see the problem is that you are ignorant and can’t read.
It doesn’t work that way.
https://www.psichi.org/page/164EyeSum12dHandelsm#:~:text=The%20APA%20Code%2C%20Standard%2010.08,of%20the%202%2Dyear%20rule.
“This leads us to the issue of therapists initiating (or agreeing to) sexual activity with former clients, which is a little more controversial and often misunderstood. The APA Code, Standard 10.08(a), states: "Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former clients/patients for at least two years after cessation or termination of therapy.” This is the first part of the 2-year rule. One purpose of the prohibition against post-therapy sexual activity is that the effectiveness of therapy can be compromised if clients are either hopeful or concerned that the therapeutic relationship might turn into a romance the day (or month, or year) after therapy is over.”
I think he is guilty. But if I was a juror, I would have voted not guilty.
The police botched the investigation and that is enough for me to have reasonable doubt.
This movie was dumb action, just like the first one.
Let’s not pretend the first one was anymore than that.
I agree that the film could have been better.
But I liked the character development of the characters.
The Cullen learned the importance of remaining impartial and focus on the taking photographs despite the grossness and difficulty of the situation.
Smith showed that she wasn’t heartless and really cared about the young woman at the end.
Joel stopped being an adrenaline junkie and came to terms with how horrible and dehumanizing the war is.
He also learns what Sammy was telling him. That he wasn’t going to get anything extraordinary from the President. He was just going to be an insignificant coward. That’s why he didn’t push for more.
I liked the movie and it is refreshingly different. I am starting to become an A24 fan myself.
Beat me to it.
The problem is that the vast majority of Trump voters are ignorant of history. Guys like the President in this movie have existed throughout history.
Trump just happens to share a lot of characteristics with him.
Those of us that know history are genuinely concerned about Trump because we know what leaders like him do or want to do.
It’s like the saying goes: “Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”
Yup. You seem one of the few understanding what the movie is about.
Trump is a more apt comparison. He tried to overthrow the 2020 election and has talked about doing a third term like the movie’s President did.
I was going to post something like things.
I think the movie wants to tell us that dogs started getting corrupted in the 1930s by human influence. They started gambling, drinking and killing.
I enjoyed the sequels that came out when I was a kid. They hold a special place in my heart.
They just put it on Netflix. I rewatched it today. Such a beautiful film.
Diana Ross’s “If we hold on together” at the end, really makes it magic.
He was compared to a piece of charcoal and sold Girl Scout cookies like he was a crack dealer.
You really don’t think there was, at least, some racism there?
I don’t think he was a bad actor.
He was written to be this way. The guy was an idiot that got in over his head by signing up with OCP. He couldn’t handle the pressures of the job. So, he was always anxious and overwhelmed.
I think she was 16 at most.
It’s a “Slice of Life” type of story.
Stevie starts as this shy young lonely boy that was beat up by his brother and neglected by his mother.
He matures, gets friends that treat him with respect and stands up to his brother.
It seems everyone in this film is a better person towards the end. Even his brother and mother.
You can say all the characters had an arc.
Yeah, the 1990s bring me a lot of good memories.
The War in Vietnam was mentioned as on going and claimed the life of the son of one of the characters.
Lol! I was just looking into her. She is very mysteriously anonymous.
Interesting responses. Some stuff that I can’t find online.
I did find a twitter (now X) page, but there are no posts since 2014.
She’s kept a really low profile. No facebook, instagram, LinkedIn…etc.
I hope she is well. Beethoven holds a special place in my heart and she was the character that came closest to my age. I am glad she seems to have a good life.
I don’t think Liz’s cover up would come up. There just isn’t evidence of a cover up. It’s one of those things people may suspect but can’t prove. Connelly doesn’t really know what happened as he wasn’t there.
The prosecuting attorney could bring it up while cross examining her, but all she’ll have to do is deny it and stick to her original story. And then the government will look like idiots for even bringing it up.
And I am pretty sure any attorney representing Peter would file motions in limine to prevent any mention of the cover up to be introduced into evidence.
And there’s always the possibility of Peter taking the stand. The best part is that all he’ll have to do is tell the truth. He’ll come off as this nice guy who had no choice but to shoot his father who broke into Liz’s house and tried to kill her.
The Jury will do the math and realize that, at least, there is enough reasonable doubt to acquit him.
To your point, I think they hurt Peter more by covering up than coming clean.