Favorite bad review of a Trek movie

[Mordock]

Some reviewers write positive reviews of Trek movies. Some reviewers write negative reviews of Trek movies. And then there are some reviewers who are moved to hilarity and to eloquence by how much they hated a particular Trek movie. I like those in the third category very much.

One in particular that comes to mind is "Alexandra DuPont"'s review of Nemesis for Ain't It Cool News. It is thoughtful:

...like the best James Bond movies, "Trek" made its audience feel "sophisticated" even as it indulged certain base desires. Bond indulged a need for sex and violence while making you feel cool; "Trek" indulged a need for sci-fi thrills while making you feel like you were grappling with something, you know, "profound." (AND it threw in some sex and violence, to boot.)

It is unsparing:

Where Wrath of Khan is clean and terse and memorable, Nemesis is entirely too chatty for its own good — and its story is propelled by just the sort of technobabble that pretty much every "Star Trek" fan but Rick Berman has had his or her fill of. (I mean, come on; the Enterprise is drawn into the story by detecting a bunch of android parts lying in pieces on a far-flung planet's surface? What the hell kind of booby trap is that?

It is ultimately melancholy:

"Voyager" and Insurrection are where "Star Trek" really, genuinely lost it — where "Trek" started looking like it was set in a Sheraton hotel lobby and the series became obsessed with maintaining its "universe" and the story editors started piling on temporal anomalies and other ass-forged deus ex machina in a blatant underestimation of their audience and nobody ever got their shirt ripped during a fight or got dirty or drunk or laid. The series, which had started out glorying in all that was human and raw and sexy, confined its "sexuality" to icy bondage queens like Seven of Nine and T'Pol.

I would love to know of other people's favorite examples of this phenomenon.

 

[JNG]

When Nexgen started tearing up the ratings, there weren't a whole lot of people getting "dirty or drunk or laid." [OK...people got dirty in "Family" lol] And people like this reviewer weren't there saying that was necessary. They wait for something not to succeed and then pretend that all along, they knew exactly why it wouldn't. I find it hard to enjoy this sort of thing. On the most basic level, no one would have been watching through most of the Nextgen era if they thought this was what Star Trek was "really about." Similarly, I cannot stand when Ron Moore smugly goofs on all the same characteristics of Star Trek that he collected a paycheck for helping to create and perpetuate.

Here is a quote from a review by Dr. Bernd Schneider, taking a look at Nemesis:

Concerning the reception of "Nemesis" in a broader public, I agree with some arguments of other critics, but I don't share their assessment of it as a Star Trek movie. They almost unanimously think that the whole franchise is exhausted and that we have seen everything before. I could say quite the same of their reviews. But honestly, shouldn't they rather complain about a general trend especially in the sci-fi/action/disaster/horror genres? Truth to be told, most of the recent flicks in this field (and especially those numbered >1) have unremarkable stories, stupid dialogues and ridiculously exaggerated stunts. They may be taken either as meaningless entertainment or as unintentional satire. One thing that will always distinguish Star Trek from such action mass products is that here is an overall serious tone, stories about characters and an attempt to make a point beyond the mere entertainment. "Nemesis" may be only average Star Trek, it may be only average from a purely cineastic viewpoint, but is still light years ahead of the crowd.

 

[Jamir]

I remember this one from The Boston Globe,when "The Voyage Home",came out:

"At least the stiffs aboard the starship have developed a sense of humor."
(*** out of 4)

 

[Peach Wookiee]

They didn't have one before?

 

[Maurice]

Here's a few salient quotes from David Gerrold's review of TMP from Starlog magazine April 1980, titled "Spockalypse Now":

I was willing to accept almost everything else in the picture, but not V'ger. I hadn't liked him when his name was NOMAD, before he had the face-lift and nose job. I didn't like him now.

At the end, when the navigator asks Kirk which way he wants to go, he says, "Out there-thataway." Anywhere. He doesn't care. Just so long as he's going.

And while that's a very funny line—it’s also very symptomatic of what's wrong with this movie. It doesn’t know where it's going either.

One long-time fan, one who is now a professional writer, made this wistful observation, “It’s like meeting an old lover. You’ve changed, she’s changed, and you can't see any more just what it was that dazzled you before.”

 

[Nardpuncher]

Here's a few salient quotes from David Gerrold's review of TMP from Starlog magazine April 1980, titled "Spockalypse Now":

I was willing to accept almost everything else in the picture, but not V'ger. I hadn't liked him when his name was NOMAD, before he had the face-lift and nose job. I didn't like him now.

At the end, when the navigator asks Kirk which way he wants to go, he says, "Out there-thataway." Anywhere. He doesn't care. Just so long as he's going.

And while that's a very funny line—it’s also very symptomatic of what's wrong with this movie. It doesn’t know where it's going either.

