I Confess Streaming

[Caleb Nelands]

Theproject spent three decades in development hell. In the early 2000s, Kevin Smith was going to helm a whole series of films with Jason Lee as the titular Fletch. Later, Jason Sudekis was going to run the franchise.

When the early 2000s iteration of X-Men movies earned both critical acclaim and did boffo box office numbers, the corporations that own the major studios realized that pre-existing intellectual property (comic book franchises, Star Wars, hit movies from previous decades) represented a much less-risky proposition than taking any chances on artistic expression.

It is not high art. It will almost certainly not be considered for an Oscar or any major award. But it\u2019s a very good movie that made me legitimately laugh and pleasantly entertained me for an hour and a half. Other people seem to like it a lot, too (it\u2019s rated over 86% \u201Cfresh\u201D on Rotten Tomatoes).

What, you hadn\u2019t heard that they rebooted the Fletch franchise? The one that produced one of Chevy Chase\u2019s few actually-good movies, Fletch, in 1985 (and also one of Chevy\u2019s very bad movies, Fletch Lives, in 1989)? The one that was born of Gregory McDonald\u2019s popular pulp comic-mystery series of books about a wiseass L.A.-based investigative reporter who charms and sleuths and annoys\u2014and is sometimes quite clever, while also being kind of an idiot?

Finally, Jon Hamm\u2014Don Draper himself\u2014took the reins as star and producer. He brought on Greg Mottola\u2014director of numerous great, non-blockbuster movies that people love and yet no one makes anymore (Superbad, Adventureland, The Daytrippers)\u2014to run the production.

These were the kind of movies that solved arguments at the video store. The kind of movies that when they came on HBO, you\u2019d watch until the end (no matter where in the film you started). You\u2019d even go to these movies on date nights.

The latter was obliterated by the rise of sites like Craigslist serving as a free platform for classified ads. Those ads, far more than a print ad for the local supermarket, were what kept local papers going. But we\u2019re nearly three decades into a ubiquitous world wide web and nothing has emerged that could replace that classified ad revenue. The public is also still defiantly hostile to paying for news (something they never thought twice about doing before the internet.)

The demise of the mid-budget movie\u2014one that can appeal to people over the age of 17\u2014has more to do with Hollywood\u2019s discovery that the path to sustained financial growth lies not in financing a dozen movies built on original material and hoping that two or three of them become hits. Rather, the safest, most profitable strategy is to take something that worked before, and repeat it relentlessly, forever.

Over two decades later, Marvel movies almost always turn a profit. Batman and Spider-man will be rebooted every six years until morale improves. Older, mostly forgotten TV shows and movies get updated (21 Jump Street, White Men Can\u2019t Jump) into new content with mixed results.

Gen X is the current middle-aged demographic with the money, and their nostalgia for 80s and 90s content is primed to be exploited (ironic, given Gen X\u2019s supposed cynicism and lack of sentimentality).

The Fletch franchise checks some of these boxes (movies from the 80s, books originating in the 70s). But the \u201CFletch\u201D character has been gone from the pop culture forefront for so long that he\u2019s practically a new discovery.

Mottola told an Uproxx interviewer: \u201C...we looked for partners on the movie, and everyone passed. Everyone said, \u2018I don\u2019t know that this kind of comedy works in this day and age.\u2019 They just had a kind of like, \u2018Who\u2019s Fletch? I don\u2019t think anyone cares anymore.\u2019\u201D

And even though critics liked the film, the studio unceremoniously dumped it on Showtime and gave it almost no promotion. (I\u2019m fairly in-tuned with the movie world, but I didn\u2019t know the film existed until I saw it listed among the available entertainment on a Jetblue flight.)

I have no idea how streaming platforms monetize stuff like Confess, Fletch. And trying to \u201Csave\u201D this kind of movie might prove foolhardy. Maybe, like rock and roll, its era has simply passed and it\u2019s now just a niche genre.

