Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
CrazyLazy99
Reviews
The Dark Knight (2008)
The Only Movie that Doesn't Need Defending.
A lot of movies I like I have to admit have faults; This is not one of them. You can say whatever you want about this film to me, I don't care. This dark, twisted, incredibly smart masterpiece has not left my mind since I first saw it a week after it opened. Naturally, I was hyped up, but not expecting it to surpass the excellent Batman Begins (with the memory of Spider-Man 3 STILL ringing in my ears), but this movie kills my pessimism. From its crime drama undertones, to its fantastic set-pieces, it all perfectly melds together with thematic depth that most films period, can't fathom. Also, every character is solidly explored, and the film never sacrifices story for character and vice-versa, nor does the action or plot interfere with each other. Every action sequence is just an inevitable confrontation to move the plot and the characters forward, a move that summer movies and Academy-Award films both shamelessly reject.
This may be my favorite movie. Don't tell me how its "just" an action movie, or how The Godfather is the most complex film ever: it is boring and unimmersive. The Dark Knight is incredible.
Flyboys (2006)
This movie is kind of bad.
Now, its not the worst movie ever, but its really not much better than...oh, Spider-Man 3. (I'm still angry about that movie). Its weighed down by numerous factors, including acting, tone, and action. I watched this in World History and I wondered: "Why can't we watch a good movie?" What made it even worse was that people were in awe over it. I heard GASP! OH MY GOSH! Are you kidding me? What are you going to do if you watch a good movie, like Saving Private Ryan? Die? First, the acting was mediocre to bad. But the writing was complete weakness. The dialogue was Pearl Harbor bad and as a result the acting was almost as crappy. Also, the tone was overly sentimental. I mean like it thought it was going to make everyone cry. The music would come in at the perfect time to form a cliché. Shutup! It made me embarrassed. The action was uninspired mostly. At times, it was pretty good. There was one moment that actually thrilled. But most of the time it was just decent at the best. The CGI was also mediocre and sometimes terrible. The critics are right: it was always unconvincing.
Don't watch it. It's bad.
Notes on a Scandal (2006)
One suspenseful movie.
Am I the only one who was on the edge of my seat for this one. I just saw it last night(most of it) and nobody told me it was so good. I wasn't assuming a crap fest exactly (Cate Blanchett) but I didn't I'd like it this much and for it to be this kind of movie. I was also introduced to Judi Dench's excellent acting skills. She and Blanchett work together on-screen excellently. They feed off of each other's characters. This is a character-study, so that is needed, and their characters deepen and become more well rounded from the other's actions or dialogue.
Bottom line: This is a very suspenseful character study. It's not perfect, but the acting is superb and story development (and character development for that matter) is gripping. See it.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Are you kidding me?
You must be kidding me. There is no way this movie is this bad. Its Spider-Man for crying out loud. This must be a joke. I must be dreaming. There is no way.
No! It does suck! Say it ain't so! There are so many things wrong and terrible with this movie, its unreal, but first I'll start with a review (not critical) of the first two movies.
The most disappointing movie I have ever seen. You know how Saving Private Ryan or another movie like that is a punch in the gut? Well this is a punch in the face a kick in the groin and while you're on the ground it jacks your money! I walked out of the theater wanting to put Sam Raimi on a hit list.
Now its not all bad (it does have a 3). The movie starts out pretty strongly. In the first 15 minutes or so, it seemed like it would be good. There was acting, a seemingly visible script and a breathtaking action scene involving an armored truck. Then, it sucks substantially.
The acting is atrocious. Even Tobey Maguire can't salvage decency out of what he has in a script. He becomes a freaking emo. Kirsten Dunst brings nothing to the role. She's just a spoiled brat who doesn't get what she wants. J.K. Simmons is even forgettable. He's completely toned down to mild-mannered. However, Topher Grace was a pleasant surprise as Eddie Brock, Jr. He was a sarcastic little jerk and played the role very well. But he still wasn't right for the role. And why was he Junior? Then there's the direction. What was Sam Raimi thinking? I am not completely sure about the boundaries between writing and directing. Nonetheless, they were both terrible. Peter dancing down the street as an emo retard. He made a complete idiot out of himself. He spins around on the street looking at women who stare back at him in utter disgust. I wounder how much Tobey Maguire asked for before he went through with it. Then, doing a swing dance with Gwen Stacy to get back at Mary Jane. Oh, they couldn't have made it not suck. They couldn't have made it actually good. That must have been the staff's motto. It was painful to watch.
