I've decided not to see Star Trek based on the two negative reviews. I'm going to sit at home and write Paul Blart: Mall Cop Two fanfics.
Star Trek Rotten Tomatoes Rating
- Thread starter Argus Skyhawk
- Start date
Armond White uses "avant la lettre" in his description of TOS. Right there, it shows he is the wrong person to be reviewing this type of movie.
Same as the music critics who said The Beatles used pentatonic clusters in their early music.
Same as the music critics who said The Beatles used pentatonic clusters in their early music.
Does that mean you won't like my negative review of the movie where I compare Chris Pine's acting in Trek to Anthony Hopkins' performance in The Remains of the Day, that JJ Abrams' directing of a sci fi space adventure falls well short of how Orson Welles directed Citizen Kane, and that this movie completely failed to make any commentary on post-9/11 America and the current economical climate?
If only Star Trek had been in Russian with French subtitles...
Nah. Screw those artsy fartsy types. I'd reather see someone dub TWOK in Klingon, instead, and make them watch it.
Ron Paul will only support NuTrek if and when the Federation converts to the Gold-Pressed Latinum standard.
I love how a commenter takes him down for his misuse of "avant la lettre" since Roddenberry himself described Star Trek as "multicultural" two years before TOS.
^ I only meant that he could have just made the description a little less highbrow, instead of throwing terms around that most folks may not know.
But, you are also right on Roddenberry's take on the series. I didn't even think of that! I was just saying Armond was being too damn highbrow for a Sci-Fi Adventure movie.
But, you are also right on Roddenberry's take on the series. I didn't even think of that! I was just saying Armond was being too damn highbrow for a Sci-Fi Adventure movie.
Eberts review is on his website and its negative
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090506/REVIEWS/905069997
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090506/REVIEWS/905069997
^
Well, to be fair it's nowhere near as negative as he could have been about the movie. He heaps some praise on the cast and story even if his overall score isn't anything to shout about.
Well, to be fair it's nowhere near as negative as he could have been about the movie. He heaps some praise on the cast and story even if his overall score isn't anything to shout about.
I wonder if it will be counted as rotten or fresh...
He gave it a thumbs down, as can be seen on the front page of the website 
I wouldnt call it all the negative. He has the same feelings for this movie as he did Batman Begins, which is to say it does its job, but he wants to see where it goes in the next one.
Ebert and Siskel loved Star Trek II, btw, at least on their TV show years ago.
Roeper gave it (09) a 3.5/5.
Ya. I mean he did give it a thumbs down, but he was fair to say that while he did not really enjoy the science aspects of this one, he wants to see where the new cast goes.
Im no fan of Roger Eberts, and I disagree about his bitching about the science aspects of this film, but I would say that as far as a negative review can go, this one was fair and balanced.
And its up to 58-2 on Rotten Tomatoes, so it climbs back to 97 percent fresh.
Ebert hasn't liked many of the TREK films since 1986. Seems to be his way of doing things.
Merely going by his rating system, First Contact was actually his favorite.
Not precisely -- he was considerably more complimentary to that film and gave it four stars, his highest rating, compared to the two and a half for this film:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050613/REVIEWS/50525003/1023
He's been giving lots of three and four star ratings lately, so I'd take two and a half to be rather mediocre.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
