StarTrek XI = 8.1/10 on IMDB and a 94% fresh on RottenTomatoes
- Thread starter 1bulma1
- Start date
- Status
IMO nothing. Well worth such a high rating.
Wow, a different criticism for once.
Um, he ripped on "Groundhog Day" AND "Scarface"...so where are the "Scarface" defenders? 
Am I really its lone apologist here? 
Okay, I know "Groundhog Day" is a much warmer, nicer, sweeter, more kind-hearted movie and therefore easier to like, but come on! Scarface! 
Again, there are dozens of movies on the IMDB top 250 more worthy of being scorned for their inclusion on the list, including "Star Trek"! 
Am I really its lone apologist here? Okay, I know "Groundhog Day" is a much warmer, nicer, sweeter, more kind-hearted movie and therefore easier to like, but come on! Scarface! Again, there are dozens of movies on the IMDB top 250 more worthy of being scorned for their inclusion on the list, including "Star Trek"! 
The story's pretty thin though. Leave your brain on full whack and you run the risk of thinking "Oh, old Spock just happens to be on the same planet as Kirk got fired onto because this ship was designed by people who forgot to add something as important as a brig. Oh look, Scotty's a short walk away too. What a coincidence. What's this, he happens to have worked out a magic transporter beam? Oh look, a big red monster. How did that evolve on a..." and so on. I couldn't enjoy a film while thinking through that. It's a good thing we have pretty CGI now, because you couldn't get away with that back in the day.
Characters were rubbish too. I know the original TOS crew weren't always the most three-dimensional bunch, but they're taken another line out by having Chekov reduced to saying "I ken do dat!" like a berk and Kirk going from the soldier philosopher who still loved snogging up the women to a fratboy idiot who only loves snogging up the women.
Now, if I didn't pay attention to these things and had no emotional connection to Trek, I may just be able to enjoy the film on a throwaway popcorn rubbish level. But I do, so I can't. Reviewers, on the other hand, are mostly not Trekkies. So they'll see an action film and be like "three out of five, pacey lightweight fun" and that'll be a positive review. Mind you, I still think that opening with the Kelvin and all that was brilliant stuff. Shame the rest wasn't all that.
Last edited:
With my brain on, I thought "He knows Kirk would escape." And Spock's right. He made his way on to the ship, twice.
That's looking for things to be wrong with it rather than enjoy it. If done fairly, then you wouldn't enjoy any other Trek or almost anything else for that matter.
Reduced from what? Chekov in this film saved Kirk and Sulu and helped devise a plan that led to Earth's survival. The biggest thing he did in another film was not know the difference between planets which led to an encounter with Khan and then led countless people getting killed!
We went from a 32 year old Kirk with one background to a 25 year old Kirk with a different background. Not sure how you got that one was a soldier philosopher or that the other one was a fratboy idiot.
I do too, and I still enjoyed it.
Who was resorting to insults? Surely if anything is, it's calling someone "a stubborn fan that didn't get his way". If my way was a well plotted film and wanting that is stubborn, then that's exactly what I want to be, but somehow I get the impression you were being pejorative. If there's one thing I can't stand it's insulting the opposing side of a discussion of something as trivial as a film rather than arguing the points at hand, so don't try and take a high ground that's not yours.
I demand a recount.
lol - it SHOULD be much lower than that.
Why send a 160 year-old Ambassador on a mission deep into enemy territory, with enough Red Matter to rearrange the universe when only a single drop is enough to collapse the supernova?
It is better to have more Red Matter and not need it than to need more Red Matter and not have it.
Because it's Star Trek, and this kind of illogic is par for the course beginning with TOS. If you can't swallow stuff like this, PBS is probably your best bet.
Because the Enterprise was the only ship in the quadrant...or something.
Exactly! It seems that everyone is fine with the flaws that past Trek has brought us... but when someone mentions flaws with this film people go crazy making excuses for it.
Thank you Dennis, for admitting it's not logical.
I continue to stand by my original thoughts on the film. Great actors, good direction and a story that had many lapses of logic and chock full of coincidence. Hopefully, Star Trek 2012 can tell a more straight forward tale.
Maybe because Spock had been living on Romulus since at least 2368, and is trusted by the Romulan people?. . . maybe because he is the one who promised to do it?. . . and Vulcans live to be over 200. . .160 is not THAT old. . .
~FS
- Status