Star Trek 09 review thread

[Ilya Muromets]

I'd bet money it was lazy spell-checking; perhaps they typed 'annsls' or something, and just clicked 'change' instead of looking at what the suggested word was.

That'd be unlikely, I think. Spell-checking programs usually list suggested corrections alphabetically. If they misspelled it as "annsls" and clicked the change button then they should've gotten "annals" since alphabetically it comes before "annuls".

[Stark]

Wrong; they suggest them an order determined by user history (ie it 'learns' how the user generally mis-spells a particular word) and by their internal logic (ie the Word one tends to prefer re-arranging existing letters to substituting them, and adding extra letters is even further down).

[Bounty]

The first reviews after the UK première are in.

And, on this evidence, a young and dynamic cast of actors are set to boldly go where no other movie series has gone before: into a new series of Star Trek stories with a prodigious new lease of life. Welcome back, you Trekkers.

It’s Star Trek, Jim, but not as we know it. This one’s bigger, brasher and more exciting than everything that’s gone before.

JJ Abrams, the creator of Lost and Alias, has very boldly gone and breathed new life into a franchise that’s already had more deaths and rebirths — from the indifferent to the inspired — than the comparable but smaller-scale Doctor Who.

Abrams’s version of Gene Roddenberry’s idealistic space western isn’t perfect. But it is confident, clever and above all spectacular enough to please die-hard fans and newcomers alike.

Star Trek's enterprising return means that it’s life, Jim - and it’s as good as you’ve ever known it

LONDON -- Putting a much-loved but over-the-hill vehicle back in shape takes more than a new battery and a lick of paint. It demands a full-bore refit, and that's exactly what J.J. Abrams has given "Star Trek."

With countless spine-tingling action sequences, a perfect recreation of Vulcan and a script full of loving nods to its forebears, Abrams has made the continuing missions of the Starship Enterprise one that millions will be eager to follow.

There's a perfect set-up for a sequel and as an unmistakeable baritone utters the legendary series voiceover and that familiar score rises, you'll be desperate to beam up again.

But if anyone could have a decent crack at resurrecting Star Trek - one of television and cinema's longest running franchises - it could be worse than self-confessed fan, Lost creator JJ Abrams.

But does he manage it?

Well, the answer is a pretty simple one. Yes. Star Trek is a decent film that does exactly what it says on the tin. It's big, flashy and action packed with impressive special effects. Kids will enjoy it and the snappy dialogue provides enough laughs for mum and dad.

[McC]

But if anyone could have a decent crack at resurrecting Star Trek - one of television and cinema's longest running franchises - it could be worse than self-confessed fan, Lost creator JJ Abrams.

Fact-checking, what? Abrams has gone out of his way to say he's not a fan. They probably got Wars and Trek crossed.

[Stofsk]

This is a marketing thing dude, relax - I don't pay attention to what some bozo behind a word processor thinks about a film he's being paid to give a shit about, so neither should you.

[Bounty]

This is a marketing thing dude, relax - I don't pay attention to what some bozo behind a word processor thinks about a film he's being paid to give a shit about, so neither should you.

Or they mixed him up with Orco who is a self-confessed Trekkie. Either way, it's a pretty damn trivial mistake to make.

And Abrams has been described as a "casual fan" by other members of the production crew.

[Ghost Rider]

Whatever happened to actually having a review that isn't either gushing praise or hatred. I'm still iffy as to watching it, but having it praised with empty platitudes does not make me feel much better about it.

[General Zod]

Whatever happened to actually having a review that isn't either gushing praise or hatred. I'm still iffy as to watching it, but having it praised with empty platitudes does not make me feel much better about it.

Indeed. It would be nice to have a review that actually, I dunno, picks apart the plot. I suppose we'll have to wait for Ebert to get around to seeing the movie.

[DaveJB]

The critics will probably have been made to sign non-disclosure agreements that would limit exactly how much they can say about the movie's storyline until release day. Plus it's generally considered bad form among reviewers to reveal significant portions of a film's plot anyway (unless it's a bad one, in which case they often take pride in ripping the plot to shreds), so as not to spoil anything.

[General Zod]

The critics will probably have been made to sign non-disclosure agreements that would limit exactly how much they can say about the movie's storyline until release day. Plus it's generally considered bad form among reviewers to reveal significant portions of a film's plot anyway (unless it's a bad one, in which case they often take pride in ripping the plot to shreds), so as not to spoil anything.

