Talking During A Movie? Say Allo To My Leetle Friend

Published 6 years ago by , Updated January 3rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm,

gun in movie theatre Talking During A Movie? Say Allo To My Leetle Friend

We’ve all been there – we’ve paid for our overpriced movie tickets, purchased our popcorn and drink of Coke priced as if I had a double shot of Jack Daniels in it, made our way into the inevitably packed screening and made our way to our seat. But we soon forget about those troubles and settle in to watch a movie that hopefully makes that all go away.

But just as we’ve settled in comfortably to relax and watch what we’ve paid too see, we hear some ignorant fellow moviegoers start talking, either on their phones or to the people next to them, ruining our movie viewing experience.

We might proceed to give them a harsh “ssshhh” or even go as far to politely ask them to shut the hell up. Now assuming that fails (which it usually does) most of us would just let it be out of politeness, while some will complain to theater staff. But no doubt we’ve all gotten to the point where we have thought, even if just for the briefest of moments, of shutting up the offending moviegoers by pure brute force. But a thought is all it amounts too, nothing more.

Well it seems that not all people are able to restrain their anger…

It’s been reported that 29-year old James Joseph Cialella Jr, who went to a screening of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button on Christmas Day, pulled out a gun and shot another man in the arm because he and his family (yes, that’s right, his family was there) for being too noisy. The incident took place at the UA Riverview Stadium 17 theater in South Philadelphia.

Cialella became annoyed when the family, which was sitting near the front, wouldn’t stop talking. He told them to be quiet, but because of this apparently the young son decided to be a smart ass and became even noisier, making comments and the like. Cialella then threw popcorn at the young boy in an attempt to get him to stop annoying him. But since that failed he decided that next logical step must be to pull out his gun (a Kel-Tec .380 handgun to be precise) and shot the father in the arm.

But one of the most shocking things is (beyond the obvious, of course) that Cialella didn’t try to run away – but sat down to continue watching the film, even as people around were fleeing the theater. The police soon arrived on the scene and arrested him. He is up on charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person and weapons violations. The victim, who remains unnamed, was sent directly to Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and is reported to be “okay.”

Oh, and if the quote in the title of this post is throwing you, it’s by Al Pacino in Scarface, referring to a machine gun he’s holding just before he starts shooting up a room. simple smile Talking During A Movie? Say Allo To My Leetle Friend

So what do you think? Do you think this is completely outrageous, or in some dark little corner of your mind are you thinking “damn straight, about time someone taught people to shut up during a movie?”

Source: /Film

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:

119 Comments - Comments are closed.

  1. @ptfvr

    I honestly hope you don’t think I was “jumping” on you with my comment. I’m just so sick to death of the whole “hunting” argument when it has nothing to do with the issue. :-)

    And I agree that I hope it’s never necessary. An AK certainly isn’t the best weapon for home defense. 😎


  2. LOL greenknight, I love people who still believe the “you’re more likely to have an accident” myth. It’s so easy to shoot down. I hope anti-gun people keep using that one forever, makes my job easier…

    Especially when the study that “proved” that was done by someone who actually later came out and admitted that he lied and made it all up! HAHA, when the very person who has made that “statistic” so popular comes out and admits it’s false and a complete lie, but people keep using it, you know there’s some kind of miscommunication there…

    Anyway, it’s your choice whether or not you want to have a firearm, and I’m all for free will. But isn’t it a bit preemptive for you to claim that you will never need one? I mean, your life is still ahead of you, you never know what’s going to happen. I’m sure the restaurant owner’s son thought he never will need a gun before that gunman came into the restaurant and shot him dead even AFTER he gave him the money he demanded.

    So hey, if you want to “trust” a criminal that cooperating will mean you will live, fine by me. I have a philosophy that anyone trying to take my belongings through the use of violence cannot be trusted. So when he says give him my money and I will not be hurt, I will not be a victim. I’d rather stand up for myself and risk losing than to teach this a-hole that he can go around and get a free ride by terrorizing everyone.

