One of the best reviews I have seen so far

[Feofilakt]

This is easily one of the best reviews for the movie that I have seen. Detailed, but not too nitpicky, and scathing without being unnecessarily brutal. It also sums up my experience: Fast and entertaining (well, I wasn't entertained at all, but I'm a Seventh Seal and Andre Rublev guy) but completely and utterly lacking in substance.

Also, very poor screenwriting. Very, very poor screenwriting. Star Wars prequel level of bad screenwriting.

http://expectyoutodie.blogspot.com/2009/05/special-guest-post-star-trek-xi-no.html

 

[urbandk]

This is easily one of the best reviews for the movie that I have seen. Detailed, but not too nitpicky, and scathing without being unnecessarily brutal. It also sums up my experience: Fast and entertaining (well, I wasn't entertained at all, but I'm a Seventh Seal and Andre Rublev guy) but completely and utterly lacking in substance.

Also, very poor screenwriting. Very, very poor screenwriting. Star Wars prequel level of bad screenwriting.

http://expectyoutodie.blogspot.com/2009/05/special-guest-post-star-trek-xi-no.html

Not unnecessarily brutal... This is the definition of ridiculously over the top brutal. WTF is up with the text that GROWS?

Since this waste of bandwith review doesn't even merit a point-by-point refutation (Who can argue with insanity?), I'll just quote one of his commenters:

Cool…I think I just read an article by Sheldon Cooper!

 

[Bobatiel]

Well it's apparent to me that the reviewer didn't get it. He wrote, " This film isn't "about" anything, except putting the band back together, or together for the first time, or whatever..."

This movie is about Kirk and Spock on the most personal of levels, and them finding themselves and each other. Something that is not done by any means, but we can see that they are well on their way. They have to overcome huge personal issues and are in the process of doing just that.

When you nitpick the trees, you miss the forest.

That's ok. Star Trek is different things to different people. To me, at its core, Star Trek is Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Everything else, such as morality plays, SFX, tech and even story, are secondary.

 

[Feofilakt]

This is easily one of the best reviews for the movie that I have seen. Detailed, but not too nitpicky, and scathing without being unnecessarily brutal. It also sums up my experience: Fast and entertaining (well, I wasn't entertained at all, but I'm a Seventh Seal and Andre Rublev guy) but completely and utterly lacking in substance.

Also, very poor screenwriting. Very, very poor screenwriting. Star Wars prequel level of bad screenwriting.

http://expectyoutodie.blogspot.com/2009/05/special-guest-post-star-trek-xi-no.html

Not unnecessarily brutal... This is the definition of ridiculously over the top brutal. WTF is up with the text that GROWS?

Since this waste of bandwith review doesn't even merit a point-by-point refutation (Who can argue with insanity?), I'll just quote one of his commenters:

Cool…I think I just read an article by Sheldon Cooper!

Give me a break, he more or less delineated everything wrong with the movie.

His review wasn't brutal, I have seen far worse here and elsewhere. Nice way to just wave it off as being "insane", though. Very sophisticated

 

[urbandk]

This is easily one of the best reviews for the movie that I have seen. Detailed, but not too nitpicky, and scathing without being unnecessarily brutal. It also sums up my experience: Fast and entertaining (well, I wasn't entertained at all, but I'm a Seventh Seal and Andre Rublev guy) but completely and utterly lacking in substance.

Also, very poor screenwriting. Very, very poor screenwriting. Star Wars prequel level of bad screenwriting.

http://expectyoutodie.blogspot.com/2009/05/special-guest-post-star-trek-xi-no.html

Not unnecessarily brutal... This is the definition of ridiculously over the top brutal. WTF is up with the text that GROWS?

Since this waste of bandwith review doesn't even merit a point-by-point refutation (Who can argue with insanity?), I'll just quote one of his commenters:

Cool…I think I just read an article by Sheldon Cooper!

Give me a break, he more or less delineated everything wrong with the movie.

His review wasn't brutal, I have seen far worse here and elsewhere. Nice way to just wave it off as being "insane", though. Very sophisticated

Very sarcastic.

I wave it off as being insane because there's no point wasting time on a piece of trash like that review. It is utter garbage.

Well, if there are more brutal reviews then I guess they push the envelope on insanity.

 

[Feofilakt]

Not unnecessarily brutal... This is the definition of ridiculously over the top brutal. WTF is up with the text that GROWS?

Since this waste of bandwith review doesn't even merit a point-by-point refutation (Who can argue with insanity?), I'll just quote one of his commenters:

Give me a break, he more or less delineated everything wrong with the movie.

His review wasn't brutal, I have seen far worse here and elsewhere. Nice way to just wave it off as being "insane", though. Very sophisticated

Very sarcastic.

I wave it off as being insane because there's no point wasting time on a piece of trash like that review. It is utter garbage.

Well, if there are more brutal reviews then I guess they push the envelope on insanity.