They don't have to go into excessive detail or anything. I just want more substance than "lol best movie evar, teh characters are teh aweseomez".

[Bounty]

Not only that, but I don't see how (or why) they'd need to go in detail on the plot. These are mass-market reviews, meant to give people an idea on whether the movie is worth seeing, not deep and insightful analyses. They highlight the good, they highlight the bad, they give a recommendation, that's it. If they don't highlight a lot of bad (it's not all praise if you read through the reviews, by the way; the pacing has issues and the score is so-and-so) it's because the reviewer didn't find a lot of bad to highlight. If that happens in one review, it's suspicious; if it happens in a dozen, maybe it's a sign that this might just be *gasp* a good movie.

I'm anxious to see what Ebert has to say too but it's a bit cheap to dismiss the other reviews just because they're enthusiastic.

[General Zod]

Not only that, but I don't see how (or why) they'd need to go in detail on the plot. These are mass-market reviews, meant to give people an idea on whether the movie is worth seeing, not deep and insightful analyses. They highlight the good, they highlight the bad, they give a recommendation, that's it. If they don't highlight a lot of bad (it's not all praise if you read through the reviews, by the way; the pacing has issues and the score is so-and-so) it's because the reviewer didn't find a lot of bad to highlight. If that happens in one review, it's suspicious; if it happens in a dozen, maybe it's a sign that this might just be *gasp* a good movie.

I'm anxious to see what Ebert has to say too but it's a bit cheap to dismiss the other reviews just because they're enthusiastic.

I think Roger Ebert manages to strike a nice balance between giving us useful info on the plot elements without revealing everything. Reviews like his are what I want to see, not something you'd expect from a mindless parroting fanboy.

[Ghost Rider]

Not only that, but I don't see how (or why) they'd need to go in detail on the plot. These are mass-market reviews, meant to give people an idea on whether the movie is worth seeing, not deep and insightful analyses. They highlight the good, they highlight the bad, they give a recommendation, that's it. If they don't highlight a lot of bad (it's not all praise if you read through the reviews, by the way; the pacing has issues and the score is so-and-so) it's because the reviewer didn't find a lot of bad to highlight. If that happens in one review, it's suspicious; if it happens in a dozen, maybe it's a sign that this might just be *gasp* a good movie.

I'm anxious to see what Ebert has to say too but it's a bit cheap to dismiss the other reviews just because they're enthusiastic.

Or it's close to parroting. I know it's a mass market review, but using it as a sign of "It's good!" is akin to having me throw up a huge amount of Fallout 3 reviews to anyone who disliked it before it came out. It is mindless chicannery, which serves nothing except to put on a movie poster.

And so far a lot of the reviews are bolstering what I found as the immediate flaw of JJ Abrams biggest conceit. He wanted Star Trek done ala Star Wars. That is not something I cared to spend $6 on a morning matinee. I can get Star Wars from Star Wars, and so far the one note reviews are all pointing towards that particular.

[Bounty]

Variety weighs in.

Blasting onto the screen at warp speed and remaining there for two hours, the new and improved “Star Trek” will transport fans to sci-fi nirvana. Faithful enough to the spirit and key particulars of Gene Roddenberry’s original conception to keep its torchbearers happy but, more crucially, exciting on its own terms in a way that makes familiarity with the franchise irrelevant, J.J. Abrams’ smart and breathless space adventure feels like a summer blockbuster that just couldn’t stay in the box another month.

[Bounty]

Even so, give credit when it's due. As far as prequels are concerned, and the products of this sub-genre are rapidly growing, "Star Trek" is far more entertaining than "Star Wars" and "Batman Begins," though the picture is not as resonant as Nolan's "Dark Knight," perhaps because of its conscious avoidance of any references to the broader political context.

[Big Orange]

I don't feel like going to cinema to see Star Trek, I'll wait until it comes out on DVD to buy or rent, like I did with M:I:III. It certainly seems more promising than the dreadful Insurrection and Nemesis, I really like Simon Pegg, Zachary Quinto seems convincing as a younger Spock, although I'm not so sure about the bloke who plays the young Kirk, the Enterprise's bridge, and the Earth bound ship yards.

