Reviews written by registered user
ThomasJeff

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
32 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Horrible movie, 25 June 2017
1/10

Other than the hot actors and actresses... the movie is just bad. They show some disgusting scenes. The acting is bad. The dialogue is cliché and amateur. The characters are one-dimensional except for one lawyer and one crook.

The story doesn't know what to do, except it is like as if a woman writer wrote a novella about a sexy bad-boy criminal who does horrible things but justifiably, and so the sexy psychologist falls in love with him.

They try to make a scene reminiscent of Silence of the Lambs, except it's horrible and cheesy. Then they lavish on the disgusting political message and bash you over the head with it: violence bad... and "stop perpetuating the cycle"... but it provides ZERO justifications for it. Other than the sexy psychologist's lust for a sexy criminal (perpetuating the stereotype of going after bad boys).

And the criminal on death row, is not even much of a criminal. He does crimes but it's all not his fault. Like as if evil doesn't exist. Or bad people don't exist. Or it's the "system" causing it.

So it's like a collaborative movie written by a girl who likes bad boys, and a hippie who hates the system... man...

11 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
A movie for the lowest-common-denominator, 30 May 2017
1/10

Just a horrible preachy movie. There was zero suspense, almost zero action, and the comedy was terrible. The point of the movie is to preach this bizarre anti-war philosophy, that completely ignores the history of human wars (where insurgencies were defeated. It's not like Afghans invented insurgency).

The one-dimensional characters shows how black-and-white and simple- minded people wrote this movie.

What a waste of money and acting power too. The actors are good but the characters and plot is just boring and bland.

It's like watching a 2 hour movie of someone angry at a general, so they made a movie whining about a general or a war.

"Taken" (2017)
14 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
High expectations, kinda let down due to unrealistic stuff, 15 March 2017
1/10

So it started off great with lots of action.

But quickly turned into conspiracy theorist paranoia, unrealistic decisions by "leaders" who shouldn't ever have become leaders. Unrealistic drama, overreactions, under-reactions. The plots in each episode are too far-fetched. The conversations are too bland.

The people who hired the actors clearly don't know the type of people to hire for certain roles, they just don't look like they belong in the jobs they have.

The main star of the show is the only decent part of the show but the script and plots are just bad for him and again: under-react, overreact.

They introduce a bad guy, then they get rid of the bad guy, it's just random conspiracy plots essentially with little meaning.

A good bit of political correctness too, where suspected bad guys turn out to be misunderstood good guys. Know-it-all irritating analysts in the show can't even pronounce H&K correctly.

Suspense & a sense of danger/urgency is not being established in the show. It's too predictable.

5 out of 40 people found the following review useful:
The problem with comedians getting into politics is that they don't do their research, 6 December 2016
1/10

He's not a particularly funny guy, but why does he insert himself into the gun debate and politics when he doesn't do the research? People hire him for laughs and instead he does faulty research and then tries to turn faulty research into a joke.

Michael Che has made himself into a partisan hack who uses comedy as a way to promote his political beliefs. I say this as a liberal who believes in many progressive policies, he's made himself into an extreme left-wing person who does poor research.

AR does not stand for "assault rifle" and arguing against ownership of rifles is exactly what he claimed he never would do (previously, now he is fine with arguing against gun ownership). He says you can't own a rifle, but he doesn't understand that rifles are no different than handguns and rifles are 0.6% of gun-deaths per year. So why attack rifles when handguns murder over 10,000 people yearly? When heart disease kills 600,000 people yearly? When car accidents kill 35,000 people yearly? If you add up hands/feet deaths from DoJ statistics with club-deaths, you get more deaths than rifles. So why doesn't he want to ban hands/feet/clubs? It can't get any less logical than this. It's an emotional argument and emotional arguments make for poor comedy.

When Michael Che tried to attack guns on Weekend Update SNL, he backed Hillary Clinton and claimed "no one is trying to take away your guns." This is unequivocally false. It's a false statement because that's exactly what Bill Clinton's "assault weapon ban" did. It took away guns. Hillary herself has said she wants to review the Australian gun ban. Obama himself has said on CNN that China banned guns and everything is just fine there and the criminals have to use knives. He literally used that example. So "no one is trying to take away guns" is a LIE.

