nomad472002

The central premise of this episode is the dumbest thing I have ever seen in my life, bar none. Now let me see if I get this straight... the Russian mob tells a guy, "If you fight one of our professional fighters and win, you can keep what's yours. If you lose, it's ours." Really? In a state where it's as easy to buy a gun as a pack of cigarettes, I would not wanna be the one to try telling that to someone who owns a million dollar slip, and a multi-million dollar boat. This was only the fourth episode of this Dreck that I saw, and it was the last.

The thought that people like Jimmy Rosso exist makes my skin crawl. While the movie was pretty good, I did find one glaring plot hole. This was during the hearing in juvenile court. It came down to he said, she said. She said that Jimmy had put her up to pawning the jewelry, and he said she had asked him to. This leaves reasonable doubt. The tie-breaker was the fact that she had used her own name when pawning the jewelry, which is consistent with innocence.

Michael Farrell's testimony was disregarded in its entirety when he disclosed that he had sheltered the girl for the night. The magistrate took the word of the oily Jimmy Rosso over the word of the accused and that of Michael Farrell, who had a job and a flat, as opposed to Rosso, who had nothing, and was implicated in a slashing.

Hard to believe it was like that, but I imagine it was.

I saw that a couple of the reviewers gave this a '1', but the program warrants better than that. Irrespective of the merits, or lack thereof, of the National Enquirer, the program is still interesting, even for those of us who have never bought the paper. It gives a good overview of the background of the paper, and some of its sins. I gave it a 6.

While the basic premise is somewhat plausible, the execution is not. First of all, "hotwiring" went out of fashion fifty years ago, when GM came up with the locking steering column, which locked the steering wheel and the gear selector mechanism. While motor vehicles are still being stolen, it requires a bit more sophistication than simply twisting two wires together.

The modern variation on auto theft, which involves sophisticated electronics, is a reality. This makes one wonder what they were thinking when they came up with the idea of RFID technology, so that one need not reach into one's pocket to use a car key to enter and start a vehicle. What could possibly go wrong???

You'd think a movie maker could take the time and trouble to learn how to spell Centurion.

That's what I often think, when I watch a Mayday. Seeing stuff like this makes me afraid to fly, and I'm a pilot. The captain was told twice, "It's a stall, captain". The procedure to recover from a high altitude stall is relatively simple and straightforward:

1: Disengage ALTitude hold. 2: Lower the nose with yoke/side stick, depending on aircraft, to about 5-7 degrees nose up. 3. Set ATTitude hold. 4. Allow aircraft to climb to desired altitude. 5. Engage ALTitude hold.

This episode struck me as a bit lame. At one point, one of the investigators "discovered" a notice from the manufacturer regarding the autopilot functionality. They made it sound like a revelation from on-high. It isn't. This characteristic of the autopilot is known by every pilot that has ever used a two or three axis autopilot. If you set ALTitude hold, the autopilot will attempt to hold that altitude at the sacrifice of airspeed if there is no additional available power. If power decreases for any reason, airspeed will bleed off as it attempts to maintain altitude. This is no secret.

I've never flown an MD-83, but I find it hard to believe that the aircraft is at its maximum capability at FL310, especially after having burned off the fuel required to climb to FL310 and traverse the distance from its departure point to the crash site.

I found this episode disappointing.

I quite enjoyed this movie. There have been complaints about plot holes, most of which are not really holes at all. My explanation follows: (I've put the "holes" in quotes.)

"I didn't understand why Crawford fired the pistol through the window. What was the purpose of that and didn't this provide ballistic evidence when those bullets were retrieved?"

The point of shooting through the window, (after he heard the voice of the landscaper) was to create an situation requiring the calling of the police.

"Crawford had to check the make of the Nunally's sidearm well in advance to purchase an identical pistol." It's not that difficult to find out what sort of guns cops carry. He had undoubtedly used a private investigator to find out that:

(a) his wife was cheating (b) who she was cheating with (c) find out all he can about the guy she was cheating with

He had been in their room the day of the shooting. It's not a stretch to assume he might have been there on an earlier occasion, and thus could find out exactly what kind of gun the cop carries.

