http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12...009-4-25-the-motion-captured-review-star-trek
The latest review is one of the most in depth and best.
RAMA
The latest review is one of the most in depth and best.
RAMA
Star Trek Rotten Tomatoes Rating
- Thread starter Argus Skyhawk
- Start date
Another (positive) review added. It's not as enthusiastic and sounds a bit like a disgruntled Trekkie, but still says "the movie works well when taken on its own terms."
This is off thread, but that's a very sillly thing for the reviewer to say. If it's not the Enterprise (and let's face it, it is), then it's at least a ship of that type being built on the ground. And this is a story, not real life, so why have Kirk stare longingly at the Lexington? Or Constellation? Come on. Besides, we're all over that now. That "where was it built?" argument was soooo months ago.
Last edited:
i'm not crazy about how that guy professes to speak for star trek fans in general. i, for one, welcome all the change in the new film.
He manages to work "taken on its own terms" into a short review twice. 
At 17 reviews, Wolverine is now down to 53% fresh. So it's not as if the film critics association has decided to give everyone a pass this Summer.
I may be late to that particular argument, but why exactly was it a problem for people that the Enterprise was built on the ground?
At 17 reviews, Wolverine is now down to 53% fresh. So it's not as if the film critics association has decided to give everyone a pass this Summer.
Whoops down to 44%
At 17 reviews, Wolverine is now down to 53% fresh. So it's not as if the film critics association has decided to give everyone a pass this Summer.
An 18th review just knocked the percentage down to 44%. Not a good sign at all.
At 17 reviews, Wolverine is now down to 53% fresh. So it's not as if the film critics association has decided to give everyone a pass this Summer.
An 18th review just knocked the percentage down to 44%. Not a good sign at all.
Too bad this is exactly the type of movie that usually transcends bad reviews. Even though the third X-men movie was in the 50% range, it still was the most successful.
I'm waiting to see WOLVERINE on DVD. I'm just not that into the X-Men franchise anymore.
I know what you mean. I'm torn between seeing it or not. I love the X-Men so I want it to be good, but I hate Tom Rothman and the touch of death he has on all the Marvel propeties that Fox has the rights to.
Reading through the newer reviews, the review by James O'Ehley of Sci Fi Movie Page is positive, but it's odd.
-- He says it's the 22nd century. It's not nit-picking to say a guy writing for a sci-fi movie site should know TOS Trek is in the 23rd century.
-- His synopsis of the movie is terrible. (I won't elaborate, obviously, for spoiler reasons.) Let's just say he writes a slightly different movie.
-- He calls Pine's acting bland, and says nothing about the rest of the cast (including Quinto) except "they don't leave much of an impression, but then again, they aren't given that much to work with." He said he found himself missing the old cast.
-- Taken as it is, a "modern special effects-driven action flick," the movie is "fine."
-- He says, "It is also hardly the train smash some fans feared it would be."
I mean WTF.
-- He says it's the 22nd century. It's not nit-picking to say a guy writing for a sci-fi movie site should know TOS Trek is in the 23rd century.
-- His synopsis of the movie is terrible. (I won't elaborate, obviously, for spoiler reasons.) Let's just say he writes a slightly different movie.
-- He calls Pine's acting bland, and says nothing about the rest of the cast (including Quinto) except "they don't leave much of an impression, but then again, they aren't given that much to work with." He said he found himself missing the old cast.
-- Taken as it is, a "modern special effects-driven action flick," the movie is "fine."
-- He says, "It is also hardly the train smash some fans feared it would be."
I mean WTF.
Just glancing at his other Trek reviews, they all strike me as being sort of perfunctory. He seems to have been less enthusiastic generally toward everything which came after TNG (doesn't like VOY or DS9 much, apparently) and here seems to have a personal issue with these characters not being played by the original actors.
He does make a few worthwhile points, but he seems to me to have come to the movie with a something of a built-in bias against because it's not the old, familiar Trek he already knows, and admits that someone coming to it fresh probably won't feel the same way.
I dunno - I've been watching this for forty-odd years and I'm hard-pressed sometimes to remember which century is which. They're all so much alike...
Holy shit!
I just read through that whole Motion Captured review and then went to the top to see who wrote it..........Drew Fuckin McWeeny!!!
Moriarty himself!
Two things from that - whoda thunk a former AICN columnist could actually string coherent sentences into paragraphs? Second - I love that he rails on obsessive geeks at the end when he makes/has made his bread and butter from the patronage of same.
Some of the biggest hippocrits in the world are science fiction/movie fans.
I just read through that whole Motion Captured review and then went to the top to see who wrote it..........Drew Fuckin McWeeny!!!
Moriarty himself!
Two things from that - whoda thunk a former AICN columnist could actually string coherent sentences into paragraphs? Second - I love that he rails on obsessive geeks at the end when he makes/has made his bread and butter from the patronage of same.
Some of the biggest hippocrits in the world are science fiction/movie fans.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
