Change Your Image
JohnSnow95
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Tribunal Justice (2023)
Why it's inferior to Judge Judy
Firstly...If you're interested, this is how it works. If not, skip to the next paragraph. Tribunal Justice isn't staged. They get in touch with litigants of real court cases and offer them the chance to get paid a small fee to resolve their case on TV instead. Or the other way around - people can get in touch with them. Although the courtroom itself (which appears to be the same one as in Judy Justice) isn't real, the plaintiff and defendant sign a document agreeing to abide by the ruling and not to sue each other again regarding the same incident. So the ruling is legally binding. Many Judge TV shows have small print in the end credits saying that some episodes are staged so kudos for these being real cases. At least they're not made up stories.
Although Tribunal Justice is more watchable than most new Judge shows, the format immediately makes it less enjoyable than Judy Justice.
Judge Judy starts with a narrator briefly explaining the case and then we get to hear the litigants explain it in their words. Judge Judy cuts to the chase, keeps them on track, asks the good questions, reviews documents, texts etc, and exposes either their flawed logic or lies.
Tribunal Justice on the other hand starts with a monologue from one of the Judges who explains the case. Rather boring. But this leads to my biggest gripe: instead of the "drama" being more natural like in Judy Justice, the Judges here are doing most of the talking so they start getting worked up over practically nothing to force drama. They start speaking animatedly, make harsh accusations about a person's character and even resort to name-calling for little reason. Not to mention most of the evidence isn't seen by the viewer...they'll just say "this is what I read in the messages".
Episode 4 is an example. Judge Patricia DiMango starts yelling at the start before anyone's even said anything. Then she says "I'm yelling not because I'm mad...because I'm upset for you." The plaintiff calmly replied "yes your honor". Lol Even the plaintiff looked confused why the Judge was getting all worked up.
Is Tribunal Justice worth watching? Maybe. Watch a couple episodes at least. You can start with episode 3 if you like because it has a little more drama. But the show can definitely improve by not disrespecting the intelligence of the viewer. Most of us watch Judge shows because we like hearing real cases and seeing how they are resolved legally. Some drama doesn't hurt either. Show evidence. Let the litigants get more than 3 words out before interrupting (Judge Judy does that as well but it's not as bad as this.) The drama is in the case. Not in the Judges looking for a "moment" and forcing it.
Gojira -1.0 (2023)
Is 'Godzilla Minus One' worth your time and money?
This short review is to help readers living in Western countries decide whether Godzilla Minus One is worth watching.
There's three things you need to know beforehand so you won't be disappointed:
1) The movie is in Japanese but has English subtitles.
2) CGI is pretty bad (although I actually prefer costumes and prostethics more than 100% computer graphics. I'd rather Godzilla looks like this than the CGI in 'The Marvels' for example).
3) The movie is dialogue heavy. Godzilla scenes are few and far between. That's how they kept a low budget - by giving you 5 - 10 minute snippets of Godzilla and then it's back to lengthy scenes of dialogue in Japan.
Wrong expectations are probably the biggest reason for how divided the audience reaction has been.
Keep in mind that this movie had a 9-point-something score on IMDb before it was released in Western Countries. By East-Asian standards this is one of the best movies of all time. So there's a clear distinction between how the movie has been received in different regions of the world.
Being from the UK, my biggest gripe with Godzilla Minus One is that with a $15 million budget you would expect it to have far more substance than style. I was expecting top tier, edge-of-your-seat drama to compensate for what the movie lacked visually. But that wasn't the case. The plot was incredibly basic and predictable. It thinks it's deeper than it is.
So overall you're left with a movie that doesn't look great, doesn't showcase Godzilla doing much (just slowly walking around, stepping on people, knocking over buildings and hurling ships) and doesn't have much substance either.
On the below scale...
5. Absolute must watch in theaters.
4. Worth the ticket price
3. Shortlist and wait for streaming.
2. Could miss it entirely.
1. Complete waste of time. Avoid.
...it gets a 2.5 from me.