    I own many firearms. I’ve never felt “over confident” and start picking fights, I’ve never had an accidental discharge, and I’ve never felt compelled to use my firearms in an illegal manner. So when it comes down to it, those people who do, it’s not the gun’s fault, obviously since so many people have them without any problems, it’s the person’s fault. Blaming society’s problems on an inanimate object is a cop-out from putting the blame where it really belongs, on the people who commit these acts. I personally believe in personal responsibility. Meaning if someone commits a crime, that person’s guilty. I don’t fall for this “oh he had a bad childhood” BS. So many people has had worse childhoods than these criminal a-holes and they do not turn to a life of crime. And a lot of criminals don’t have a bad childhood. Some are rich and spoiled, and they still become criminals. What is their excuse? If someone breaks into my house while I’m in it, I won’t have any sympathy, that person invaded an occupied property and I’m going to assume that he planned on meeting the occupants, and I will treat him as such a threat. If he didn’t have a plan for if he ran into the occupants, he would have broken in when there was nobody home.

    I keep my firearms inside of a safe with a digital keypad so opening it is fast, and there’s always at least 2 handguns that are loaded, so getting to them if someone breaks in won’t take long.

    And yes, someone has broken into my house before, but I wasn’t home at the time. So all of the complacent people who always think “it can’t happen to me.” All I can say is, good luck, lol.

    But greenknight, teaching your children about firearms if you have firearms in the house is the best thing to do. Even if you don’t have firearms. Because kids are curious. If you don’t expose them to it, if they ever would find one on the street, they are more likely to want to play with it. If you’ve taught them about it, they know the dangers, and they know that they can shoot them any time they want just by asking you to bring them to the range, they will not have that curiosity. You would have taken it out of them already. The gunshop I go to, the owner often brings his kid there, he’s like 5 or something, really young kid, typical kid that runs around. He would run around, right past all of the guns, even without an adult there with him, and he wouldn’t even look at the, he doesn’t even care he sees them so much, lol. He would rather play with the boots and belts and stuff. Now reverse that situation to a kid that has never held a gun and has only seen it in movies. What do you think that kid would do in the middle of a gunshop surrounded by guns? Hell yah he’s going to start playing with them!

    That’s where politician logic and real life does not match. They seem to have this dream that you can solve all of society’s problems with laws and tax money. Education isn’t doing good? Throw money at it. Crime too high? Pass another law…

    But don’t get me wrong man, if you don’t like them, by all means, don’t get them, it’s better for you to feel comfortable and if you’re more comfortable without them, then stay that way. I just never like leaving anything up to chance.

  3. @Vic

    I didn’t think you were jumping on me. Just that you’re frustrated. I get that. I’m frustrated a lot mostly with people. I’m a professional! So I understand where you’re coming from. And I completely understand and concede to your point.

    Hey, I could have turned out to hate men instead of the weapons they were wielding but me likey men, me scared of weapons. I think it’s worked out for the best. :)

    So even though I fear weapons I really love revenge movies. Surprising? I’ll bet not. The more guns the better.


    Those are just a few movies with very satisfying plots and endings. :)

    I like it here. I’m very opinionated and so is everyone else. This is a fun place.

    I can see now that two winking smiley faces weren’t enough to show that I wasn’t offended. If I ever am offended you won’t have to ask. 😉

  4. prtfvr, the whole “need” it or don’t “need” it is not really logical or fair either. Do you “need” to have a luxury car? I’m sure everyone can do with a base mode Honda Civic, why would you “need” a sunroof, or leather seats, or alloy wheels? Do you “need” an electric can opener? What can that do that a manual can opener can’t do? Do you “need” a water heater? I mean, shouldn’t they pass a law that only people up north are allowed to have a water heater? I mean, cold showers aren’t that bad and they use so much electricity. And centralized a/c units? Why do you “need” that? They cause pollution, and it’s like you can’t open your windows in the summer or something…

