Since when is a conversation recorded without the permission of someone not admissible in a court of law?

Again, he wasn't unarmed. He was an arms reach away from what appeared to be a small sickle which he had just used to cut his pants. This whole thing did start after all with him killing a guy by throwing a knife into his skull from 20 feet away.

How are they inadmissible as evidence? You don't need someone to testify to the legitimacy of a recorded conversation. That's for a jury to decide. They also have the phone records indicating a call was placed the night the wife died from Lester's home to Malvo's hotel room.

Fairly straightforward for Gus to not get charged with anything. They literally showed him picking up that sharp object Malvo used to cut his pants and carrying it away right after he shot him. Malvo was in arms reach of a weapon, and he had previously killed a man by throwing a knife into the back of his skull from…

Louie hasn't ended yet, don't agree 100% with your police work there Lou

I thought Enlightened was their number one show

Fargo needs to be represented here

Peter Bogdanovich's Ant-Man.

As long as it hits $400 million Marvel will be thrilled.

He should change his name to 'Box Office Poison'

He could have been the next Jack Lemmon.

Fair enough. I'll have to go back and check it out. I think it was like 7 or 8 on the AV Club's Best Films of the 90's so I assumed it hadn't aged too poorly but you're probably right, it's been a long time.

"Here's twenty dollars to get some beers in Val Verde. It'll give us all a little more time with your daughter."

Produced by Will Smith

When I was 21 I traveled to France on a student visa as part of a study abroad program. My roommate before I left was from France, and assured me that the country was just like the depiction in the movie Amelie which I was obsessed with at the time. After getting off the plane I called up my roommate who was back home…

I was also trying to get at the fact that when Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction came out I remember it feeling like Tarantino had reinvented cinema overnight. That sort of thrill is definitely lost now, but it doesn't mean his other films aren't great. Just not as great in the same way.

I also think you and the two people on the island of Death Proof is a superior film to Reservoir Dogs face an uphill battle with that argument.

"At the film's release at the Sundance Film Festival, critic Jani Bernard compared the effect of Reservoir Dogs to that of the 1895 film L'Arrivée d'un Train en Gare de la Ciotat, whereby audiences putatively observed a moving train approaching the camera and scrambled. Bernard claimed that Reservoir Dogs had a…

"My rational mind informs me that this movie doesn't work. Yet I hear a subversive whisper: Since it does so many other things, does it have to 'work', too? Can't it just exist? "Terminal whimsy," I called it on the TV show. Yes, but isn't that better than half-hearted whimsy, or no whimsy at all?"

Of course. It's completely arbitrary and absurd. It has more to do with how old I was when those movies came out than anything else. I assumed my use of the slang term 'BOOM' indicated I wasn't trying to be analytical in the slightest.