"Is it possible that Nunally might have noticed a difference between his personal sidearm (nicks, scratches, general feel) and the "identical" replacement weapon?"

The gun was in a holster. When he picks it up, it is in the holster. Most of the gun is concealed in that holster, with only the butt exposed. He sees what he expects to see. He would have no reason to expect that it is not his gun.

"Why didn't Nunally (or anyone else) think it unusual that the murder weapon was the exact same pistol that he himself carried?"

Glocks are popular.

"How did Crawford know that his wife would not have divulged her identity to Nunally at some point in their liaison?"

He didn't. This could be considered a hole.

"Assuming that the only ballistic evidence was in the wife's head, how could Crawford know in advance of the shooting that it would not simply pass thru, at such close range, or that the bullet could not be surgically removed or that his wife would not have died from the shooting? Any would provide ballistic evidence that Nunally's pistol was the murder weapon."

They would have no reason to compare the bullet to Nunally's pistol. He did take a gamble on this, which he ultimately lost.

"The big, big hole. How did Crawford know that Nunally would be the officer arriving on the scene? Is he the only homicide detective in town? It all falls apart if anyone else shows up."

Nunally wasn't just a detective. He was a hostage negotiator. This position requires additional training/skill. He undoubtedly discovered this fact when he had him investigated. This is why he shot through the windows, to create what would have been perceived as a "hostage situation".

"Raised by Gosling, but unanswered in the plot, why did Crawford remove his wife from life support when he could have simply left the country for good as a free man."

He erroneously believed he was home-free, after having been acquitted.

Another reviewer posited the following:

1) A man and a woman have an affair, and never get each other's last names. One happens to be a police hostage negotiator who happens to show up when the woman he's been seeing has been murdered.

He doesn't "happen" to show up. He is brought to the scene because of a potential hostage situation. Prior to Nunnaly seeing the body, the police do not know that she has been murdered.

2) There are two guns on the scene when the body is discovered by police. For the entire length of the movie the investigators never think to check out one of those guns to see if it's the murder weapon.

This is because one of those two guns belongs to the cop. They didn't think of the switch. They're not all Columbos.

3) The district attorney's office is given a single long weekend to come up with extra evidence in an attempted murder case when a witness is compromised. Anyone who's ever been involved in any aspect of a real murder case knows how laughable this is.

I can't argue this one, since I'm not familiar with California law. I would imagine, though, that if you have no admissible evidence in a case, the case might well go south.

4) A hospital agrees to a man's Do Not Resuscitate request for his wife the day after the man has been acquitted for attempting to murder her. No one intervenes on behalf of the wife, no family, no friends, no victim's advocates, no one.

We don't know if there was any family. The hospital adjudged her case as hopeless. He might also have had some power of attorney for medical decisions.

5) A man who has planned out a brilliant scheme for getting away with murder, covering every last detail with psychotic foresight, neglects to read the fine print in the Double Jeopardy laws and carelessly re-implicates himself.

The reviewer is correct on this one. It is difficult to imagine that he would not be aware of this. I knew, as soon as he pulled the plug on her, that this would be his undoing.

One reviewer complained that the double jeopardy law would have protected him. That is not the case. Attempted murder and murder are two different sections of law, with different statute numbers. When the wife died, a different charge applied, and he could be retried.

Just my $0.02.

Insane camera work. I had to close my eyes at several points in the program, due to the camera being pointed at bright lights. At one point, there was a bright light in the background, and the host kept stepping in front of, then to the side of, the light.

Subjecting people to bright lights is a well known investigative technique, used by police agencies the world over, designed to make people uncomfortable.

Why the makers of this program thought that making the viewer uncomfortable is a good idea, is unfathomable to me. If I want to look at bright lights, I can go down to the local police station and tell them that I have a confession to make. I'm sure they will accommodate me.

I had recorded episode one of this program, and when I at first discovered that I did not have the second and third episodes, I was a bit disappointed. It was for naught, as even if I did have the other two, I could not be bothered to view them.