    I can keep going. Some people “need” certain rifles for hunting, but even then, why do you “need” to go hunting? You can buy meat at your super market. Do we have to prove a “need” before we can buy anything? Should the federal government control everything we can and cannot do? If you’re a convicted felon, meaning you have a felony on your record, you should lose your rights. But if you’re a law-abiding citizen, I honestly believe that we should have all the rights that our founding fathers believed we should have in this free country. All of these gun restrictions don’t affect crime. A recent CDC study proved that. They only affect people who still follow laws. That’s an obvious fact to some of us, but somehow some people fail to see this… CRIMINALS DON’T FOLLOW LAWS, THAT’S WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS. Really, obvious enough isn’t it?

  5. @Ken

    Dude, you can stop pistol whipping me. So long as you have licenses for your weapons and don’t act like an idiot with them, have been properly trained in their use or are careless, knock yourself out.

    I can still wonder why you’d need a bigger weapon and you can still collect them.

    It’s all good baby.

    What a way to spend the first day of 2009. Arguing, I mean “discussing” gun ownership. When really the most dangerous thing in America is actually The Mummy III and no one’s even talking about it. 😉

  6. You want to see something amazing? Watch Ted Nugent with a bow and arrow. WOW!

  7. I *LOVE* Ted Nugent – dude is beyond awesome.


  8. Why Vic, I think we just bonded! 😉

  9. Ted Nugent is the man, lol.

    @ prtfvr

    LOL, yah, sorry, you’re just not the first person to bring up the “why would you need…” argument. It just seems like with these anti-gun people, whenever THEY are not interested in something, they feel everyone else needs to justify needing it. Yet they indulge in a lot of not “needed” things and they will get pissed if you ever suggest that they need to justify that. I hate people like that, they think that just because they don’t like it, that everyone else needs to not like it either. Nobody is forcing them to buy a firearm, so I just wish these idiots would get off our backs for a second and stop acting like the know better than we do.

    It’s annoying, I’m sure you understand, you probably got that annoying relative or friend that tries to force his/her beliefs onto you all the time…

  10. @Ken J

    Exactly – so I would suggest the debate end as it’s pointless.


  11. Oops, that last comment was directed at Greenknight. :-)

    This is getting old – there’s no point to debates of this sort online. Neither side convinces the other of anything, they just each get to vent their point of view.


  12. Only reason I can conceive of to have an AK-47 with armor-piercing shells in the house is if I find a bunch of time-traveling Terminators shaped like deer materializing on my lawn: Blam, blam to the Bambi-bot!

  13. {{Stuff is crap and I don’t need a gun to try and keep people from taking it…Take the money, take the jewelry, take the heirlooms, whatever it’s all crap and not worth dying for}}

    I notice you didn’t list your home address…

    Could it be that crap is not crap, it’s a sign of how many hours I worked responsibly in order to trade with others who worked responsibly to research, assemble, produce, market, and store their product?

    Material possessions are just “crap” in the same sense that the Declaration of Independence is just parchment with squiggles and lines. There’s more to “free speech” than its visible or auditory components. And there is much more to material possessions than the fact they are, in the end, basically combustible. But then, so are we. Stuff is fleeting, and so is life. But are life, or respect, or freedom, or material things, just crap to be surrendered?

    I say my possessions are much more than crap–and I’d relay that sentiment to any robber hoodlum: “You took your life in your hands when you thought you could violate my freedom, security, and hard-earned possessions. The next sounds in this room will be ‘Bang’ and ‘Thud,’ but listen closely, because you’ll only hear one of them.”

  14. @greenknight

    I don’t know how many times I have stated that you can believe what you want. I’m not trying to change your mind, I know you’re already thoroughly brainwashed into believing whatever, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to state my opinion like you have stated yours.