One long-time fan, one who is now a professional writer, made this wistful observation, “It’s like meeting an old lover. You’ve changed, she’s changed, and you can't see any more just what it was that dazzled you before.”

I thought all fans loved this movie??!!

 

[Python Trek]

I love TMP...I sometimes feel like the only one, but, well....there you go.....

 

[MarianLH]

I'm not sure if this Nemesis synopsis counts as a review, but I enjoyed it.


Marian

 

[DATA476]

"Voyager" and Insurrection are where "Star Trek" really, genuinely lost it — where "Trek" started looking like it was set in a Sheraton hotel lobby.

I really DO NOT agree with the above statement. "Voyager" was a good show, with both Season 2 and Season 5 bringing up some of the best episodes produced in all of "Star Trek". Micheal Piller certainly thought Voyagers second year was one of the best he's worked on and he's quoted as saying "I think it's a season that Gene Roddenberry would be proud of...". Regarding TNG's third feature film Insurrection, I really don't think its as bad as some of the fans claim it to be personally. The problem with that film is it doesn't appeal to the wider audiences and and is seems to be solely directed at 'Star Trek fans' where as the previous installment First Contact did, I do however think Insurection was a better film than Nemesis which is to my disappointment the poorest of the four TNG films.

The series, which had started out glorying in all that was human and raw and sexy, confined its "sexuality" to icy bondage queens like Seven of Nine and T'Pol.

I really like Seven of Nine as I thought that Character was very, very interesting in that she had to explore her humanity, that is the whole point of "Star Trek" anyway, humanity and exploration which that character has to do and it's handled well...

Regarding T'Pol, I don't like that character, she's a pointless character in a show that is pointless and neglected of good storytelling. Personally I liked "Star Trek: Voyager" and as perhaps bad as some of the episodes were overall it was another successful incarnation of "Star Trek". Enterprise was simply terrible and was trully where "trek" decended into a terrible mess created solely by Rick Berman whom as good as he might have been in the 90's just couldn't handle the pressure and the courage to turn round and say to Paramount. "Look, we've had three straight TV shows based on "Star Trek" and I think its time for a break, I'm finished and I want to move on now...". Star Trek should have taken a break in May 2001 after Voyager had gone off the air, fans probably at the time would have gone mad but in the long run Rick Berman had done the franchise a huge favour, instead he created this new show called Enterprise and it bombed, quite frankly everyone could see it coming, I for one cannot believe Rick Berman didn't see this coming and at least partially tried to save his reputation by doing what I just suggested. Voyager is not to blame, Enterprise is... thats my complete opinion!

 

[Maurice]

But as the topic is "bad reviews", why argue? Harlan Ellison's review of TMP was mean spirited, brutal, and unfair, but it's still a favorite because it's so darned entertaining to read.

 

[Harvey]

But as the topic is "bad reviews", why argue? Harlan Ellison's review of TMP was mean spirited, brutal, and unfair, but it's still a favorite because it's so darned entertaining to read.

Is there a link to that review (out of curiosity)?

 

[EEE]

But as the topic is "bad reviews", why argue? Harlan Ellison's review of TMP was mean spirited, brutal, and unfair, but it's still a favorite because it's so darned entertaining to read.

Is there a link to that review (out of curiosity)?

I was unable to find it in a quick search, but this may give an inkling...

“I have no love for Paramount,” said Harlan Ellison, in an interview with Maggie Thompson, printed in Sci-Fi Universe in June 1995. “Paramount is not a studio…steeped in ethical behavior...The fanatics who feed off that whole money-making Trek franchise, who live it and breathe it, who don't merely watch the show, are to me the most pathetic creatures in the world; suckers being mulcted by venal Paramount, publishers of garbage novels with stock characters, hustlers and inheritors of Roddenberry's scam, and cult-like gurus who prey on Star Trek obsessives and Trekkies and Trekkers and Treksters and Trekoids and Treknoids and Trekiloids and Diploids and Dippies. They're like those sad couch potatoes who worship at the TV altars of The 700 Club and Home Shopping Channel, which are one and the same, whether the viewers are being fleeced in the name of Consumerism or Jesus. They are…absolutely the most pathetic creatures in the world. I mean, they talk about a TV series as if it were real life. They wear damned Star Trek uniforms. People change their names so they have the same names as the characters. Doesn't anyone else see the resemblance this all bears to the Branch Davidians or the Jonestown cults?”

 

[Peach Wookiee]

^ 0.0 And we got mad at Shatner for "Get a life"?