Coleen Rooney: The Real Wagatha Story (2023)
Better than I thought, especially Ep. 3.
Personally, after watching this, I won't be reading anything from The Sun or similar tabloids again. The majority of the public are happy to recieve information without questioning how that information was obtained. Grown men had to wait for hours in a bush to jump out and take pictures of a 16 year old girl going to school, and then publish those photos nationally without getting consent from the minor or her parents. It's not normal and it should have never reached a point where it became normal.
Regarding Rebekah Vardy...even if she continues to deny any involvement in leaking stories to The Sun, she simply can't get around the sickening messages sent from her to Caroline Watt. There isn't a half-decent person in the world who speaks like that...even privately...and especially when they're in the wrong to begin with.
If there's any criticism for the documentary itself I'd say it could have been a tad shorter. Episode 3 was the best. Episode 1 and 2 could have been combined into one. Also, for younger viewers I think the fakeness of social media should have been highlighted - even if it was only a brief mention. It should have been stressed that coming off social media is always an option. I came off recently for that reason. 80% of the time when people hit "like" and leave comments saying "looking good x" it's not even genuine. They'd love to see you lose it all. I'd rather focus on real relationships with people I can see.
Judge Mom (2021)
Almost bought it
Watched the first episode on Amazon Prime before I read the disclaimer at the end which said the cases are entirely fictional. What a waste of time. Glad I saw that otherwise I probably would have carried on watching.
I know all Judge TV shows aren't real courts, but the cases are real and because the "judge" is acting as an arbiter and litigants sign a document to agree with whatever the judge rules, the outcome is legally binding.
But this is entirely fictional.
Buried Secrets of the Bible with Albert Lin (2019)
One sided theory
The documentary suggests that the Israelites didn't cross the Red Sea, instead they crossed the "reed sea" - more like a big marshy/reedy lake. This is unlikely for the following reasons:
1. "Yam-suph" means "sea of reeds". The documentary uses this to suggest that the Israelites crossed a reedy lake. What they omitted, or didn't know, was that the exact same term, "yam-suph", was used for the actual Red Sea constantly throughout the bible (Jeremiah 49:21, Exodus 23: 30, Acts 17: 36, just to name a few). All of these scriptures are undeniably referring to the Red Sea, yet they all use the term "yam-suph" (before translation).
2. King Solomon later built a fleet of ships on the shore of "yam-suph" (1 Kings 9: 26).
This was evidently referring to the red sea because it adds "near Elath...in the land of Edom" which was a port on the coast of the Red Sea. Besides, a lake would be a very strange place to build a fleet of ships.
3. The next day the Israelites saw dead Egyptians "washed up on the seashore".
4. The size of the body of water made it near impossible for it to be a lake. A) Pharoah's entire military force went "down into the seabed". We're talking possibly hundreds of thousands of men that fit at one time. They were all "swallowed up", not a single soldier, chariot or horse survived. Evidently, the body of water must have been massive both in size and depth. It couldn't have been a reedy lake that could be waded in. B) This is the main one. The book of Numbers details a journey the Israelites took that saw them start at yam-suph and travel for many days before ending with them camping at yam-suph. How could the Israelites be by a lake, travel through several cities over several days, and still be by the lake? I only see two possibilities. Either it was a gargantuan lake, or it was exactly as the bible says - they were moving along the coast of the Red Sea. The only body of water big enough for the Isrselites to have travelled for so long and still be by the coast, was the Red Sea.
I'm not anti-science by any means, and I recognise that natural phenomena could be used or perceived as a miracle. But that only applies when it doesn't directly conflict with what the bible says. This documentary attempts to find a more natural and understandable explanation for something the bible says took spectacular, divine intervention.
It's the equivalent of trying to find a natural explanation for how Santa could possibly visit every home on Earth on the same night, December 25th.
You either believe and put faith in the bible and God's ability to perform miracles to save his people, or you don't. I don't see the logic behind taking something the bible explicitly says took divine intervention, and confining it to the laws of nature.