Earlier, after my first viewing of the new X-Men film, I set fingers to key and cranked out thousands of words about how much I enjoyed the film. And I do. The good parts are very good. Just like Rogue, Wolverine, and Nightcrawler, Quicksilver gets an introduction that ensures viewers never forget him. Continue Reading
A couple of days ago, one of the writers whose work I take the time to follow posted this review of A Nightmare On Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge. Now, regardless of what you might think of the review or the film, I made one comment about the review itself that got me thinking. You see, in criminal trials, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove their case to a degree that is sufficient to convict the defendant. All that the defense counsel really has to prove to the jury is that the prosecution has not sufficiently proven their case. There are a number of different ways in which a defense lawyer can go about this. Obfuscation, confusion, and misdirection are all perfectly valid techniques as long as the defense lawyer knows how to stay within the bounds of accepted procedure in the courtroom. Indeed, the case against O.J. Simpson in the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman was so strong that the techniques used by Simpson‘s lawyer(s) to cast doubt on their case have been satirised repeatedly by numerous sources (South Park being one that touches upon the ridiculousness of the whole affair very well).
So, in the interests of representing the case both for and against Freddy’s Revenge, I am going to share the following detailed analysis of the case.