*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Stephen Orr]

Two negative reviews have dropped RT to 96% with 54 total reviews. After reading the negative one, I really didn't understand their dislike for what's basically a crowd-pleasing, big budget, what-the-Star-Wars-prequels-should-have-been summer popcorn movie. They seemed to be negative just to be negative.

That said, Imax on Friday at 7, baby! Tickets are in the glove compartment!

 

[Tino]

two and a half stars from ebert.

 

[Brent M]

This is the same guy that gave Van Helsing 3 stars. I respect Ebert, but some of his reviews can be very perplexing. Even though I haven't seen Star Trek yet I'm willing to bet every dollar I have(and even some of my vital organs) that it's a thousand times better than the steaming pile that was Van Helsing.

 

[Steve Christou]

Did Ebert really give Van Helsing 3 stars? Thats great, I love Ebert, so unpredictable. Some of you young guys have already made up your minds this is the greatest ever Star Trek film before you'd even seen it. A Star Trek movie directed by a Star Wars fan, I'm sure it'll be action packed, and the old series is back on tv again, it's all good.

 

[Jason_V]

With all respect to Ebert, he either didn't watch the movie closely enough or didn't understand it.

One of his complaints is why crew members skydive onto a drilling platform instead of beaming. That is very explicitly explained before the sequence occurs. He also whines about the use of warp speed and how it makes the galaxy smaller. Warp speed goes ALL the way back to Jeffrey Hunter in The Cage.

(He also rails on the use of time travel and how it happens in this movie. Dude...seriously? You're complaining about something we know nothing about?)

But whatever. I saw it, I very much liked it as a fan and a critic.

 

[Brent M]

Yes, unfortunately he did.

Van Helsing :: rogerebert.com :: Reviews

 

[SilverWook]

Movie critics should fess up when they make a bathroom run, or hit the snack bar, and miss a plot point or two.

And seriously, without warp speed (or hyperspace) we wouldn't have most science fiction stories period!

 

[PaulDA]

However, on balance, it remains a positive review (just not an enthusiastic one). If anyone wants to know what it's like when he writes a clearly negative review, read his review of Wolverine.

 

[Jason_V]

But when you use quite clear plot points as a condemnation of the movie, there's a huge problem.

 

[Steve Christou]

Well he does admit it was silly, and fun. Which is how I saw it.

He thought Star Trek was fun too, he just wasn't blown away by it. Hmmm he gave Wolverine just 2 stars, maybe Ebert's getting a bit grumpy and mean in his old age.

As for best Star Trek movie soundtrack, easy - Star Trek The Motion Picture - by the late great much missed Jerry Goldsmith.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I think that's the problem. What is expected from Star Wars is not what is expected from Star Trek. As someone whose connection to Star Trek is limited to the occasional rerun in syndication (and more recently Spike), I think the movie looks entertaining as hell and can't wait to catch it in IMAX. For someone like Ebert who has sat through all of the previous movies that achieve varying degrees of mediocrity, though, the dumbing down of the franchise and sudden lack of concern for scientific plausibility is probably pretty disappointing.

 

[Chris Will]

Hey, a movie without warp speed could be pretty fun. Just think about it, the Enterprise leaves Earth orbit with a young fresh crew to go fight Nero. Title card... "30 Years Later" they finally reach Nero and the battle begins. Only now you have Shat, Nimoy and the rest of the old gang (those still with us) playing the roles again because the crew aged so much! Of course the sequel will have to be another reboot because the crew will be dead by the time they get back to Earth.

This time tomorrow I will have finally seen Star Trek!!!!

 

[Kevin Hewell]

The film wasn't really about Nero, though. It was about our favorite characters played by new actors and the character interactions between them.

 

[Oliver_A]

You actually did read my review, didn't you?

 

[Sean Laughter]

I won't be seeing this until tonight (IMAX!! Yay!!!), but it still would be nice to have a Star Trek film that got a villain right. Yes, yes, we can argue about Khan, who was great for what he was, but he really doesn't have that much more going for him, character-wise, than Shinzon or Alien God, unless you want to count one extra episode of backstory. I mean, don't get me wrong, I can't stand Nemesis, but (remembering I've yet to see the film) I really don't see how Nero is anymore interesting or less a Khan-copy than Shinzon was.

I still say First Contact had the best villain in any of the films because the Borg had a good amount of history and backstory in the universe, they were well used, and had history with the crew. They were also a villain people at the time were itching to see in a film since that was before Voyager ran the Borg into the ground.

Ebert's problems with this film also perplex me, because I remember seeing his First Contact review on the Siskel & Ebert show (as opposed to reading a print review) and he made no mention of taking issue with the time travel in that one. Obviously, they used warp drive in that film too, etc. Those seem likely highly odd things to be critical of in a freaking Star Trek movie for crying out loud.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Sorry, I wish I could appreciate your input but that statement invalidates everything you posted sadly. Plus frankly, I don`t get that type of mindset.

 

[Jason_V]

It was never more noticeable for me than in the first 20 minutes. The jerky camera, not knowing exactly what we were looking at and a bunch of new characters didn't work in that combination for me. Then there's one long shot on Vulcan where the camera is tilted on its side and straightens out as it zooms in...very odd choices. (Yeah, lots of closeups, especially early on...)

 

[Stephen Orr]

Yeah, all four of the "negative" reviews complain about how the movie is exactly what it is supposed to be. Go figure. There is absolutely nothing wrong with updating old franchises to reflect the times, and I wish critics would get over it. James Bond and Batman come to mind.

And although I haven't seen the movie yet, it sound likes the new Star Trek still honors Gene R's vision of a hopefully future, renegade Romulan not withstanding.

 

[Oliver_A]

And I don't get what you are actually trying to say here. I am wrong, because of my initial dislike of the trailer?

This invalidates NOTHING about my post. The film had good acting, the plot wasn't quite original (which isn't uncommon among Star Trek films, even the good ones) and bad camera work. It's a lot better than NEMESIS, so in the end, I was actually pleasantly surprised. So what's the problem? Did YOU actually watch it, or are you just having a random poke at me because you don't like my opinion?

 

[Paul Arnette]

For anyone aching to know more about Nero, you can read the Star Trek prequel comic Countdown. While interesting, I don't really think the comic did all that great a job of providing additional motivation for him though.

Every Star Trek movie outside of The Wrath of Khan and First Contact, to a lesser degree, has had underwhelming villains. Am I willing to give this film a pass on this score based on how much exposition it has to setup in addition to getting itself out of the corner the previous movies painted themselves into.

Next time I won't be however, Star Trek II or whatever it winds up being called had better have a truly memorable villain that isn't a refugee from the Eugenics Wars.