This I know is God-awful writing. Venom is in the movie for 15 minutes. I don't mean screen time, I mean in the movie. He also constantly pulls his mask back and has fanged teeth when it is pulled back. That means Eric Forman has a bunch of fangs. WTF? Then there's no character development. Mary Jane's character does a complete 180. Instead of trying to accept the fact that Peter's Spider-Man (which would have given her room to develop) she just whines and moans and is one-dimensional. Not two. One. Peter sucks! Emo dance, and a cry-baby. Since he was supposed to be dark, this is just an even bigger slap in the face. He should have struggled with his inner demons differently, like being ruthless and merciless as Spider-Man. For example, Peter should have been seen in a scene in the black suit and he goes overboard in protecting a citizen. He should have beat him up so bad he was all bloodied up. And every time he looks at the suit he should have some sort of mad look on his face to show what he was thinking, and then have some Batman Begins-esquire music (composed by Danny Elfman, of course) when he puts on the suit. The writers basically flipped the audience the bird and gave them a truly terrible script. Another bad part of the writing is character usage. Mary Jane seems to be in it more Spider-Man, the main attraction. Did Dunst's contract require that she sing two songs? That is the only way she could have gotten the screen time. Peter Parker: well, I mentioned his emo retardation. Sandman is a wuss. I can understand trying to go a different angle by saying he was saving his daughter and not really a bad guy, just making bad decisions, but they made him weak. Sam Raimi liked this character so they glorified him.
However, no one was more misused more than Venom. His presence was a complete atrocity to the source material and insulting to me, personally. Venom was in it for 15 minutes I already told you. But the bad part is that he dies! Eddie Brock, Jr. dies in the end. So who's to carry on the Venom name? One of those afterthoughts in the comics? Please. Venom could have been used so well.
Even the score sucks. Danny Elfman's should have stayed. When I heard the different score being played, I knew it was a sign of a lackluster movie. It was so bad. It was the most generic score I've heard in a superhero movie, a genre that usually has a lot of good or great ones.
Also, its filled with tired or weak story line. Old or tired: the triangle between Peter, MJ, and Harry. Can we get past that now? How about Harry trying to kill Peter for a little longer than 4 minutes? And this half-a##ed storyline, "uh, Sandman killed your uncle, not a thug like in the comics." Oh, nice guys. What, did that take a whole three freaking seconds? You couldn't have put a little more thought into the story (not that they did with anything)? It was ridiculous. They didn't even try.
Oh yeah: there's barely any action. Talky-talky. The first two had some talking but it didn't suck and make me want to stab my ears. They cry and dance and its just insulting.
God of War II (2007)
Brilliant!
Actually, I don't think it does contain a spoiler, but I wasn't sure if this would qualify as a non-spoiler review.
This was the first game of its kind that I have ever played. The game that contains the kind of things that make you nuts and play it over and over again. The best game of 2007, except for maybe Gears of War, and definitely the best game ever to grace the PlayStation 2. The story is engrossing. The graphics are beautiful. The game play is incredible. Hack n' slash at its best. Surpasses the first one.
Decapitations and slashes have never been this fun. The gore is a little over the top, but fun part is just slashing them, giving a kind of guilty pleasure. Neither have boss battles or platforming. Especially this one grappling stage. My God!
And it contains some of the biggest boss fights I have ever played. You clash with a bunch of guys and creatures from Greek mythology (but I won't say to avoid the spoiler. You're just going to have to play this yourself.) The fights are nuts, you fight some ridiculously fun ones, all of in which you do some of the goriest, most violent things imaginable. And you actually do them.
However, while this game is superior in game play, it is inferior in character development. Kratos is a jerk in this, whereas in the first game, you want him to finish his bloody quest. The story is cool though.
You must play this.