Change Your Image
ezjm-02316
Reviews
Unicorn Store (2017)
Interesting Idea From The Trailer
Interesting idea from the trailer.. but it ends there. A lot of the scenes are just like typical things that would happen to a young adult but made out to be something groundbreaking. It tries to come off as deeply profound but in the end there's no follow through.
Captain Marvel (2019)
Below Average
This movie wasn't terrible, but definitely below average.
I'm not blaming Brie completely for this but the scenes with her were almost always awkward and felt forced. I feel she was terribly miscast for this role, she seemed to act better in other films, so I think it was combination of writing and acting issues.
The other main issue was just that everything was a bit too easy and not gradual at all for Carol, went from being ordinary to being completely overpowered and infallible in moments.
There were very slight tones of sexism towards men in this film, which is common for a lot of films to have a bit of sexism, but some of it was a bit too noticeable in this case, especially after the obvious agenda from media defending this film, you almost wouldn't be surprised if Carol or someone else started talking about mansplaining after some of these scenes.
Rotten Tomatoes will refuse to post my review after 5 attempts over a month, yet they allow the 5 star review bots to flourish. Let's see if IMBD is manipulating the narrative as well.
Bar Rescue (2011)
Awesome but Unnecessary Stress Tests
When they're actually training and talking about how to improve the bar, it's awesome, but I have to wonder how much of the drama is made up for the show.
Especially during the stress tests, Jon Taffer and Staff are yelling in the employees' faces from the minute it begins and if they make any mistake they're called out immediately and possibly insulted for not doing it perfectly right away. A few, but not all of his staff have major attitudes, especially Phil Wills. This makes it especially annoying when they're in the stress test and Phil Wills always thinks everyone has an attitude because they react when he's a dick to them, well maybe it's you not them.
Judge Mathis (1999)
One of the best of Court TV
I have great respect for Matthis and his story, most cases he rules fairly, but most court shows are guilty of some biases. In Matthis' case, he is sometimes sexist in his rulings. When a man owes a woman money, it's almost always assumed that it was a loan. When a woman owes a man money, it's almost always assumed as a gift from the man unless he has mountains of evidence. This is a problem with society not just the judges personally, but they should be above these kind of biases and I feel most of them are guilty of it.
Even when a woman has no evidence that a man owed her the money as a loan, they will say something very sexist such as 'Don't you think you owe it to her to man up'
I guess being a man means any time you help someone else out it's supposed to be for free..
Judge Judy (1996)
Good and Terrible at the Same Time
When someone is in the wrong, she is very good about handling them and 'shaming' them. However, she handles everyone this way even the innocent which becomes a problem
Several cases of ignoring evidence just because they don't like the litigant or it doesn't match their predetermined rulings they have in their mind before the case even began.
When litigants will tell their testimony, then the judges assume that just because something doesn't sound like 'common sense' or it's not the action they personally would have done, then the person must be lying. This is another cognitive bias they need to learn to get rid of.
She also interrupts them excessively when they are trying to give their testimony. Refuses to listen to testimony and says 'I've already heard enough I've made up my mind' when the litigant has only said a sentence or two and clearly has more to say and more evidence to show. She cuts them off constantly and then wonders why 'everyones' stories sound shady to her because she won't listen to anyone for more than 10 seconds before interrupting.
Several times she ended the case early when the litigants had further evidence which she didn't even look at because she was too busy talking, and then she has to stop and listen (but usually ignores it anyways) because clearly she rather would be doing something else.
Edit: I also find the positive reviews on here giving it 10 stars are pretty hilarious, if you think Judy actually treats litigants reasonably you haven't been paying attention, although I'm sure her ridiculous behavior is for show, if it wasn't a show she would have gotten let go for malpractice for ignoring evidence and arbitrary decisions a long time ago.
Hot Bench (2014)
Overall Great, but a lot of Biases
Let me just begin by saying a majority of cases I feel they handle pretty well, examining most relevant evidence and handling the situation justly. They are much more professional than Judy most of the time.
However, there are several cases where their biases are obviously influencing their judgments. Several cases of ignoring evidence just because they don't like the litigant or it doesn't match their predetermined rulings they have in their mind before the case even began.
They also have a similar problem Judy does, where a litigant will tell their testimony, then the judges assume that just because something doesn't sound like 'common sense' or it's not the action they personally would have done, then the person must be lying. This is another cognitive bias they need to learn to get rid of.
They also take punitive damages a little too far at times, sometimes punishing people who were only looking out for themselves and ended up indirectly harming someone else does not make a case for punitive damages. It's supposed to be used when someone intentionally did something bad to someone else or to abuse the law to their advantage.
(Spoiler recent case) A recent case where an apartment's tenant left her stuff behind 6 weeks after moving out, the landlord had evidence of contacting the tenant trying to get them to pick up their stuff. They show up at the very last minute and bring a friend with them who ends up punching the landlord, yet the tenant is not held responsible at all and still is allowed to get their stuff when it is far past the date. Just because the landlord had a post on Facebook about the tenant losing their TV for not following the rules, the tenant got all their stuff back and the landlord got punitive damages even though she gave them plenty of time to pick up their stuff and she got punched in the face, quite ridiculous.
About the new judge Corriero that replaced Bachman: I really liked Bachman, but there were times where he was kind of biased and decide his rulings based on whether he liked a litigant's actions or not and not based strictly on the law. The other 2 do this way more often, but he is not innocent of it.
There is also some mild sexism I noticed from most of the judges (not just hot bench, but especially on Matthis/Judy), if there's a case where a woman claims a man owes her money, majority of the time the woman will win the case even if it's clear from the beginning the man never considered it a loan, and if the defendant claims 'I never agreed to pay her back, it was a gift' and then the judges say something very sexist such as 'You're a man don't you think you owe it to her to man up.' This kind of thing never happens when a woman owes a man money and they almost always assume it was a gift to her unless the man has mountains of evidence.