Perhaps, but born from a man who, apparently, has limited ability to observe and analyze reality in any meaningful manner. You like the movie, but it's a feeling, a belief that has no basis that you can actually describe, aside from a general "the story is good" or "it is Trek and I like it". Most people like things in that way, but have no illusion: It is probably one of the lowest forms of interest.

However you feel about the author, he does more than you have so far from what I read. He clearly states in a manner that can be observed and analyzed his opinions regarding the movie that are (mostly) correct if one took the time to look. The story, in comparison to other stories out there, simply is not good. Maybe you can explain why the story is so good to me, because I found it to be quite awful.

I find people's opinions that are well written and structured around real observations to be far from trash; they are more valuable than a thousand fanatics, who are the real source of trash in all ventures.

 

[Jeri]

The title of this thread is a bit misleading.

 

[urbandk]

Give me a break, he more or less delineated everything wrong with the movie.

His review wasn't brutal, I have seen far worse here and elsewhere. Nice way to just wave it off as being "insane", though. Very sophisticated

Very sarcastic.

I wave it off as being insane because there's no point wasting time on a piece of trash like that review. It is utter garbage.

Well, if there are more brutal reviews then I guess they push the envelope on insanity.

Perhaps, but born from a man who, apparently, has limited ability to observe and analyze reality in any meaningful manner. You like the movie, but it's a feeling, a belief that has no basis that you can actually describe, aside from a general "the story is good" or "it is Trek and I like it". Most people like things in that way, but have no illusion: It is probably one of the lowest forms of interest.

However you feel about the author, he does more than you have so far from what I read. He clearly states in a manner that can be observed and analyzed his opinions regarding the movie that are (mostly) correct if one took the time to look. The story, in comparison to other stories out there, simply is not good. Maybe you can explain why the story is so good to me, because I found it to be quite awful.

I find people's opinions that are well written and structured around real observations to be far from trash; they are more valuable than a thousand fanatics, who are the real source of trash in all ventures.

I could break down for you why I think this is a great film in a detailed and "sophisticated" manner (as I have dozens of times elsewhere on this board), but why waste my time? You wouldn't agree, so I am happy to let you not like the film. I think the sun will still rise tomorrow.

 

[Feofilakt]

The title of this thread is a bit misleading.

One of the best reviews I have seen so far.

 

[Feofilakt]

Very sarcastic.

I wave it off as being insane because there's no point wasting time on a piece of trash like that review. It is utter garbage.

Well, if there are more brutal reviews then I guess they push the envelope on insanity.

Perhaps, but born from a man who, apparently, has limited ability to observe and analyze reality in any meaningful manner. You like the movie, but it's a feeling, a belief that has no basis that you can actually describe, aside from a general "the story is good" or "it is Trek and I like it". Most people like things in that way, but have no illusion: It is probably one of the lowest forms of interest.

However you feel about the author, he does more than you have so far from what I read. He clearly states in a manner that can be observed and analyzed his opinions regarding the movie that are (mostly) correct if one took the time to look. The story, in comparison to other stories out there, simply is not good. Maybe you can explain why the story is so good to me, because I found it to be quite awful.

I find people's opinions that are well written and structured around real observations to be far from trash; they are more valuable than a thousand fanatics, who are the real source of trash in all ventures.

I could break down for you why I think this is a great film in a detailed and "sophisticated" manner (as I have dozens of times elsewhere on this board), but why waste my time? You wouldn't agree, so I am happy to let you not like the film. I think the sun will still rise tomorrow.

Concession accepted, carry on.

 

[Jeri]

The title of this thread is a bit misleading.

One of the best reviews I have seen so far.

I do understand; but something more objective would have been helpful. I wouldn't have clicked.

 

[Feofilakt]

The title of this thread is a bit misleading.

One of the best reviews I have seen so far.

I do understand; but something more objective would have been helpful. I wouldn't have clicked.

Alright alright, you have a point.

http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?id=9114c278-fe40-4875-a0da-bec46b1c4561

There, that is actually the best review I have seen so far.

 

[Franklin]

I agree with urbandk about the level of sarcasm in the review. It is also unnecessarily smug and self-righteous in tone. Don't they teach persuasive writing techniques in college any more? (Well, they do where I am, but maybe budgets have been cut too far in other places.) The sad thing is the reviewer raises very valid criticisms. Some are a matter of taste, but some get at the heart of the movie (or lack of it), and if they had been done a little less glibbly, would've made striking points.

He's especially right about technobabble in the film (even "shields down to 38 percent," types of lines). And worse, technobabble solutions. At a critical moment in the flim, it's only technobble that gets Kirk and Scotty on the Enterprise. Plain and simple. They didn't even have to figure it out for themselves. Spock Prime just spoon-fed it to them. At least Geordi would've come up with it on his own. Of course, he then would've spent ten minutes explaining it before doing it.

Also, I may be in a minority on this board, but he's spot-on about the K-M test scene. As played, it was stupid.

