Hollyweird has heated up their war on everyday Americans with the release of "Miss Sloane".  Starring the Hillary Clinton foot-licker Jessica Chastain, the flick portrays her as a high-powered lobbyist battling the evil National Rifle Association on a bill to ban private gun sales nationwide.  The film, aside from its political polemic aspects attacking America's oldest civil rights organization with over five million dues paying members, sucks.

Miss Sloan is bad.  How bad?  Well, have you seen that Geico commerical with the Raccoons "C'mon.  Try it!"?

If you're foolish enough to spend your hard-earned money to help finance this turkey of a movie, you'll be trying to get your friends to try it too so you don't feel quite so foolish for squandering two hours of your life.  Don't take our word for it!

It's so bad that even the Washington Post calls it awful.  And folks, that's baaaddddd!  Here's their headline:

‘Miss Sloane’ shows what happens when Hollywood abandons political common sense

If they could sum it up in half a sentence?

a twisty political thriller that has all the sophistication of a mediocre hour of “Scandal.”

That's not exactly a rousing endorsement, right?  But wait!  There's more:

There are little things that feel wrong in the movie — a PAC that raises just $15 million from three million donors, for instance, suggesting an average giving rate of five dollars per donor — as well as one big thing. The massive new background check law that forms the heart of “Miss Sloane’s” conflict is, simply, an absurdity. It is pitched as the sort of law that would “close loopholes” and stop mass shootings, despite the fact that background check laws have been unable to stop recent killings and proposed expansions of background checks would have done nothing to stop them. I found it hard to care about the machinations surrounding the bill since no one really addresses the fact that the bill itself is an empty nothing.

And this:

…gun control advocates spout sub-Daily-Kos silliness, claiming, for example, that Texas regulates sex toys more stringently than guns with a straight face. I think part of the problem is that filmmakers didn’t consult with people heavily involved in the issue in order to see if the film made sense.

This is what happens when you've got some far-left ideologues writing scripts about things they know little or nothing about, aside from what their caregivers have spoon-fed them inside their little echo-chamber.  You end up with a final product that leaves such a bad taste in your mouth that you want to try something awful – like mango, chutney and burnt hair – to get that movie's taste out of your mouth.

They spent $18M on the film, mostly on black nail polish for the lead character (and a nice paycheck for her).  And they are spending millions more promoting it.  In its first twelve days of limited release, the movie has grossed a not-so-impressive $133,000.  That's Barack Obama math right there!  Spend $18 million to make $133,000!

Assuming this movie will still be in theaters by Christmas (which it probably won't), be sure to put it on your "do not patronize list". 

Of course, this is assuming you even patronize movie theaters – even the ones with (usually non-compliant) "No Guns" signage.

If you're dying to see it, just wait.  It'll be behind the quickie mart in the RedBox a week or two after New Year's.