Comment

Comment by RiperSnifle on April 5, 2012 at 12:23am

I know this is way too late and I will probably be called a fag by anyone who read this, but I don't think Sophia Vergara is funny AT ALL in Modern Family. She plays an annoying, nagging mom/wife character who is constantly whining and whose biggest laughs come from mispronouncing words. When she's on screen I try to not listen and just stare.

Comment by Cwoolboy on October 25, 2011 at 11:24am

Don't feel bad Cyrus...I didn't particularly like Bridesmaids either. I thought it was just ok. Some parts were good and it did have some genuine moments, but alot of the humor felt forced and was crude just for the sake of being crude. I'd probably give it 2 stars, maybe 2.5.

Comment by Huey Freeman on October 14, 2011 at 8:51pm

@Toe Knee Bee Ears By "initially they may look at his relatives as well" I only mean that they would observe them from afar to determine if they were up to anything. They wouldn't tip their hand by bothering them. They may be able to seize some property, but that wouldn't mean much and Tony would no doubt have legitimate money stashed away, hence why real life Mobsters who are now in prison, have families that are still getting by without them. He could also use his mere influence to set them up with legitimate jobs. Even the seizing of property would be difficult for the feds to pull of, it depends on how good Tony was with covering his tracks. The point is though, at the end of the day, they would have still been better off.

 

And no you did not inconvenience me in any way. I enjoyed debating with you, but I do think we went in circles there for a while. Your right thought I like discussing movies like this and such, but I'm sure theres plenty more discussions for us to have in the future.

Comment by Cyrus on October 14, 2011 at 6:20pm

Nah, you guys can keep adding the hit count if you like. Just was sayin', that's all. By this point I'm usually too exhausted to bother arguing any further.

Comment by Toe Knee Bee Ears on October 14, 2011 at 6:11pm

@Huey Freeman "initially they may look at his relatives as well" " they may be able to seaze some of what you own" That's my point exactly. The cops would come around Tony's mother's house harassing her,asking her questions, possibly invading her house looking for evidence, and confiscating her positions. All because Tony chose a life of crime. None of that would happen if Tony lived a honest life free of crime. That's why I say that Tony is the film's antagonist. Because Tony not only ruined his own life but the lives of everyone around him. OK I made my point. I enjoyed debating this topic with you. I'm done for now. Maybe we will have another discussion in the future.

 

@Cyrus I apologize if I have some how inconvenienced either you or Huey Freeman in any way. I sometime get obsessed with tiring to convince people to think my way,completing a discussion, and having the last word. But hey, that's what spill is all about right ? Having a place where people can discuss movies. At least I'm adding hits to this blog.

 

 

Comment by Huey Freeman on October 12, 2011 at 3:07pm

@Toe Knee Bee Ears My info on investigation techniques come from several sources. My step-father who is a former cop and did undercover work. Documentaries, reading reports from old investigations, and reading books. Like I said, the FBI would would put Montanna under surveillance and initially they may look at his relatives as well, but they wouldn't bother them unless they had seen something to make them think they were involved. Like I said after a few weeks of watching, they can easily determine whos involved and what role they play. regardless of whether they could come up with something that will hold up in court. And no getting gifts from someone whos a drug dealer, in no way makes you an accomplish. At best, they may be able to seaze some of what you own, but only large purchases like houses and cars.

 

@Cyrus

Lol, the two of us clearly have issues letting things go, but your right this debate is long over.

Comment by Cyrus on October 12, 2011 at 12:34pm

OH MY GOD, are you two still arguing about Scarface? Jebus Christmas, you've obviously come to a standstill on this.