For those that do not want or need an adrenaline rush. Contains no pyrotechnics, shooting, (with sparks), or explosions. There are a couple of sub-plots involved, which come to light slowly. Und Stefanie von Pfetten is lovely to look at. Stunning, even. The acting is decent, the story plausible. I enjoyed the movie.

I started watching this episode today, for the fourth time. The glare from every direction, (the sun can not shine from both sides of the cockpit at the same time) was so annoying, I had to turn it off after :17 minutes. I don't recall having noticed it, in my first three viewings.

I don't know why they think that these "special effects" add to the program. It doesn't.

This case has a fundamental flaw, in that it should never have come to trial. The prosecution theory was that the defendant killed Carl Davis to conceal her other crimes. In point of fact, she had not committed any other crimes.

As far as Carl Davis believed, she was Fern Driscoll. He had no knowledge that she was in fact Millie Crest, and that she was wanted for embezzlement. He had no substantive reason to believe that she was driving the car, which belonged to the believed-to-be-dead Millie Crest. He was there to get the letters, to which the real Fern Driscoll had legal right of possession, and to which neither Carl Davis nor Senator Baylor had any legal right. Thus the prosecution theory falls apart.

Someone entered the premises in an illegal attempt to obtain those letters. Anyone in lawful and peaceful possession of a residence has every legal right to defend themselves against a known or unknown assailant. There was no murder, only a lawful act of self-defense.

There should never have been a trial.

What an iconic line. It seems that's what most of the program's villains think of Columbo, at least at first, until they begin to catch on. Milland's character made the mistake of continuing to believe that the lieutenant was stupid. The look on his face, when he realizes he has been caught, is priceless. The relief on the part of the woman he tried to frame is palpable.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people are willing to commit murder, and frame someone else, then go on to live and enjoy their lives on their ill-gotten gains.

Well done episode.

The first third of this movie was irritating, the second third was mildly amusing, and the final third was downright tedious.

I didn't even find the premise to be plausible, in that this to-be divorcée was allowing her secretary to run her life for her. Rich people live in a different world. They are accustomed to telling people what to do, not to having people tell them what to do.

Possible spoiler to follow: I also didn't buy the cliché about how easily people assume that someone is mentally unbalanced. Just because someone believes there is a plot afoot, does not automatically mean they are a mental case. It's not like no one has ever plotted against anyone for financial gain.

I didn't enjoy this movie. I ought to have heeded the other reviews. I wish I had skipped it.

Contains possible spoilers. First of all, it was as predictable as a sunrise. Secondly, it entirely improbable. Thirdly, it was poorly handled. Here they are, transporting one of the most infamous serial killers to be executed the following morning at Kingston Penitentiary. I found this implausible. Firstly, I found it implausible that he would be transported the night before his scheduled execution. He would have been transferred relatively soon after sentencing. Why not execute him at the Don Jail? There was a scaffold there, and executions did take place there.

I also found it implausible that only Inspector Brackereid was armed, and with a double-barrelled shotgun at that. They all should have been armed.

The ending was purely Keystone Kops. I found it ridiculous.

This review is replete with spoilers. The plot-line of this movie is ridiculous. It begins with the car going into the drink, and the voice-over saying something like, "They think I'm dead. I'll have to stay 'dead'". Why? Why not come forward and tell everyone what has happened? She thinks they won't believe her? A quick examination of the car will reveal that it's been tampered with.

Another major plot hole is where she flees to another town and then acts like Richard Kimble. She hasn't committed any crime, so why is she so afraid of everyone, especially the police? Then, the husband manages to convince the fellow who's been dogging her that she is "ill". Why is Duff so ready to believe that she is "ill"? I suppose it's understandable, since no one has ever murdered a spouse for gain.

Then, when the husband finally gets his clutches on her, he informs her that he is going to put her in an institution, because she is "ill". It can't be that easy to put someone in an institution just because it is to someone else's benefit.

The whole thing is a crock.

I've never seen an aviation movie this bad. There was so much nonsense.