Lies like this give fuel to right-wing movements. They can point to your lies, and gather recruits. So why is he lying, misinforming his audiences, and sabotaging the Democratic cause? It's only gonna hurt himself in the end.

How can you turn falsehoods into comedy? Comedy and hilarity comes from TRUTH. It comes from Satire and irony based on the truth. He's not a very funny guy and he's trying to make a name for himself by being extremely left. Don't bother watching this on Netflix. Waste of time.

Sky (2015)
10 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
Boring with constant errors and myths. An emotional main character that teaches horrible ideas to younger audience, 31 August 2016
1/10

There are just constant errors throughout the movie even though it tries to be realistic. The police are incompetent. The detective is even more incompetent and naive. The main character is an incompetent "spiritual french hippie" who constantly ACTS on FEEEEEEEELINGS over logic.

Other errors include the nonsense and falsehood known as "depleted uranium" making someone sick. This is simply not true. There is no such sickness. There is no "radiation" that people get from "depleted uranium". It would be like getting radiation from tungsten or other heavy elements that aren't lead. People constantly shoot lead bullets and yet they don't get poisoned or irradiated. There is no SUCH THING. It's a hippie myth.

The movie is basically about a sexually repressed woman who becomes a stupid slut and a hobo and leeches off of others.

A few of the worst behaviors a woman can do in life. Living life through unplanned emotions/feelings/thrills. Making child-like decisions. Hurting other people along the way...

She's not an adult. She's a child who cares about nothing but her own selfish feelings.

There are also constant filming of Western/Mid-western American culture and portraying it as inbred, violent, and backwards, which yes there could be such characters but I don't know why the movie director or script writer decides to focus so closely on this.

Characters in the movie keep doing illegal things or things that can get them fired and trying to make it seem "Oh it's OKAY and NORMAL."

Then she finds spirituality and native Americans and other nonsense.

The Native Americans are portrayed in their typical clichés as super-connected with spirits.

This movie was written by children who have only had a few bad experiences with love.

18 out of 36 people found the following review useful:
Hilarious and the genius was capturing trump's cult of personality and ridiculousness without exaggeration, 27 April 2016
10/10

The jokes are very intelligent and satirical but it takes some effort or knowledge to understand some of them. Much of the plot is based on Trump's real life. That's the key to satire, showing the absurdity of Trump's candidacy without exaggerating much at all and everything is 100% true.

Trump's cult of personality will of course not be swayed but that's the thing about cults, their spread slows and eventually the cultists just go away into the forest with their own nuttery as people start to see just how insane they are.

The jokes were not only smart but very offensive which I find to be exactly what I'm looking for in a comedy.

6 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
Lotta politics, not too funny, makes liberals look bad, 24 April 2016
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

You know that thing people say where entertainers or Hollywood shouldn't get involved in politics. Yeah this is one of those times. It's not even funny, it's just flat wrong and designed for an audience that also knows nothing just like himself.

So OK great, Oswalt gives us a few silly jokes that are very much low-brow and unsophisticated. A few jokes that are decent. Then he goes on tirade of politics.

I get that he's obsessed with transgender, feminist, and gay politics, who knows why... But OK, fine... that's not where I had my problem.

It's when he gets into things like Bush and Obama and starts condescending to the audience and describing political concepts that make no sense.

Compares Obama's policies to terminator. Compares Bush to some maniacal torturer. Talks about how he wants "the first ___ blank" presidents. Like as if that means something. We need the "first X president" for almost every minority group or something? What ridiculousness.

Politically correct nonsense to the max. This is exactly what makes liberals look bad.

Then he goes into nonsense like "secret groups run the country and not the president." Literally spelling out ridiculous conspiracy theories.

No wonder he describes himself as a man who spends too much time fighting on the internet. He's a 50 year old man-child.