 

[Krieg1981]

“I have no love for Paramount,” said Harlan Ellison, in an interview with Maggie Thompson, printed in Sci-Fi Universe in June 1995. “Paramount is not a studio…steeped in ethical behavior...The fanatics who feed off that whole money-making Trek franchise, who live it and breathe it, who don't merely watch the show, are to me the most pathetic creatures in the world; suckers being mulcted by venal Paramount, publishers of garbage novels with stock characters, hustlers and inheritors of Roddenberry's scam, and cult-like gurus who prey on Star Trek obsessives and Trekkies and Trekkers and Treksters and Trekoids and Treknoids and Trekiloids and Diploids and Dippies. They're like those sad couch potatoes who worship at the TV altars of The 700 Club and Home Shopping Channel, which are one and the same, whether the viewers are being fleeced in the name of Consumerism or Jesus. They are…absolutely the most pathetic creatures in the world. I mean, they talk about a TV series as if it were real life. They wear damned Star Trek uniforms. People change their names so they have the same names as the characters. Doesn't anyone else see the resemblance this all bears to the Branch Davidians or the Jonestown cults?”

[/QUOTE]
Harlan Ellison. What a douchebag. I hate the 700 club!

 

[EEE]

Harlan Ellison. What a douchebag.

I came to a similar conclusion just by reading the prologue to his City on the Edge of Forever book.

^ 0.0 And we got mad at Shatner for "Get a life"?

I never understood anybody who got mad about that skit. I was a harder-core trekkie back then, and thought it was hilarious! I think it would have been funnier if Shatner had written the skit.

 

[Mysterion]

I thought all fans loved this movie??!!

Interestingly, I recently acquired a stack of fanzines from around the time TMP was released, and it looks like very few people liked the movie back then.

I saw it the first night it was in theaters, and loved it. A few weeks later when the novelty of haivng new ST for the first time in nearly a decade wore off, I didn't think quite as much of it.

 

[MarianLH]

Did anyone actually get mad about that SNL skit? Or are we just assuming someone did?


Marian

 

[EEE]

I thought all fans loved this movie??!!

Interestingly, I recently acquired a stack of fanzines from around the time TMP was released, and it looks like very few people liked the movie back then.

I saw it the first night it was in theaters, and loved it. A few weeks later when the novelty of haivng new ST for the first time in nearly a decade wore off, I didn't think quite as much of it.

I was not real happy with it, but it still gave me hope (for more). I saw it five times in the theaters just to help up it's numbers.

Did anyone actually get mad about that SNL skit? Or are we just assuming someone did?

According to the media there was an uproar about it. Although I knew of no one who was actually mad. But then again, the people I knew had actually seen it in context. I imagine if you had just heard the "get a life" line and not the whole skit, it could make someone angry.

 

[Mysterion]

Did anyone actually get mad about that SNL skit? Or are we just assuming someone did?


Marian

Sadly, I've spoken with people who are (probably still) upset by that skit and how Shatner was "spitting on the fans" by performing in it.

Of course, there are the people the skit was making fun of, so...

 

[cardinal biggles]

I've always liked the opening of Roger Ebert's review of The Final Frontier. They pretty well sum up how I feel about the film. (Beware, it's a bit long.)

There was a moment in "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" — only one, and a brief one, but a genuine one — when I felt the promise of awe. The Starship Enterprise was indeed going where no man had gone before, through the fabled Great Barrier, which represents the end of the finite universe. What would lie beyond? Would it be an endless void, or a black hole, or some kind of singularity of space and time that would turn the voyagers inside out and deposit them in another universe? Or would the Barrier even reveal, as one of the characters believes, the place where life began? The place called by the name of Eden and countless other words? As the Enterprise approached the Barrier, I found my attention gathering. The movie had been slow and boring until then, with an interminable, utterly inconsequential first act and a plot that seemed to exist in a space-time singularity all its own. But now, at last, the fifth "Star Trek" movie seemed to be remembering what was best about the fictional world of "Star Trek": those moments when man and his ideas are challenged by the limitless possibilities of creation.

As I've said, my awe was real. It was also brief. Once the Enterprise crew members (and the Vulcan who was holding them hostage) landed on the world beyond the Barrier, the possibilities of god or Eden or whatever quickly disintegrated into an anticlimactic special effects show with a touch of "The Wizard of Oz" thrown in for good measure. I do not want to give away important elements in the plot, but after you've seen the movie, ask yourself these questions: 1) How was it known that the voyagers would go beyond the Barrier; 2) what was the motivation behind what they found there; 3) how was it known that they would come to stand at exactly the point where the stone pillars came up from the Earth; 4) In a version of a question asked by Capt. Kirk, why would any entity capable of staging such a show need its own starship; and 5) is the Great Barrier indeed real, or simply a deceptive stage setting for what was found behind it? (What I'm really complaining about, I think, is that "Star Trek V" allows itself enormous latitude in the logic beneath its plot. If the Barrier is real, what exactly are we to make of the use to which it is put?)

Yes, before anyone points it out, he mixed up the Great Barrier (center of the galaxy) with the Galactic Barrier seen in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (edge of the galaxy).