1."Over and out". No pilot ever says this, since "Over" and "Out" are contradictory. "Over" means "message ended, awaiting your reply". "Out" means, "Message ended, no reply expected".

2. When an engine stops, the wing does not dip on that side. Engines pull an airplane forward. It's the wings that create lift.

3. When power is lost because one or two engines are out, a pilot would NEVER call for 30 degrees flaps, they just add more drag.

4. When engines fail, that does not cause the whole airplane to shake.

5. Pilots do not lean to one side or the other in their seats.

6. No pilot would ever consider ditching at night when daylight is a short time away.

7. When all the passengers in a plane rush from one side to the other, the plane does not bank the other way.

8. The co-pilot does not need to repeatedly call out airspeed. The captain can see the airspeed on the panel.

9. Before ditching, all props would be feathered to reduce the risk of nose over or other damage.

All in all, unsatisfactory.

nomad

if only they had stuck to the facts, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The 'love story' embellishment (as if a story of this magnitude needs any embellishment whatever), as well as the rest of the fictional subplots detracts from, rather than add to the story.

There was no one named samuelson involved in this event. The 'love story' is not plausible. No gentile woman in her right mind would have become involved with a Mormon in those days. What, because he's good looking, and good with horses? He would not have been interested in her either. He might well have gotten his throat cut for apostasy, for getting involved with a gentile.

That scene between the brothers and the girl towards the end was so contrived that even a person not familiar with the events would not find it plausible.

They ought to have just stuck to the real story, and not mixed fact with fiction in a lame attempt at tugging at our heart-strings, as if the murder of 120 men, women and children were not enough to do so.

nomad

After seeing this movie last night, I can see why the ratings were so bad. There are no car chases, explosions, and not a single shot fired, save the one from the flare gun. Sorely missed, were the excruciatingly annoying "fade-to-whites" and fast cuts that ensure that nothing stays on screen for more than a split second. I also missed the nauseating hand-held camera shots.

What fools. They ought to have had at least one scene with Stallone oder der Schwarzenegger blasting away 4,000 rounds with a machine gun. And that ending! Could "Guido" not have shot that helicopter down with a LAWS rocket???

The producers of this film ought to have known that the leisurely pacing, and lack of any and all of the above would not penetrate the drug-induced haze of the audience. What were they thinking???

However, if you don't need the gratuitous violence, etc., and care anything at all about romance, you'll find this a pleasant way to spend an evening.

This movie rates a solid 6.5 on the Richter scale.

Nomad

I know I'm going against the grain here, because most of the comments have been favourable, but this movie is about as plausible as the Tooth Fairy. I knew from reading the premise that the movie would be predictable, but it was worse than that.

OK, I have to admit, I missed the first ten minutes of the program. I came in where the two detectives, (OK, one detective and a Maytag repair man) returned to the apartment of Cheryl Draper, and told her they found nothing. I don't buy it. Police detectives are by their nature and training very suspicious, and make mountains out of molehills. You won't find many detectives willing to dismiss an allegation of murder out of hand.

Spoilers follow: The murderer wrote a letter to himself, purportedly from her, in part so that he could get into her apartment and slip the latch. Once in her apartment, he used HER typewriter to write the second letter to himself, which he then mailed to himself. It would be shown to have originated on her typewriter. The thing is, it was not shown that he had an opportunity to write the first letter on her typewriter, so the typefaces would not have matched.

That the sanity of Cheryl Draper would be called into question was as predictable as a sunrise. That she would, in the police station, with her sanity questioned, begin to ACT as though she were not quite right in the head was also predictable, with predictable results.

If the detective had spent half as much time looking into the case, rather than trying to convince her that she imagined or dreamed it, he might have solved the case sooner. When people are dreaming, they don't realize that they are dreaming, but when they wake up, they do know that it was a dream.