Comment by Toe Knee Bee Ears on October 12, 2011 at 4:04am

 @Huey Freeman Wow you sure know a lot about the FBI. The only thing is, all you information only comes movies which are know to sometimes be very inaccurate. "Investigations on major drug targets like Montana are done first by using surveillance techniques." "first" being a very key word in that sentence. Yes they would do that but, like I said before, The FBI would look everywhere for evidence. They would not leave any stone unturned. If there surveillance techniques did not work the second thing they would do is questioning there family. If would be foolish of them if they did not. "following known associates" That includes family. If they were fallowing Tony the night he visited his mother and sister they would know that he tried to give her money he made from the drugs. That money is evidence. That makes Tony's mother and sister accomplices to his crimes. That's why Tony's mother did not take it. If I remember correctly, Tony also gave his sister a gift. That gift is also evidence. Which also makes Tony's sister an accomplice. If the FBI saw this then they would watch them and eventually question them and confiscate any money or gifts Tony gave them.  "they don't need the testament of someone who's outside the gang and at best can only give vague info" Like I said before how do the FBI know that Tony's mother and sister is not part of "the gang" They did not see the movie like us. The FBI must conceder everyone Tony is involved with as a suspect. Tony could be using his mother and sister in his crimes. His mother has the perfect cover. No one would suspect and old woman of being involved in dealing drugs. That's why she is perfect person to do it. Think of the blond haired white woman who was arrested working with the tali ban. They used her because they did not think she would be a suspect.  Also, the FBI would use all the evidence they could no matter how vague. The more evidence they gather the better chance they have that it will convict him.

I guess we just have a different definition of loyalty.

Comment by Huey Freeman on October 8, 2011 at 9:39pm

@Toe Knee Bee Ears Investigations on major drug targets like Montana are done first by using surveillance techniques. That includes having men follow the target, setting up cameras, wire taps, following known associates etc. If they just went around bothering family not only would this tip their hand, but also the family members don't have to say a word to them or even let them in their homes. The only time they would have to say anything is in court, and trust me if they take someone like Montana to court they have enough hard evidence that they don't need the testament of someone whos outside the gang and at best can only give vague info, but probably not even that. But like I said before they even make a move, they're doing surveillance, so before they even make a move they know who's connected and whos not. You go into a room of feds and they have detailed charts with a picture of everyone's whos involved with a drug crew, regardless of whether they've gained hard evidence yet, they already know whos in and what role they play.

 

As for Tony. Heres what basically happened. His boss sent him to Sosa with specific orders. Tony came back and basically said "Look boss I know you said this, but Sosa made a really good deal and I felt it was best to take it." Thats not disloyalty, some disobedience yes, but not disloyalty. Disloyalty would have been Tony accepting Sosa's deal in secret and then trying to cut Frank out. As far as Frank's girlfriend goes, thats probably the best argument you could make for Tony being disloyal. But in the end all they did was flirt with each other, and she barely discouraged it. Of course that in itself was shady, but he didn't take her until after Frank tried to have him killed and then he killed Frank.

Comment by Toe Knee Bee Ears on October 7, 2011 at 5:48pm

 @Huey Freeman When proceeding with an investigation the feds much fallow every lead. They must find out everything they can about a suspect. To just assume that there parents knows nothing about there crimes would be idiotic on the fed's part. You never know were a carousal peace of evidence will be found. So you must search everywhere and question everyone. "they're careful not to make a move until they know they have something solid." How will they find something solid if they don't look for it ? The evidence is not going to fall into there laps. They have to go look for it. That includes questioning the suspect's mother. How would the feds know that his mother knew nothing about Tony's crimes ? They did not see the movie. They would not know unless they ask her. It would be very stupid for the feds to have this attitude of we never ask the mothers because they never know. Sometimes the mothers do know. If they don't question her they run the risk of not finding some piece of carousal evidence.

When you go behind someone's back that's being disloyal. Tony went behind Frank's back to make a deal with Sosa. OK, for some reason you do not think that is disloyal. Alright, let's ignore that for right now. I keep bringing up and you keep ignoring the fact that Tony stole Frank's woman. Now are you going to tell me that steeling another man's woman is not being disloyal ? If that's not disloyal, I don't know what is. Maybe you have a different definition of being loyal than I do. Please give me an example of what you would conceder to be a disloyal act. Because I can not think of how Tony could have been any more disloyal than he already was.

I have enjoyed this debate and I agree it should end soon but, I would really like to know what you would conceder to be a disloyal act.  If you don't what to answer because you think this debate went on long enough I'll understand.

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 20
• Next ›
• Page