JJ Abrams being a Warsie does not surprise me, since he gave Bill Dee Williams a cameo on Lost, although to be fair SW has more noticebly been seeping into ST since Deep Space Nine (the Breen armour directly inspired by Leia's bounty hunter outfit from TRotJ, for example).

[Bounty]

Much of the film's success is down to its casting. Particularly impressive are Pine and Quinto. Pine – perhaps best known to date as Lindsay Lohan's man-candy in Just My Luck – shows considerable charisma as Kirk, his character and looks more edgy and less clean-cut than William Shatner's. Heroes alumnus Quinto, whose role is as large if not larger than Pine's, is also a strong screen presence beyond his striking physical resemblance to Nimoy. The chemistry between all the young actors bodes well for multiple sequels.

Indeed, for the first time, Star Trek looks as if it might have more of a future than Star Wars.

It will always be risky to tamper with a well-known and well-loved franchise, especially one that seemed to have reached its natural conclusion. But behold: J.J. Abrams, who made Mission Impossible III and the hit TV series Lost, has achieved the impossible with Star Trek, and reinvented it such that it should attract new admirers and please the loyal fan base alike. Stand by ticket takers: It’s guaranteed to start a box office stampede.

By the way, if anyone comes across reviews I missed, feel free to post them. Once the movie opens I'm hoping this could double as our own review thread.

[General Zod]

Maybe a separate thread for our own reviews? No reason to make this thread needlessly huge and cluttered.

[Mr Bean]

Maybe a separate thread for our own reviews? No reason to make this thread needlessly huge and cluttered.

I demand a huge and needlessly cluttered thread, we did it for Watchmen we can do it for Star Trek. If a movie thread does not hit at least ten pages it's kind of a bummer.

[Bounty]

Not a review as such, but a CNET writer weighs in impressions of a screening from a Trek newbie POV.

So here is my verdict: This movie is awesome.

The new "Star Trek" film is less an homage to a legendary science fiction franchise than to storytelling in general, back through decades of cinema and television and beyond. A deep respect for literature, pop culture, and epic storytelling is something that Abrams has proven time and again to fans, from the litany of film-rooted "Sawyer nicknames" on "Lost" to the tradition of Japanese monster movies that powered last year's "Cloverfield." This is a movie that will probably be well-regarded by anyone with an appreciation for epic adventure and drama, not to mention fast-paced and often witty dialogue.

[Bounty]

UGO has a "review". And by "review", I mean "editor soiled himself coming up with superlatives". Also, MASSIVE SPOILERS AHOY in the link.

The words Star Trek instantly conjure 726 hours of episodic television, ten feature films, crates of comics and some halfway decent video games. You've got to have nacelles of steel to think you can come in and make "not your Father's Star Trek" without burning down the house you are trying to construct. J.J. Abrams, much like James T. Kirk, doesn't believe in the no-win situation. His Star Trek is a triumph. It is truly the dawn of a new era - multiple films, tv shows and books could and should spawn from this new, "the early years" iteration. Any sane person will love this flick and only those most hardcore of convention-going Trekkies (of which I am one) will find even a hint of something negative to say about the movie.

Edited--Bean

[Worlds Spanner]

A friend of mine scored tickets to see this tomorrow, I'm more than a little psyched! So I figured I would come brag.

Seriously though, the post at the top of the page suggests that I can't say anything - is that true or is this thread an exception? What about a very general spoiler review, light on spoilers, with tags as needed?

[Ilya Muromets]

Okay, I tried very hard not to go into this with high expectations. You know, just in case. But, dammit Bounty, all of your review posts have gotten to me as much as would've liked to have kept my feelings neutral. I hold you responsible for any possible disappointment.

[Bounty]

I'm honestly trying to find negative reviews, but so far the only thing that came even close was a New Scientist piece that complained about the movie "lacking a big idea" and being about action rather than space exploration.

Even that ended with

Boldly going where many directors have gone before, Abrams manages to give this much-beloved franchise the reboot it needed.

[Ilya Muromets]

Well, I do thank you for the UGO review with spoilers. I love spoilers, and they don't ruin a movie experience for. If anything, they enhance it. If the spoiler is for stuff that happens in the middle, I look forward to when they occur as I watch the film. If the spoilers are for the end, then I get really excited for seeing how said end comes to pass. I have yet to actually be spoiled by a spoiler.

Hopefully, this film does live up to all the early hype.