BIG spoiler here: The real downer came at the end, when Cheryl was being chased by the crowd, at the head of the pack was the murderer, bent on killing her. What does she do? She runs into a building under construction, and goes up the stairs, where she will ultimately run out of stairs and room to run. She will be trapped, and what a convenient place for the murderer to pitch her off the roof. Right. I think the writer of this Dreck had a bad dream, and should be referred to a pshrink.

where the faces are different, but the underlying message is still the same. This is a brand-new movie, and yet I've seen it a thousand times before.

The last fifteen minutes of it are as predictable as a sunrise, right from the opening credits.

Can the Hollywood producers not come up with a different idea, a new ending for their so called "thriller"s? Do they still believe that this type of ending has any thrill at all, when it's been done so many times? I'm not familiar with Nora Roberts as a writer, but this looks like it could well have been written by Mary Higgins Clark, or by me, for that matter.

I wouldn't rate this higher than 4 on the Richter scale.

This would have been, should have been, could have been a good movie. The plot was certainly compelling, and the acting was good. I watched this movie because Denzel Washington was in it, and he usually makes good movies.

The downside of this flick (and it really does flicker) is the 'lightning-storm' special effects, which are so overdone that it seems like they are trying to keep the viewer awake, as if the plot itself were unable to accomplish this. My eyes took a real beating in those 147 minutes.

With movies like this to watch, one doesn't need to do drugs, just watch the movie.

Then ending of this movie is absurd beyond description, as illogical as anything I've ever seen. I won't give it away here, in case you want to waste 147 minutes of your life on this dreck.

nomad

I like this series. Being a pilot, I'm aware of when an aviation related program is nonsense or not, and most of the facts presented in this program are fairly accurate. It's a relief that it isn't all nonsense.

The facts seem to be presented in such a way that the average non-pilot can understand what happened.

Seeing this program makes you want to stay home and not travel, although statistically speaking, if one must travel, air travel is the safest way to go, with the exception (in North America) of the train.

One episode you'll want to avoid is 'Blow Out', unless you want a headache. It's an hour of mostly camera shaking, when it is unwarranted.

I used to like this show. The juxtaposition of the characters, how they used to look at the time the case occurred, to how they look now, was interesting.

Now, this show seems to have gotten tiresome. The cops go about asking their questions, interspersing them with "Maybe you did ..." as if hurling unveiled accusations is a good investigative technique. One might think that they expect the 'interviewee' to break down and say, "Yes, yes! I did it. Take me in, please..." Real investigators strive to have their interviewees not even be aware that they are a suspect, so that they don't clam up.

Really tiresome.

unless you want or need an adrenaline rush just before going to bed, and are willing to see an ending that you've already seen a thousand times.

The movie is listed as a USA production, but was filmed in Canada and has all the hallmarks of a Canadian production. Canadian movies are so bad that they make me ashamed to be Canadian. There has even been a film made once, called "Paint Cans" about how bad Canadian films are.

This movie has a plot that is completely implausible, beginning with a rape that need not have occurred. It goes from bad to worse as the victim is stalked by her attacker.

Towards the end, the damsel-in-distress is menaced by not one but two villains.

The ending is about as plausible as the tooth-fairy.

It's two hours of your life that you'll never get back.

If you like nonsense, this is the film for you. It was visually OK, what with the surfing scenes and skydiving scenes, but the premise was a bit of a stretch.

I'm not sure I quite caught on as to why the character played by Gary Busey suspected that the perpetrators were surfers. Because of a bit of wax left by a footprint? Surfers don't usually wear their shoes when they stand on their boards. There could have been any number of reasons for the mixture of this wax and sand on the shoes.

It was amazing how the character played by Keanu Reeves was able to sky-dive like a pro, free-falling and all, without any training in the art. I've been given to understand that one has to make several jumps before free-falling.

As far as someone jumping out of an airplane without a chute? Yeah, right. And with the delay between the time that Patrick Swayze departs the aircraft and Keannu Reeves follows, he would have needed a serious case of gas to catch up to him.

I can't even buy a King Air being used as a jump plane.

The ending was not plausible either, and the final scene is stolen right out of 'Dirty Harry'.

A pleasant watch, if you can manage the suspension of disbelief.

I couldn't.