The destruction of Vulcan was not proper for a movie of this tone, either. And, as I had said myself, if they had any balls at all, and really wanted to shake things up, then it's Earth they should've destroyed. Could we have lived with that?

 

[urbandk]

I agree with urbandk about the level of sarcasm in the review. It is also unnecessarily smug and self-righteous in tone. Don't they teach persuasive writing techniques in college any more? (Well, they do where I am, but maybe budgets have been cut too far in other places.) The sad thing is the reviewer raises very valid criticisms. Some are a matter of taste, but some strike at the heart of the movie, and if they had been done a little less glibbly, would've made striking points.

He's especially right about technobabble in the film (even "shields down to 38 percent," types of lines). And worse, technobabble solutions. At a critical moment in the flim, it's only technobble that gets Kirk and Scotty on the Enterprise. Plain and simple. They didn't even have to figure it out for themselves. Spock Prime just spoon-fed it to them. At least Geordi would've come up with it on his own. Of course, he then would've spent ten minutes explaining it before doing it.

Also, I may be in a minority on this board, but he's spot-on about the K-M test scene. As played, it was stupid.

The destruction of Vulcan was not proper for a movie of this tone, either. And, as I had said myself, if they had any balls at all, and really wanted to shake things up, then it's Earth they should've destroyed. Could we have lived with that?

I agree about Kirk's behavior during K-M. It was flat out smug.

Agree about Earth too. It was an insulting, ethnocentric plot twist to destroy Vulcan but not Earth.

Agree about the red matter McGuffin. I hate that kind of deus ex machina garbage.

Yeah, definitely some flaws in the film. I don't deny it. Still think it stacks up pretty well with other Trek.

 

[Franklin]

Yeah, definitely some flaws in the film. I don't deny it. Still think it stacks up pretty well with other Trek.

Oh heavens, yes! We're way too kind to the past. It's not like Abrams drew a moustache on the Mona Lisa.

Still, as I've said before, I do hope Orci and Kurtzman mature as writers and story developers. The reviewer is correct that the overall quality of the story and script does not stand up to TWOK, for example.
And, let's face it, the next movie won't be treated so kindly if it has the same weaknesses this movie had.

 

[Bobatiel]

The reviewer is correct that the overall quality of the story and script does not stand up to TWOK, for example.

Just as an aside, TWOK isn't as good to me as it is to most Trek fans, I think.

The whole Carol and David Marcus thing did not work for me at all, and it was a huge blunder, IMO, not ever having Kirk and Khan meet face to face anywhere in the film.

A waste of Montalban's talents. He was absolutely great, but he sure wasn't used properly, IMO.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

The review does articulate a lot of the things I didn't like about the new movie. The only thing I think it didn't touch on was some of the modern fight editing where you can't follow what's going on, a punch is thrown, a shot is fired, a face is hit, a guy goes down, you just get the idea of a fight but you can't actually connect the action, but that isn't limited to just Star Trek.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I could break down for you why I think this is a great film in a detailed and "sophisticated" manner (as I have dozens of times elsewhere on this board), but why waste my time? You wouldn't agree, so I am happy to let you not like the film. I think the sun will still rise tomorrow.

Exactly so.

I've got no interest in debating people who didn't like the movie. Let them not like it; that's entirely their business. It's fun to talk to other fans who enjoyed the flick, though.

 

[CorporalClegg]

He lost me with his comments on Bana. Granted, his performance here wasn't the best, but there also wasn't much to work with.

It's really hard to believe that anyone who's seen a fair sampling of his work could call him a bad actor.

 

[TrekGuide.com]

All I can say is that, if I am trapped on a desert island, and I can bring only four "Trek" movies with me, this would definitely be one of them.

Come on. There are plot holes, monumental coincidences, questionable character motivations, and re-hashing of previous stories in EVERY "Trek" film. Compared with the utter non-stories of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and "Insurrection," I thought this was a pretty good script. (Obviously, some important scenes were lost in editing, but I don't blame the writers for that.)

I seriously can't understand how anyone who saw "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" can say with a straight face that this new movie isn't about anything. (I'll take Nero over V'ger any day of the week.)

To the contrary, this is one of the first "Trek" films that shows time travel having real consequences, rather than having a big reset button at the end that removes all possibility of drama and suspense.

Unlike the "Star Wars" prequels, where we already know how everything will turn out, this new timeline enables us to see familiar characters again, but we can't say, "I know that character will be around 10 years from now, so he will never be in any jeopardy," or, "I know Vulcan is still around 100 years from now, so there's no chance of it being destroyed."

Had this movie been that kind of literal prequel, there would be much less drama or suspense, since we'd already know that nothing dramatic can happen to change the course of history.

This plotline was the only way to use these popular characters again, while at the same time giving them actual threats and jeopardy to overcome.

It doesn't matter whether we use a "red matter" black hole to go back and get the screenwriter of "Casablanca" to script the next film. A vocal minority of "Star Trek" fans will ALWAYS find SOMETHING to complain about.