more reviews come in..

[pookha]

orlando sentinel
some mild spoilers..

To this Trekker, this enterprise has the feel of a lost romance rekindled. Maybe they'll do more films and spoil it all over again. But kudos to J.J. Abrams for proving that the fat lady still hasn't sung on the oldest space opera of them all

film journal

What distinguishes Star Trek from other would-be summer rides like the first Transformers or the current X-Men Origins: Wolverine—which offer a series of chaotic action sequences loosely tied together by an equally chaotic narrative—is the director's command of pace and story structure. As he demonstrated on his debut feature Mission: Impossible III as well as his extensive work in television (most notably the "Lost" pilot and the first two seasons of "Alias"), Abrams understands how to drop his characters into an explosive situation and then keep ratcheting up the stakes in believable ways, with a minimum of cheap plot twists. And while his stories do occasionally suffer from lapses in logic, he tells them with such confidence and enthusiasm, it's only in hindsight that plot holes star to appear. More than anything, he wants audiences of all backgrounds to have fun watching one of his movies and that's what Star Trek provides. Put it this way: If this version of Trek doesn't become a four-quadrant hit, than Paramount might as well stop trying.

no spoilers beyond what has been seen in trailers ect..




----
village voice

spoilers...

--------
http://nymag.com/movies/reviews/56428/

If you care about this universe (and I do, damn it), you won’t sit passively through J.J. Abrams’s restart Trek. You’ll marvel at the smarts and wince at the senselessness. You’ll nitpick it to death and thrill to it anyway

spoilers

------

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/

at the movies./.
lots of spoilers and they both really liked the movie.

 

[Jeri]

This is actually an opinion piece in the editorial section of the Arizona Daily Star (Tucson) today.

The University of Arizona has a major space sciences, geoscience, astronomy and optical science (telescopes) presence, and Star Trek has always had a good following there.

'Star Trek' message of hope is timeless

Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 05.06.2009

​

Friday's opening of the new "Star Trek" movie has "Trekkies," or the less pejorative-sounding "Trekkers," eager to plunk down their recession-stressed bucks to see how the first Enterprise's crew got together.


The original "Star Trek" created by Gene Roddenberry hit the airwaves on NBC in September 1966. The cheesy, stretchy uniforms and inexpensive sets didn't attract many viewers and it went off the air in 1969 after a mere 79 episodes.


However, the original series' reruns got traction in 1970s syndication and the rest is history. Fans received live-action and animated television shows, movies, video games, books and action figures. You name, some version of "Star Trek" had it.


"Star Trek" has heroes-and-villains allegories for our culture, which is why "Star Trek" matters...(cont.)

 

[Illinoisguy1]

3 stars from Chicago Tribune.

Spoilers:

Spoiler: REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS - click on link at your risk

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/talking_pictures/2009/05/star-trek3-stars.html

After “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” which exists primarily for its 7-Eleven Slurpee tie-in, the world needed a better franchise product, one that works with an audience rather than simply working it over.
Here it is. The new “Star Trek” motion picture, not to be confused with “Star Trek—the Motion Picture” (1979), seeks to extend a lucrative brand with a young demographic. But it’s a real movie—breathlessly paced bordering on manic, but propulsively entertaining.

 

[Desleane]

I got a very critical review from the Timeout (russian site about reviews, movies and stuff), kinda patriotic, un-fan and clueless I think (from woman). Some tar to our honey.: MILD SPOILERS AHEAD! Translation very close to original (some bad grammar)

Prequel for 10 movies about starship USS Enterprise: first international group of spacepilots: chinese (Cho), russian (Anton), afrohuman* (Zaldana) and a humanoid with pointy ears (Quinto) – fight with the band of romulans from future.
In the most scary scene Greenwood gets stuffed in the nose with a snivel (little worm). In the most erotic – Chris Pine under the bed with green woman.
Between the fans lies a legend: every even numbered movie is the best, uneven numbered – not very well. And hurray, the magic of numbers don’t have the power above JJ Abrams, his “Star Trek” became… well, “cool”.
In other words fans (and we admit we are not fans) get their “ironical trash”, that they love, carefully transferred to the big screen. Movie reminds of “Plan number № 6 from outer space”, only made not from foil and picnic plates, but from glass, concrete and pixels. For “Star Trek” – it’s undoubtedly brilliant. Only shivers of excitement over idiotic uniforms, ears and bangs from alien Spock and multi-coloured (like counters from confectioner's shop) panels of control over ship can get you busy for two fast-paced hours when Enterprise decides the future destiny of the Universe.
For non-excited people it will be a little boring, the time will be a little slower. TV experience that Abrams got maybe can flavor it with honey and get the action going even from nonsense, but make this nonsense into “something bigger, truthful and real” - something no one is trying to do. Presumably for younger audience around 15-19, it’s the time to laugh carelessly about funny accent of russian cosmonaut and green alien tits.