Wow, this was a very great find! I really thought I lost these Confessions Clips that were featured on Itunes in the early 00's. Back in the Autumn of 2005, Madonna was Promoting her Album "Confessions on a Dance Floor". Her marketing team decided to post these street posters promoting the phone number and the album in public spaces so strangers can all in all over the US and share their deepest, darkest, and crazy(and strange) secrets! It's all in good humor and fun. Now that I'm hearing these again, I wonder how these people are doing? I hope they are living their best lives and not living in secret or confessing. But have a laugh, enjoy and... have you confess? ;)

I've noticed that people on YouTube and even on TV would sometimes say things like "I used to take lots of coke a few years ago" or "I used to smoke weed daily until this and that" or "Yea, I smoke weed every once in a while," or "I used to pirate games a lot when I was a bit younger" or "I used pirated Windows and Photoshop until I got a job," etc., etc..

Unless the Youtube Video shows them committing a crime, then no, they couldn't be arrested and tried for a crime. Them saying it, not under oath, is just hearsay that has no evidentiary value unless there is already other evidence they have committed a crime. In that case, its an admission. But there must be other, either circumstantial, or actual physical evidence of a crime. Past intoxication is not a crime, either. Possession of drugs, if caught with them is. But saying you got high is not.

People have walked into police stations and confessed to murders. But with no evidence, no body, no name of a missing person, they can't even be held after the holding period for investigatory purposes expires.

The statements can be used to begin an investigation, but people don't usually confess to anything worth pursuing even an investigation. The fact that someone says they used to do something criminal is not enough. For all you ( meaning anyone ) knows, the statute of limitations has expired because they "pirated games" 10 years ago. Your comment is right on.

When you are accused of a crime, the prosecutor must specify when and where the crime was committed. This is a due process right.It is the duty of the prosecutor to establish that the court has jurisdiction to hear the case, in order to do that, he or she must establish where the crime occurred. If after the prosecutor has presented all his or her evidence and rests his case there is no evidence of jurisdiction you can make a motion to dismiss the case because the court has no jurisdiction.Additionally, the prosecutor has not presented a time. You have the right to present opposing evidence, but how can you possibly do that for every single moment of time you were alive? Now the time doesn't have to be exact, but there should be some period of time mentioned that is reasonable for the facts.

The reason for this time and date requirement is because you have the right to not be put in jeopardy twice. If the prosecution does not specify when and where the crime occurred, there is no way to know for what act jeopardy attached.

Prosecutorial discretion: cops choose who to arrest and prosecutors decide which crimes to charge and pursue. If these confessed crimes you speak of are not being pursued, it's because the cops and attorneys conclude that they can't make the case through evidence.

Saying you did something is not the same as doing it. Let's assume that the cops arrest one of these people for saying they did a crime or are planning on doing a crime. In order to be successful, prosecutors need to prove their accusation beyond a reasonable doubt. A person's confession in print or on the Internet or on TV is not enough to get a conviction, because they can just say they were lying. So forget the so-called confession and now assume the cops need to gather evidence. It starts to cost a bunch of time and money trying to prove that someone smoked a joint.

Take a look at the Michael Phelps marijuana case. He was photographed smoking a bong and he issued an apology. But police say there is no proof of marijuana. They would need to find people to testify that there was weed in the bong. And even then the proof required at trial is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Some years ago, when I knew some "shady" people, one of whom told me that they were doing something illegal, I spoke with a lawyer about the matter. And the lawyer's advice was something like the following:

"You do not know that anyone is doing anything illegal. That is, your level of "knowledge" would not stand up in a court of law. All you know is that person A said person B was doing X, and that X might be illegal, depending on how it was done.

"What is true that you possess information that an investigator might find useful; that it is B who is doing X, and that A has first hand knowledge of the matter, not second or third hand, like yours."

It's unlikely that a police officer will see a "confession" on social media, and decide to pursue it, because it is "hearsay." What IS true is that if someone were investigating a matter for OTHER reasons, and found a reference to this matter online, that person could easily use the clues provided online for the remainder of the investigation.

3a8082e126