Re: Empire Magazine - 4/5 Stars
That and a rottentomatoes tracking thread... no score yet, but 4 "fresh reviews
That and a rottentomatoes tracking thread... no score yet, but 4 "fresh reviews
Empire Magazine - 4/5 Stars [may contain some minor spoilers]
- Thread starter Devon
- Start date
Re: Empire Magazine - 4/5 Stars
Oh right, a RT thread would also be cool.
That and a rottentomatoes tracking thread... no score yet, but 4 "fresh reviews
Oh right, a RT thread would also be cool.
I've added a warning to the thread title, but I didn't see anything really major in the review.
I think he may be of the opinion that the review is colored somewhat by the reviewer's own agenda, as opposed to there being a clear attempt to duck the issue on the part of the filmmakers. The reviewer seems to have had some expectations which this movie didn't oblige, but I think there are also some valid points made.
Re: Empire Magazine - 4/5 Stars
Sounds to me like he's addressing part of Gene Roddenberry's agenda for Star Trek, not his own personal one. But not having seen the movie yet, I can't put his criticism into context and neither can anyone else who hasn't seen it yet. It may very well be the case that the reviewer is reading too much into it, as was the case, IMO, in this Slate review of Nemesis...
[The "liberal/détente" sensibility is 100% correct; just not sure about it's application when criticizing Nemesis.] However, it's prejudicial to be so critical of a review for a movie one hasn't seen (unless you're just criticizing the prose of the review)...
...especially when nothing is offered to back up the criticism, just an expletive. I don't necessarily expect some grand allegorical political message out of this movie since it's introducing the characters and I get the sense it's driven by their personal journeys and relationships. If, however, there are elements that seem to promote jingoistic militarism then that certainly would be an issue to anyone who understands and agrees with Roddenberry's clear ideological impetus. If that agenda isn't preserved---if it's contradicted---then it isn't Star Trek in essence and it would surely be bastardized.
I think he may be of the opinion that the review is colored somewhat by the reviewer's own agenda, as opposed to there being a clear attempt to duck the issue on the part of the filmmakers. The reviewer seems to have had some expectations which this movie didn't oblige, but I think there are also some valid points made.
Sounds to me like he's addressing part of Gene Roddenberry's agenda for Star Trek, not his own personal one. But not having seen the movie yet, I can't put his criticism into context and neither can anyone else who hasn't seen it yet. It may very well be the case that the reviewer is reading too much into it, as was the case, IMO, in this Slate review of Nemesis...
[The "liberal/détente" sensibility is 100% correct; just not sure about it's application when criticizing Nemesis.] However, it's prejudicial to be so critical of a review for a movie one hasn't seen (unless you're just criticizing the prose of the review)...
...especially when nothing is offered to back up the criticism, just an expletive. I don't necessarily expect some grand allegorical political message out of this movie since it's introducing the characters and I get the sense it's driven by their personal journeys and relationships. If, however, there are elements that seem to promote jingoistic militarism then that certainly would be an issue to anyone who understands and agrees with Roddenberry's clear ideological impetus. If that agenda isn't preserved---if it's contradicted---then it isn't Star Trek in essence and it would surely be bastardized.
Similar threads
