Slashfilm Review says Trek XI is "utterly shallow"
- Thread starter Falcor5
- Start date
Though I think the review from Slashfilm is thoughtful, I just don't think Slashfilm writers are capable of thinking particularly well. 
I've visited this site everyday for quite a while and I've never been impressed with their reviews or articles in general.
For example, the reviewer states "Of course, one might be pedantic and question why so many things seem different in this past." and then goes on for a rather long paragraph on just that. Then only a two paragraphs later he goes on "Somewhere in the middle of the film, the time loop trickery is addressed in dialogue." ... well dude, doesn't that mean your first nit-picking was superfluous because it's actually a PART of the film???
It's still a positive review.
I've visited this site everyday for quite a while and I've never been impressed with their reviews or articles in general.
For example, the reviewer states "Of course, one might be pedantic and question why so many things seem different in this past." and then goes on for a rather long paragraph on just that. Then only a two paragraphs later he goes on "Somewhere in the middle of the film, the time loop trickery is addressed in dialogue." ... well dude, doesn't that mean your first nit-picking was superfluous because it's actually a PART of the film???
It's still a positive review.
Though I think the review from Slashfilm is thoughtful, I just don't think Slashfilm writers are capable of thinking particularly well.
I've visited this site everyday for quite a while and I've never been impressed with their reviews or articles in general.
For example, the reviewer states "Of course, one might be pedantic and question why so many things seem different in this past." and then goes on for a rather long paragraph on just that. Then only a two paragraphs later he goes on "Somewhere in the middle of the film, the time loop trickery is addressed in dialogue." ... well dude, doesn't that mean your first nit-picking was superfluous because it's actually a PART of the film???
It's still a positive review.
I don't know, I certainly don't think it's reflective of Slashfilm on the whole. Yeah, Brendon is generally rubbish but Peter Scrietta, David Chen and Hunter Stephenson are pretty good writers and have personally put me on to films I might otherwise have not seen. Slumdog Millionaire and The Wrestler, for example: I saw both films multiple times well before most people had even heard of them, much less received Oscar nominations. They usually have great taste. Brendon is a recent hire of theirs, and not the greatest. He reminds me of Devin from CHUD, and not in a good way.
I think you're getting "shallow" and "depraved" confused again.
Thanks for the insight, I agree. The difference in writing from post to post can be jarring. They do keep up with the film world festivals and releases diligently, as you point out. I don't want to say the site is useless. I DO still check it daily.
*checks dictionary* Oh, right. Me fail english? That's unpossible.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Actually, the boxofficeprophets reviewers scored out as 2 positive, someting like 8 neutral and 3 negative.
Doesn't McCoy say that in the movie?
Thank you, I was toying with reading the review despite possible spoilers, but you just saved me the trouble.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I must say that that review about the movie being popcorn fun that is ultimately shallow is scary because that is the only "fear" I could say I have about the new movie.
I don't want Kirk and Spock to be at odds from the beginning just to make it seem 'tense' and 'gritty'...it may end up feeling like Archer's gripe with the Vulcans...a put on to try and create drama.
I don't want this movie to be like Slumdog Millionaire, which I forgot all about within a few hours of seeing it. I want a new Trek movie like this to be something I dwell on and wake up the next morning thinking "Wow...I saw the new Trek movie last night!"
I don't want Kirk and Spock to be at odds from the beginning just to make it seem 'tense' and 'gritty'...it may end up feeling like Archer's gripe with the Vulcans...a put on to try and create drama.
I don't want this movie to be like Slumdog Millionaire, which I forgot all about within a few hours of seeing it. I want a new Trek movie like this to be something I dwell on and wake up the next morning thinking "Wow...I saw the new Trek movie last night!"
No, but he does say to Old Spock, "You green-blooded senior citizen sonofabitch, why didn't you go back further in time and assassinate hack film critic Ben Lyons?"
We're talking about reviews, not box office predictions. I thought boxofficeprophets just did box office forecasts, not movie reviews.
Good movie reviews aren't like that. Roger Ebert probably wouldn't have a Pulitzer Prize if movie criticism were completely worthless. A good film review is more like a book report than a verdict on whether, or not, to see it. A good movie review is an analysis of the film. It analyzes the film's place within the context of film history, within the context of its genre, within the context of its expected audience, etc. Good movie criticism serves as literature in its own right.
It's not so much smugness and elitism, but an articulation of the way a film stimulates the writer intellectually and emotionally.
As has been noted, even many of the positive reviews note that the plot and, particularly, the main villain, lack depth.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Well, if you don't mind being spoiled...
The reason the plot doesn't make any sense actually has to do with the fact it's and AU, or at least supposed to be. If that's the case and the characters even recognize it according to reviews, then Nero's plot to have his revenge makes no sense because he's getting it against people who had nothing to do with the loss of his planet. And since the point of divergence is identified as the destruction of the Kelvin, then the visual changes can't be said to be caused by the creation of the AU, because the Kelvin actually shares quite a few design features with the Abramsprise - more than with anything previously seen from that era. There are also discrepancies with the characters' development, such as Spock being denied entry into the Science Academy rather than not even applying (the reason he and Sarek didn't speak for years), the relative ages of the characters, stuff like that
STIV's "message" was so pervasive I still hate that movie to this day. STII's message was all about consequences to actions. Kirk had had all those affairs, and it turns out as a consequence, he had a son, and one rather angry and hateful of him at that. Kirk had marooned Kahn rather than simply turned him into the proper authorities, and as a consequence Starfleet stumbled upon the decimated and rather pissed maroons, allowing Kahn to cause what damage he did and ultimately resulted in the death of Spock. "Relevant" doesn't have to mean specifically to some contemporary issue, but something that just has some kind of meaning.
From what I hear it's basic a basic action flick that ironically contains a lot of the cliches Abrams lambasted himself as far as the corny humor went.
So? Not like it's Halloween or Friday the Thirteenth, or Fifth Element, or Starship Troopers.
Really? Those are exactly the kind of movies I'd want a Star Trek film to be compared to. It would do exactly what Abrams said he set out to do and many here have said they want this movie to do, namely to make it accessible to mainstream audiences. If it's being compared to classic greats, it would do just that.
Ironically, that's exactly what Slashfilm is saying, but it seems not many people want to hear what this movie is.
Interesting review.
Could have. Or could've. Not could of.
People who write "could of" instead of "could've" make themselves look like illiterate morons.
I'm not saying you're an illiterate moron. But that's how you make yourself look when you write something like that.
Get it right--and make yourself look as intelligent and well-educated as you truly are.
Isn't shit like this sooooooooooooooo annoying! I mean the grammer police not little misspellings or typos etc. Why even bother posting this when it's bound to happen again and again...you think you're little lesson will stop it?
Now if this poster was illiterate then they wouldn't be able to write at all.
See when people do this nonsense and need to point it out so vigourously it just makes themeselves look anal -- like they are....!
Yeah, I think Camelopard probably could of worded that a little bit better.