Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 06:59:37 PM
714383 Posts in 53096 Topics by 7742 Members
Latest Member: KathleneKa
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Robert Blake Needs a Job « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Robert Blake Needs a Job  (Read 8871 times)
DARKWOLF
Guest
« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2005, 02:35:00 PM »

Not you odinn7.
Logged
Yaddo 42
Guest
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2005, 12:40:32 AM »

Blake playing a killer, nut job, or villain? "In Cold Blood", "Money Train", "Tell Them Willie Boy is Here", "Corky", or that mid 90s TV miniseries where he played another real life killer, this time a man who murdered him entire family. In his adult career, it's the roles where he's a sympathetic or likeable guy that are rarer, like "Electra Glide in Blue" or "Busting". Even in the TV series "Helltown" he was a heroic priest, and he was hard to like.

Blake was my favorite part of the David Lynch head trip film "Lost Highway" as the mysterious stranger with no eyebrows who has the creepy and odd "we've met before" conversation with Bill Pullman.

Blake also used to regularly appear on Tom Snyder's CBS talk show in the 90s. Truely fascinating TV with all his rambling, wild stories, freak outs, and abusive comments directed at enemies and himself. No doubt he was often drunk or wired on something, you felt bad for watching him, but couldn't look away either. I just hate that I'm too young to have caught his wild antics on "The Tonight Show" in the 70s.

I figure he'll find some kind of work if people can put up with him. I could see him getting the kind of straight to video roles that David Carradine has played when his career dips.
Logged
odinn7
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 57
Posts: 2259



« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2005, 08:42:15 AM »

DARKWOLF,
I believe Menard was referring to what I posted.
That aside, yeah, it's my opinion and probably 95% of the rest of America too. As far as yelling is concerned, I WAS  MAKING A POINT. HELL, YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT YELLING, EVEN YOUR USER NAME IS YELLING.
Now, why don't you go and help OJ look for the "real" killers on the back 9.

Logged

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You're not the Devil...You're practice.
Dutchman
Dedicated Viewer
**

Karma: 2
Posts: 36



« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2005, 04:03:35 PM »

If the price was reasonable, I might have some work lined up for Mr. Blake...there's more than a few people I need rubbed out





just kidding :-)
Logged
Eirik
Guest
« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2005, 04:47:08 PM »

I say that in cases covered by the media, we should reverse our principles to read "guilty until proven innocent and even then presumed guilty."  After all, 95% of Americans were there and saw OJ do it with their own eyes, right?  

Just like Blake?  

Just like we all saw Richard Jewel plant that bomb at the Atlanta Olympics, too...  Remember how we all could tell he was guilty right away and were blabbing about what his sentence should be... oh, wait.

Everyone's welcome to voice their own opinion.  Mine says that if you think you know who committed a crime when you have only that 20% of the facts that the media feels compelled to report (or misreport), then you've got some serious delusions going on.

Not saying I think OJ did or didn't do it, just having the brains to admit I don't know because I wasn't there and didn't see any of the evidence.  Twelve people who did see ALL of the evidence didn't buy the prosecutor's case.  Get over it.
Logged
Menard
Guest
« Reply #20 on: March 22, 2005, 05:10:57 PM »

It doesn't help O.J.'s case, though, that another jury found him guilty in a civil liability case over the murders.

Logged
Eirik
Guest
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2005, 05:20:21 PM »

Yeah, but the standards of evidence are much more lenient in a civil case - You don't have to prove he did it, you basically just have to prove that he's a millionaire and he might have done it.  

Now why that is is something I don't understand.  Frankly, if you're acquited of a crime in criminal court, then ANY civil suit regarding that crime should automatically be thrown out.  That has nothing to do with OJ, that's a general opinion of mine.  If anyone can explain legal reasoning of why you're allowed to file a civil suit against someone for a crime they've been acquitted of, I'd really like to know.  I'd like to understand how that isn't a form of double jeopardy.

Imagine you're wrongly accused of murder and evidence is brought to light in front of a jury that shows you didn't do it.  You are found not guilty and that's the headline.  Then the victim's family can legally take you to the cleaners for your life savings anyway?  Huh??
Logged
Menard
Guest
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2005, 05:32:59 PM »

I don't know if the O.J. situation was an unusual use of both courts or not, but in the case of say a chemical company which caused deaths and birth defects due to chemical dumping; I would think that would be a case of whether or not they were found criminally liable, they should also be taken to court for civil liability so the victims can recoup something for what was done to them.

Would that, however, apply to the O.J. case? Where there victims besides Nicole and Ron?

Logged
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1402
Posts: 11156



« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2005, 05:33:01 PM »

I asked the same question at the time. I understand that different standards are applied to criminal and civil cases, but it just seemed to me that the judge should have looked at the not-guilty verdict and thrown the case out.

This is nothing related to the specific case, just seems like common sense to me. Two courts can't be in disagreement and both be right.

Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
Chris
Guest
« Reply #24 on: March 22, 2005, 06:48:57 PM »

Blake excelled in his role aspirational copper in 1973's Electra Glide in Blue, and, as Hollywood is so keen on remakes, why not recast him as Officer Wintergreen or have him play the sergeant? Ridley Scott could put in a good word in for him. It's always good to see once-popular veterans doing what they should be doing, even if they prove to be lesser parts -they get noticed.
Alternatively, he might be advised to get in touch with cult film-makers like Quentin Tarantino. QT rediscovered B-movie extroadinaire David Carradine and gave him one of his best roles as the mysterious villain 'Bill' in kill Bill.

Logged
odinn7
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 57
Posts: 2259



« Reply #25 on: March 23, 2005, 08:18:57 AM »

Eirik,
I'm not looking to start a problem here. The reason I say he's guilty is because of what Menard said. I also recall him saying that when his trial is done, he's going to spend the rest of his life to find the real killer. It just seems odd that he would think the killer is on a golf course. The whole trial was also a show of what poor police work was involved in the whole case.
Not looking to start a debate but I've been around long enough to have formed 2 opinions on the court system in general:
1) Despite what is said, generally you are guilty until proven innocent.
2) Money buys justice.
Like I said, just my opinions and I don't fault anyone for having their own. I just wanted to clear up where I was coming from.

Logged

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You're not the Devil...You're practice.
trekgeezer
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 4973


We're all just victims of circumstance


« Reply #26 on: March 23, 2005, 08:29:24 AM »

I'll agree with odinn7 about the money buys justice thing. If OJ had been a common working class guy from 'hood his ass would be sitting on death row. That is if the cops hadn't blown him away during his little televised chase.

Logged




And you thought Trek isn't cool.
Dutchman
Dedicated Viewer
**

Karma: 2
Posts: 36



« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2005, 09:00:59 AM »

Scott Peterson remarked after the Blake verdict "I wish I had killed my wife in California"
Logged
DARKWOLF
Guest
« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2005, 04:04:51 PM »

I'm finally back after my very stupid computer block me from coming in here. So I read your smartass post to me odinn 7.  Will I have to say this first that you started first with the yelling at me so I told you to stop it but now your trying to start trouble with me. I like my name big I use to have a smaller name but everybody had the same name so I change happy now?
Logged
odinn7
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 57
Posts: 2259



« Reply #29 on: March 23, 2005, 05:44:47 PM »

Smartass post...moi? Like Yoda you are. I no didn't started the yelling I justed only was emphasising a point I wuz making. You name sure is big it funny that you have smaller name once but everybody haved the same name so you change I happy now.

Logged

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You're not the Devil...You're practice.
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Robert Blake Needs a Job « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.