He seems to think there is a world of difference between UAVs and fighter jets apparently when one simply doesn't include a pilot and does the same thing.

He believes in nonsense basically.

It's unfortunate. So Patton Oswalt is an atheist, and it's funny, atheist philosophers have stated that once you get rid of religion for dumb people, some of these dumb people will start believing in the most nonsensical conspiracy theories and here is this guy, the perfect example of a not-so-smart man who believes in nonsense as a replacement for religion.

He goes into rants about feminist silliness where he claims basically that all women direct movies.

Watching this, you will be constantly annoyed by really low-quality jokes. Ironies that would only make sense to a high school student who recently got into politics.

Two Wrongs (2015) (TV)
13 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Designed for people who lack logic, 10 March 2016
1/10

I swear this movie is designed for emotional people who have very little logical capacity.

The plot makes no sense. The point of extortion and kidnapping is to get the victim's family to do something, that the kidnappers themselves cannot do. In this plot, they can do it themselves but just want someone else to do it essentially (which makes no sense).

Of course the title suggests "two wrongs... don't make a right"... but that is absolutely silly. Self-defense, war, criminal justice, these are all committing acts against another human to correct a WRONG by doing something that is usually WRONG. So what you do doesn't matter unless it's particularly heinous but WHO you do it to, does matter.

Behavior itself is not immoral. Context of the behavior and the perpetrator and victim can make something moral or immoral. If a mom bear kills the wolf threatening its cubs, that mom bear is not immoral.

The only person talking sense in this movie, is the man who did the worst crimes possible...and the old mother who's too weak to just do things herself. A perpetrator who's a coward.

It's just a bizarre drama for the sake of drama.

7 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
Conspiracy theorists posing as folk heroes fighting Nazi Empire, 23 October 2015
1/10

It's ridiculous how grandiose and narcissistic these neckbeards in this documentary are. They by their own admission are committing crimes, stealing emails, giving protected emails to the public, and committing espionage, and then they are getting upset when the government arrests them.

The documentary focuses mostly on Weev, an internet troll, who even blames the Jews all the time just to be controversial and obnoxious, who was arrested because he hacked AT&T by "just doing arithmetic" which revealed some email addresses.

The problem is that he thinks he was arrested for free speech or arithmetic. When in fact, he was arrested because he hacked a list of emails and gave it to the public, trying to expose and embarrass AT&T and government in essence VIOLATING THE PRIVACY of individuals working for government. It's hilarious how hypocritically they defend privacy rights while violating privacy rights of others using hacks.

None of these hackers contacted the company to say "hey you have a security flaw here, let me help you." They all hacked, embarrassed, and publicly showed off their hacks to others. It's criminal.

Ironically, they say things like "this government is oppressing me and all I do is speak out using 1st amendment." When in fact, they are literally encouraging people to commit crimes against the US. They are labeled the enemy of the state, because they literally admit to being the enemy of the state.

They are literally attacking and hacking the United States... And then pretending like they are only doing free speech and being persecuted unfairly.

PRO-TIP: IF YOU ARE ATTACKING A COUNTRY, ITS GOVERNMENT, ITS CORPORATIONS, YOU ARE THE ENEMY OF THAT COUNTRY AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE YOU.

13 out of 39 people found the following review useful:
Dumb comedy: Like Mad TV but worse, 31 July 2015
1/10

I'm not sure where these people learn comedy from. They watch a comedy movie, and then they think "hmm I can be a comedic writer too" and they mistake humor for dumbness and awkwardness of the characters. So they make all the characters, weird, autistic, incredibly stupid, and then show their awkward interactions hoping that someone will laugh?

If you adored MAD TV and you thought every dumb scene in MAD TV was funny (not just a select few), then you'll love this show. If you are looking for intelligent, ironic, dark humor this is not the show for you.

It's a TV show where the writers purposefully thought "hmm wouldn't it be really awkward if the characters just made an awkward scene here and showed their lack of social awareness? How funny would that be? hahahahahahhahahahah" This is how stupid the writers are.


Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]