    Also, not sure who you were directing that comment about stuff is stuff garbage. It’s against the law to use deadly force to defend property. Defensive force is only justified if you’re defending yourself or someone else. SomeONE else, not someTHING. And I don’t think anyone here have ever claimed anything else.

    Also, your concept of just giving them what they want is exactly what a victim would say. Mother’s Day 2007, I bring my mother to our favorite Chinese restaurant. Closing time came, and an armed robber comes into the restaurant. The restaurant owner was not there because her son offered to work for her since it’s mother’s day. He COOPERATED and was the ideal victim like you claim is the best idea. The guy takes the money, and shoots and kills him anyway.

    So put your trust in the criminal if you want. So he claims he will not hurt you if you hand over the wallet. He can claim he’s an alien from the moon. I guess we should believe some a-hole who robs people? Okie dokie.

    But hey, that’s your belief and that’s fine by me, it doesn’t affect me, I’m not the one putting my life at the mercy of some criminal with a weapon. He may or may not kill you. He may or may not kill the next person he robs, or the next, or the next. But it’s sure teaching him a good lesson, why work when you can just rob everyone without resistance?

    But like I said, believe what you want. What you believe in is not restricting my rights, I’m not one of your kids, so I don’t really mind it. Hopefully you’re not one of my law-makers, then I’m so screwed… 😛

    Dan wrote:
    “Only reason I can conceive of to have an AK-47 with armor-piercing shells in the house is if I find a bunch of time-traveling Terminators shaped like deer materializing on my lawn: Blam, blam to the Bambi-bot!”

    Lol, don’t worry, the only reason I can conceive of to need chrome shiny rims on your car as opposed to the normal steel wheels is… actually, I can’t really think of anything, they are prettier??

    And the only reason I can conceive of to have a two story house is if you have 26 people living there. I mean, nobody actually NEEDS to have an entire room to themselves… There are kids in Ethiopia that have to cram into a small shack with their entire family of 20…

    And the only reason I can conceive of to wear jewelry is if scientology is correct and aliens will come visit earth to decide who lives or dies and they decide that based on who is wearing jewelry, then you guys and gals with jewelry will be safe.


  15. And it’s funny that for someone who has so much false sense of security that I must have because I have so many guns under greenknight’s theory, that I bet I do so much more to PREVENT being a victim of a crime than most of you. I don’t wear ANY jewelry, I don’t go out to risky places, I ALWAYS lock my doors and set my alarm even though I live in a “good” neighborhood. I don’t leave valuables in my vehicle, and I always keep a good situational awareness so I can AVOID potential problems.

    I see so many people, who probably don’t have a CCW or have a weapon, do so many reckless things. People sporting expensive watches and jewelry walking down the street by themselves at night, or putting themselves in highly vulnerable positions, I mean seriously, so many times I see people doing things that look like they are inviting someone to mug them.

    And to all of the “it can’t happen to me” idiots out there, my friend’s dad was just mugged last week walking home from work. He gave them the money he had, but they decided to beat the crap out of him and also take his jacket. He’s an old, out of shape guy, they could have killed him by beating him to death. But he put his life in the mercy of a bunch of thugs and got lucky, this time…

  16. Oh crap, I just realized how the second paragraph of that other post sounds. when I say that defensive force is only justified to defend yourself, I’m NOT saying that if you’re being robbed you don’t have the right to use defensive force. When you’re being robbed, your life IS on the line. My point is that by doing so, I’m not defending the property that he’s demanding, I’m defending my LIFE that he’s threatening. I’ve known of enough instances where cooperating with the criminal still ends in the victim’s death for me to want to risk my life for. Screw that…

    But if someone is breaking into your car and you’re inside a store or something, you can’t run out and shoot him for it. That would be a case where deadly force is used to defend property instead of a person.

