cramax595 Reviews

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

1/10 ratings are utter nonsense

[10/10 · 24 May 2018]

I don't have a problem with people rating this film with less than 10/10. But people say the 10/10 ratings are bogus reviews, and yet, the 1/10 are listed as "Most Helpful?" Ridiculous. For a movie to have a 1/10 vote, you'd have to watch it with your eyes and ears shut and only know the name of the film, and the name sucks. And those reviewers probably don't realize why the movie is called "Infinity War" perhaps thinking that the war goes on for infinity (and beyond, HAH!).

Qualifications for an only decent story, film: Does it have character development? Check. This movie 10 years worth of character development. Any plot/story? Check. If you don't know who the villains are or who the heroes are, and what they are fighting for, you live in belly lint. At any point did the audience react to a scene the way the filmmaker intended? Check. If you didn't at least smile once from an intended pun, or feel anger or sadness, or even humor during a fight scene with a well-known established character, then you don't know the character at all after 10 years.

So this movie must then qualify as at least "decent" and a 1/10 review is not a "decent" rating, and yet those reviews are labelled/ordered as "most helpful."

Reviewers commented about the setup for the story and how some main characters die and some live to move the story along, have you EVER written a story? Would YOU kill off most of the main characters in the beginning of your story? Who then would want to read/watch your story? If those deaths are too convenient for you in that it is a plot device to move a story along, that still doesn't make for a 1/10 rating. When someone gets stabbed, death sometimes is not immediate, even in the heart. Someone has to die, in Thanos' eyes he doesn't want to kill everyone, just who he needs to in order to get what he wants. You may think Thanos is a fool for wanting to kill off half the universe, but to Thanos it makes total sense. Villains don't always kill for the sake of killing, don't always create chaos for the sense of anarchy. Sometimes they do villainous things thinking it is for the greater good, as wrong as they may be.

Ultimately, reader, don't believe the "hype" of the 1/10 reviews. See it for yourself, judge for yourself. You'll be glad you did.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Trekkies and Non-Trekkies alike should enjoy this REEEEEBOOT.

[9/10 · 19 May 2013]

Several negative comments about this movie talk about how the original characters would not have necessarily acted like how this movie portrays them, or how this movie's story line mirrors events in the previous films/TV episodes-granted with slight alterations.

DUH! This is a rebooted franchise so by definition there has to be similarities with differences or else it would just be the same movie redone. Yes, Khan is a ruthless super villain as he was in the previous versions. But, yes Kirk still requests his help after he kills federation leaders. Why is that so hard to believe? At that moment in the story Kirk felt he had no other choice in order to save his crew from obliteration. "What would you do for your family?"

Yes, Spock struggles with his emotions and shows rage and anguish, he has ALWAYS had an inner struggle with his human side, hence the depth to his Vulcan character.

Yes, the dialog/plot line of the warp core breach and the 2 main characters' involvement are practically verbatim with Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, except with the roles reversed. The entire Star Trek "family" is now on it's own time-line so events could be similar to the past, but obviously could also be different because, after all, did two Spocks exist in the past Star Trek films/series? Both Spock and Kirk in this film at that moment even state that had the roles been reversed that's what each of them would have done: obviously because that exactly what was done in the first time-line!

Some people had issues with the easy infiltration of the military starship. Well, that ship was being built in secret by the top military leader, there was no enemy around, no need to heighten security. BUT they should have still communicated with an unknown vessel entering the construction site, so yes perhaps the infiltration was too easy.

Some people questioned how can people communicate from such large distances (galaxies) but yet not be able to transport between ships/places within the same planetary system. It's harder to get transporter locks on moving targets especially if you want to keep a human being in tact, wouldn't you say?

All in all, this was an entertaining adventure ride. The iconic characters's relationships are still growing in this movie towards what Trekkies know and love them to be in the Shatner/Nimoy days. Will there be a battle with the Klingons? That is to be expected because Klingons verses Federation is such a strong element is the previous storyline. Trekkies will enjoy the film even more if they realize that this is not a retelling of old tales, this is a tribute to them while still creating new ones. And NO i don't think the crew will be saving any whales any time soon...

127 Hours (2010)

An experienced climber and survivalist has an "oops" moment.

[9/10 · 29 January 2012]

We all know the story and it's outcome. Yet we want to see it for ourselves out of curiosity if the story is somewhat interesting after hearing the headlines. Isn't that true of every true story that is portrayed on film? People have commented that Aron Ralston is a loner and an idiot and give the movie 2 stars or less. How is that a bad comment about the story in the film? The character himself, and therefore the real person, calls himself these very things! As a loner, he felt invincible, yet as a self declared "idiot" he has the intelligence to admit how stupid of a thing he had done. Yes, we can all sit on our little chairs and watch the movie and call him an idiot for not telling anyone where he's going or what he's doing... like we've NEVER done something idiotic before. Sure, perhaps our very own moment of lack of good judgment has not put us in a situation that we may have sealed our own doom...for Ralston he had to come to terms with himself that, indeed he may have just killed himself unintentionally.

People also commented that he survives by sheer luck. To them I say, can YOU survive for 6 days doing the same things Ralston did? Forget the idea that you would never be so stupid. The point is, if it were to happen to you, what would YOU have done? Would you even have stopped for a moment to leave a video for your loved ones-loner that you are?

People still commented that Ralston felt no pain. We could dismiss the initial accident as being in shock. Later on he shows a great deal of pain...and ingenuity. When I myself had an oops moment with a stupid chainsaw cutting a hole in my knee, I didn't feel one ounce of pain. I just kept saying to myself, how could I be so stupid to have not been more careful.

If you only hated this movie because it is about one person for most of the film stuck in a canyon, hallucinating about life, screaming out for help ONCE and hating yourself for doing so because you know no one is out there to hear you and you know yelling is futile (by the way people commented that they would be yelling out - for what? save your energy and look for other viable solutions idiot!), contemplating taking your own life because of your incredible mistake you've made, making a final decision - one that would leave you "crippled" - and I mean no offense to amputees, still knowing that even without your right arm you still have to carry your bloodied self, weak from dehydration and having lost over 40 pounds in 6 days (I kid you not), to the HOPE of safety...if you hated this movie for reasons such as these...then you've never had a true "oops" moment. You are perfect...perfectly lying to yourself.