 

[Borgminister]

Vodka rationing... NOW.

 

[seigezunt]

The Village Voice likes it, for crying out loud.

 

[God Magnus]

3 stars from Chicago Tribune.

Spoilers:
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/talking_pictures/2009/05/star-trek3-stars.html

Spoiler: REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS - click on link at your risk

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/talking_pictures/2009/05/star-trek3-stars.html

After “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” which exists primarily for its 7-Eleven Slurpee tie-in, the world needed a better franchise product, one that works with an audience rather than simply working it over.
Here it is. The new “Star Trek” motion picture, not to be confused with “Star Trek—the Motion Picture” (1979), seeks to extend a lucrative brand with a young demographic. But it’s a real movie—breathlessly paced bordering on manic, but propulsively entertaining.

Yow! Warning on this review, it's got a biggie spoiler for those who have tried to remain unspoiled.

[Fixed, I think. - M']

 

[indranee]

I got a very critical review from the Timeout (russian site about reviews, movies and stuff), kinda patriotic, un-fan and clueless I think (from woman). Some tar to our honey.: MILD SPOILERS AHEAD! Translation very close to original (some bad grammar)

Prequel for 10 movies about starship USS Enterprise: first international group of spacepilots: chinese (Cho), russian (Anton), afrohuman* (Zaldana) and a humanoid with pointy ears (Quinto) – fight with the band of romulans from future.
In the most scary scene Greenwood gets stuffed in the nose with a snivel (little worm). In the most erotic – Chris Pine under the bed with green woman.
Between the fans lies a legend: every even numbered movie is the best, uneven numbered – not very well. And hurray, the magic of numbers don’t have the power above JJ Abrams, his “Star Trek” became… well, “cool”.
In other words fans (and we admit we are not fans) get their “ironical trash”, that they love, carefully transferred to the big screen. Movie reminds of “Plan number № 6 from outer space”, only made not from foil and picnic plates, but from glass, concrete and pixels. For “Star Trek” – it’s undoubtedly brilliant. Only shivers of excitement over idiotic uniforms, ears and bangs from alien Spock and multi-coloured (like counters from confectioner's shop) panels of control over ship can get you busy for two fast-paced hours when Enterprise decides the future destiny of the Universe.
For non-excited people it will be a little boring, the time will be a little slower. TV experience that Abrams got maybe can flavor it with honey and get the action going even from nonsense, but make this nonsense into “something bigger, truthful and real” - something no one is trying to do. Presumably for younger audience around 15-19, it’s the time to laugh carelessly about funny accent of russian cosmonaut and green alien tits.

I guess the Russians don't realize that we're not laughing AT Chekhov.

 

[Desleane]

Maybe an old commie curse?
C'mon, 80% of women hate sci-fi in our country, that's must be it

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"For non-excited people it will be a little boring."

I would accept that as an axiom.

 

[M'Sharak]

"For non-excited people it will be a little boring."

I would accept that as an axiom.

I imagine it probably reads better in the original Russian. Or at least a Chekov accent.

 

[jeremyk]

"For non-excited people it will be a little boring."

I would accept that as an axiom.

I imagine it probably reads better in the original Russian. Or at least a Chekov accent.

haha that's awesome. for blind people it will be a little hard to see, as well.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Edelstein is, of all the critics out there, the one I find closest to my sensibility. His review is the one I fully expect to most mirror my experience--Baby Looney Toons and all.

 

[pookha]

ebert with spoilers

peter travers rolling stone

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Dana Stevens from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2217854/

 

[pookha]

washington post

no spoilers except for those already in clips and trailers


boston herald

you think it is spoiler save and then wham right at the end they put in a big one.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"It appears to be an unwritten law of the universe that all impending Earth calamities must occur within a few feet of the Golden Gate Bridge..."

The reviewer describes it as "a witty, light-on-its-feet prequel which makes instant toast of X-Men Origins: Wolverine."

 

[pookha]

boston globe

some spoilers


http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/08/review.star.trek/
another cnn review

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/movies/08trek.html?8dpc
ny times

bright, shiny blast from a newly imagined past, “Star Trek,” the latest spinoff from the influential television show, isn’t just a pleasurable rethink of your geek uncle’s favorite science-fiction series. It’s also a testament to television’s power as mythmaker, as a source for some of the fundamental stories we tell about ourselves, who we are and where we came from. The famous captain (William Shatner, bless his loony lights) and creator (Gene Roddenberry, rest in peace) may no longer be on board, but the spirit of adventure and embrace of rationality that define the show are in full swing, as are the chicks in minis and kicky boots.