  17. @ Sylar

    I apologize for the moron crack as it was over the line…you still can’t have my home address…

    I’ll say nothing else on this issue as my views are just stirring the pot…


  18. @Ken said:

    “It’s annoying, I’m sure you understand, you probably got that annoying relative or friend that tries to force his/her beliefs onto you all the time…”

    If you call being chased by someone with an ax, rifle or machete as having an “annoying” relative then yeah, you’re right. Luckily for me, all those people are dead now so I got the last laugh. MUHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!


  19. @Ken J

    Dude. DROP it. That’s enough. For crying out loud, did you not read what I wrote above about this being pointless?


  20. @ken; greenknight; sylar

    Can’t we all just get along? :)

    You guys could take this offline but I think that everyone is just spinning their wheels at this point.

    San Dimas High School Rules! 😉

  21. prtfvr wrote:
    “If you call being chased by someone with an ax, rifle or machete as having an “annoying” relative then yeah, you’re right. Luckily for me, all those people are dead now so I got the last laugh. MUHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!”

    *raises eyebrow* 😀

    “Can’t we all just get along?”

    I don’t know, do you guys consider this as not getting along? You don’t need to agree to get along, psssshhhhh.

    “Complacency Kills” 😉

  22. 790 wrote:

    “The victim is lucky that the retard gunman only had a 380.
    380’s gotta be the weakest handgun round ever, its also very inaccurate. ”

    Cialella is not a retard unless that is what you call an honorably discharded Iraqi war veteran.

    790 wrote:
    “He was prob aiming for his head and hit his arm.”

    Very doubtful being that Cialella is also a marksman.

    790 wrote:
    “The guy prob did fire multiple times but I’m guessing his piece of crap gun jammed on him.”

    While I appreciate the difficulty that you might have in using such a weapon, I am going to make a leap of faith that a marksman rated war veteran is going to be much more skilled in combat and be able to kill someone in a movie theater at point blank range with any type of handgun.

    790 wrote:
    “Lol,, Vic yeah looking at his mugshot I doubt he has a library card.

    I’m very confident that he will get the maximum sentance. There gonna want to make an example out of this guy. If they don’t your gonna see more of this. ”

    Actually, the judge disagreed with you. By the victim’s own admission, a third party started the argument and a brawl broke out. Ciatella’s lawyer explained that he got caught in the middle trying to break it up. He didn’t resort to the gun until he was being choked and punched at which point he acted in self defense. The judge apparently agreed and threw out the murder charge and reduced bail from $350K to $50K. He is now charged with aggravated assault and reckless endangerment.

    A lot of you guys carry handguns here. Here is a question I would like you to answer because I don’t have a handgun but have always wondered this question: Are you legally allowed to use a handgun for defense in a situation in which you are getting punched and choked? It has always been unclear as to what circumstances shooting in self defense is allowable under.

    I obviously don’t know what really went down but living in Philly I can easily see all this happening. I have either blown up or wanted to blow up on people at that same theater several times. While there are a lot of decent people in there and the theater is in a decent neighborhood, it also attracts some ghetto trash. I more expect the trash getting yelled out to start the violence or pull out a gun. Ciatella’s story of getting caught in the middle is more believable than a marksman war veteran attempting murder and then just shooting the guy’s arm at point blank range. Especially considering that when looking at self defense vs. murder, the number shots fired is always crucial. Generally speaking, one shot = self defense whereas three or more = murder. A single shot to the arm reeks of self defense which is probably why the judge dismissed it.

    There is obviously a LOT more to this story than we know right now. In the meantime I think we should give the benefit of the doubt to a guy who served his country.

  23. @Bob-C

    Dude, are you trying to get us all in trouble? Vic said this topic was closed. I know I’m not gonna get yelled at. You other guys, don’t get started up again. I’m sure the NRA has a website where this type of thing is discussed all the time.

    This is a movie site. So no offense but I’d like to talk about movies again instead of guns. Where’s the love, baby? Where’s the love? :)

  24. @Bob-C

    Thanks so much for that update on the case!

    On that note, I do believe I will close down comments on this.