SFX Magazine - 5 out of 5 Stars

[Devon]

http://www.sfx.co.uk/page/sfx?entry=film_review_star_trek

(Spoilers in it.)

SFX promised a review for their new issue and here it is!

 

[RAMA]

http://www.sfx.co.uk/page/sfx?entry=film_review_star_trek

(Spoilers in it.)

SFX promised a review for their new issue and here it is!

I posted this in the no spoilers thread.

RAMA

 

[urbandk]

best quote:

Guardians of the continuity, sharpening their Bat’leths and preparing their fatwas, will want to know this: does it violate the sacred canon?

the continuity addicts are like religious fundamentalists in some respects.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Oh, I like this:

There’s a reason why JJ Abrams’s reboot succeeds, and it’s embodied in a figure who bestrides this franchise like a ripped-shirted colossus: James Tiberius Kirk. The Star Trek universe desperately needs Kirk, and everything that he represents. It needs his wild abandon, his reckless dynamism, his pulsing virility. Without him, and his kind, it became moribund, and fell out of favour...
.
.
.
...seeing those accumulated centuries of established continuity crumble into dust doesn’t feel like a betrayal - it feels like a liberation. Like someone just unlocked the door of the cage. From now on, we really are boldly going where no man has gone before. Anything could happen - and sometimes does...

There’s another reason this film is a triumph. It’s not the epic scale or the very palpable sense of danger...

It’s this: passion. This is a film full of people who hurt, and it’s capable of hurting you - there are emotional sucker punches with the impact of a full spread of photon torpedoes. Gene Roddenberry’s big mistake was deciding that, in the far-future, humanity would have evolved, become more perfect, more harmonious. But a bunch of stuffed-shirt paragons do not make for gripping human drama.

 

[Devon]

http://www.sfx.co.uk/page/sfx?entry=film_review_star_trek

(Spoilers in it.)

SFX promised a review for their new issue and here it is!

I posted this in the no spoilers thread.

RAMA

Oops, sorry! I didn't see it!

 

[RAMA]

http://www.sfx.co.uk/page/sfx?entry=film_review_star_trek

(Spoilers in it.)

SFX promised a review for their new issue and here it is!

I posted this in the no spoilers thread.

RAMA

Oops, sorry! I didn't see it!

Keep going, the more we push it the better!

 

[Eddie Roth]

Great that everybody is so excited. All reviewers so far seem sure that Star Trek is back and here to stay. I can't say I share this optimism just yet. What if the film fails at the box office? Is it really so good that one can dismiss any doubt about its impact on new audiences?

 

[shapeshifter]

^@ Starship Polaris

The authors placing Kirk on such a high pedestal is slightly unfair, TNG (series, not era) did pretty well without him.

I am curious to see if this will successfully draw in die hard TNG fans who don't give-a-damn for TOS.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^@ Starship Polaris

The authors placing Kirk on such a high pedestal is slightly unfair, TNG (series, not era) did pretty well without him.

Yeah, and the full review acknowledges that.

They're not wrong, though. You strip Star Trek back down to its essentials and begin again, you begin with Kirk and Spock and the starship Enterprise and nowhere else.

 

[Ovation]

Oh, I like this:

There’s a reason why JJ Abrams’s reboot succeeds, and it’s embodied in a figure who bestrides this franchise like a ripped-shirted colossus: James Tiberius Kirk. The Star Trek universe desperately needs Kirk, and everything that he represents. It needs his wild abandon, his reckless dynamism, his pulsing virility. Without him, and his kind, it became moribund, and fell out of favour...
.
.
.
...seeing those accumulated centuries of established continuity crumble into dust doesn’t feel like a betrayal - it feels like a liberation. Like someone just unlocked the door of the cage. From now on, we really are boldly going where no man has gone before. Anything could happen - and sometimes does...

There’s another reason this film is a triumph. It’s not the epic scale or the very palpable sense of danger...

It’s this: passion. This is a film full of people who hurt, and it’s capable of hurting you - there are emotional sucker punches with the impact of a full spread of photon torpedoes. Gene Roddenberry’s big mistake was deciding that, in the far-future, humanity would have evolved, become more perfect, more harmonious. But a bunch of stuffed-shirt paragons do not make for gripping human drama.

Precisely. TNG (and the others) were at their best whenever they moved away from this "stuffed-shirt" straitjacket. While "Where No Man Has Gone Before" was not the best Trek episode, it did emphasize a point that seemed to slip from Roddenberry's grasp. Where Kirk and Dehner argue about "human frailties"--it's those "frailties" that make for interesting drama, not the absence of them.

 

[Ptrope]

So that's what a fangasm looks like!

I'm waiting for a review from the "target audience"; I feel like I just got spooged ...

 

[Plum]

Oh, I like this:

There’s a reason why JJ Abrams’s reboot succeeds, and it’s embodied in a figure who bestrides this franchise like a ripped-shirted colossus: James Tiberius Kirk. The Star Trek universe desperately needs Kirk, and everything that he represents. It needs his wild abandon, his reckless dynamism, his pulsing virility. Without him, and his kind, it became moribund, and fell out of favour...
.<SNIP!>

100% right on!

I recall an article that appeared in Salon about two years ago that had the same sentiment. Trek needs more Kirk. I think the title of the article was something like 'Trek needs more Shatner'.

 

[Borgminister]

Rotten Tomatoes will be interesting to read in a few weeks' time...

 

[Augustus]

Great that everybody is so excited. All reviewers so far seem sure that Star Trek is back and here to stay. I can't say I share this optimism just yet. What if the film fails at the box office? Is it really so good that one can dismiss any doubt about its impact on new audiences?

I wonder the same thing. I mean everyone who has seen it thus far has walked away with a positive review, but that doesn't mean a great opening weekend. I think that in the very least though, reviews like these and people seeing it the opening weekend can help this film have some staying power in the weeks afterward.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

So that's what a fangasm looks like!

I'm sure it's unfamiliar - it's certainly not as if fans have been given any reason to experience one for the last fifteen years or so.

The Internet may need more than a few mops on May 9th.

 

[miraclefan]

I haven't read any of the posts on this thread,(don't want to be spoiled) but I have to say my expectations for this movie is HIGH!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, it's certainly interesting that the vast majority of reviews and assessments we're getting now are neither from professional reviewers or from friends of the production, but from hard-core Trek fans who saw the film unexpectedly in Austin.

I'm sure that someone will suggest that a similar reaction would have resulted from a surprise preview of "Nemesis," but no one really believes that...

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Kirk and Dehner argue about "human frailties"--it's those "frailties" that make for interesting drama, not the absence of them.

Goodbye and good riddance forever to the TNG starched shirts.

 

[Kelso]

While "Where No Man Has Gone Before" was not the best Trek episode

...it was damned close.

 

[section9]

Well, it's certainly interesting that the vast majority of reviews and assessments we're getting now are neither from professional reviewers or from friends of the production, but from hard-core Trek fans who saw the film unexpectedly in Austin.

I'm sure that someone will suggest that a similar reaction would have resulted from a surprise preview of "Nemesis," but no one really believes that...

I somewhat disagree. There were reports of a standing ovation in Australia. Reviews, however, are under embargo until April 21st in the Australian press.