Star Trek 09 review thread

[Darth Wong]

I'm still waiting for Ebert. All of the reviews so far seem very superficial, although I suspect that's more a function of the fact that so many movie reviewers working out there are so bad at their jobs.

[Aeolus]

I do get the nagging feeling that this movie will be this year's Speed Racer in terms of box office performance, even if it is not terrible per se, it is going against Wolverine: Origin, and judging from the trailers and what we're shown of the villain it generally seems a lot like Nemesis.

Startrek advance ticket purchases are a head of Wolverines so far.

[Darth Wong]

I do get the nagging feeling that this movie will be this year's Speed Racer in terms of box office performance, even if it is not terrible per se, it is going against Wolverine: Origin, and judging from the trailers and what we're shown of the villain it generally seems a lot like Nemesis.

Startrek advance ticket purchases are a head of Wolverines so far.

Of course they are: there are still huge numbers of devoted Star Trek fans out there, and the advance marketing for this film has been very well conducted.

As I said before, I am cautiously optimistic. Rebecca has always rejected post-Kirk Star Trek, and she's excited to see a Kirk prequel too, so we'll probably see it. But I'm just afraid that they will lapse into shopworn cliches.

[General Zod]

I do get the nagging feeling that this movie will be this year's Speed Racer in terms of box office performance, even if it is not terrible per se, it is going against Wolverine: Origin, and judging from the trailers and what we're shown of the villain it generally seems a lot like Nemesis.

Startrek advance ticket purchases are a head of Wolverines so far.

Being on IMAX is probably helping Trek's ticket sales, too.

[Darth Wong]

I do get the nagging feeling that this movie will be this year's Speed Racer in terms of box office performance, even if it is not terrible per se, it is going against Wolverine: Origin, and judging from the trailers and what we're shown of the villain it generally seems a lot like Nemesis.

Startrek advance ticket purchases are a head of Wolverines so far.

Being on IMAX is probably helping Trek's ticket sales, too.

What the fuck happened to IMAX? It used to be that IMAX theatres were always a sight to behold. Nowadays, there's goddamned IMAX mini-theatres in every major multiplex, and they're pitiful little things compared to the old giant-screen IMAX theatres.

[Gil Hamilton]

What the fuck happened to IMAX? It used to be that IMAX theatres were always a sight to behold. Nowadays, there's goddamned IMAX mini-theatres in every major multiplex, and they're pitiful little things compared to the old giant-screen IMAX theatres.

Watered down versions of the projectors became cheap enough. Which is a shame, because IMAXs like the one at the Carnegie Science Center, the three story tall massive high resolution domes that you practically had to be strapped into so that the sound system didn't launch you like a football were an experience, even if the CSC OmnIMAX was used mostly for nature documentaries until they decided to start showing popular films for supplimentary income.

I don't see much point in seeing the mini-theatre one. It's a gimmick and one that doesn't add that much over a normal screen.

On topic:
I'm actually really looking forward to the new StarTrek movie. I'm guessing its not going to be a turd like Nemesis and frankly, I DO like the visuals in it. I've said it before, but one of the major flaws of StarTreks of days past is that it doesn't LOOK like it could be set in the future. TNG on, you'd think the Future was beige and everyone wore silly two tone jumpsuits. I know they didn't have the biggest budget, but they could have done better than 80s Motel for their starships.

[General Zod]

What the fuck happened to IMAX? It used to be that IMAX theatres were always a sight to behold. Nowadays, there's goddamned IMAX mini-theatres in every major multiplex, and they're pitiful little things compared to the old giant-screen IMAX theatres.

I haven't noticed that, but then again there's only two IMAX theaters here in Denver.

[Aeolus]

I do get the nagging feeling that this movie will be this year's Speed Racer in terms of box office performance, even if it is not terrible per se, it is going against Wolverine: Origin, and judging from the trailers and what we're shown of the villain it generally seems a lot like Nemesis.

Startrek advance ticket purchases are a head of Wolverines so far.

Of course they are: there are still huge numbers of devoted Star Trek fans out there, and the advance marketing for this film has been very well conducted.

As I said before, I am cautiously optimistic. Rebecca has always rejected post-Kirk Star Trek, and she's excited to see a Kirk prequel too, so we'll probably see it. But I'm just afraid that they will lapse into shopworn cliches.

I understand your concerns completely. All I can say is that I personally liked it a great deal.

[Worlds Spanner]

I think this IGN review counts as negative, or at least mixed: http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/973/973956p1.html

[General Zod]

I think this IGN review counts as negative, or at least mixed: http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/973/973956p1.html

I wouldn't call it negative, but it does highlight some useful bits for once.

So Abrams hit the jackpot with Pine and Quinto, but what about the supporting characters? Zoe Saldana's Uhura is ridiculously beautiful but also thoughtful and emotive, with her relationship with Spock both touching and surprising. John Cho's Sulu and Anton Yelchin's Chekov are really caricatures and only given a few scenes, whilst Karl Urban's "Bones" McCoy and Simon Pegg's Scotty are actually rather disappointing. You never felt Bones was Kirk's best mate, whilst Pegg retreats into his trademark buffoonish shtick, only with an unconvincing Scottish accent.

So the supporting cast isn't getting much time or overly impressive, but that's not a massive issue. It's what sequels were made for.

[Bounty]

That review was posted three pages ago.

[General Zod]

That review was posted three pages ago.

I missed it in the flood of reviews that didn't say a whole lot.

[Worlds Spanner]

That review was posted three pages ago.

And I could have said "I think the IGN review back in post number X was somewhat negative" or I could have just relinked to it, which I did. Why is that a problem?

[jimthegray]

[quote="AeolusI understand your concerns completely. All I can say is that I personally liked it a great deal.[/quote]

I saw it with Aeolus & I also loved it

[Bounty]

As much as it surprised me, I think watching this re-envisioned tale has me longing to look back at some of the earlier films and the series itself. While Abrams story pumps up the action and the effects, it doesn’t lose sight of the strong characters who make this world rich and complete. I must admit, and I don’t normally say this, but I one-hundred percent want a sequel. I really want to see this continued. If this doesn’t jump start the franchise, I don’t know what possibly could.

[Bounty]

With 22 reviews counted the movie still stands at 100% at Rottentomatoes. Looks like the mainstream reviews are now coming in:

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.

There's also a video review at At The Movies... but no Ebert yet.

[General Zod]

With 22 reviews counted the movie still stands at 100% at Rottentomatoes. Looks like the mainstream reviews are now coming in:

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.

There's also a video review at At The Movies... but no Ebert yet.

I expect Ebert'll weigh in once it's in theaters proper, if his timing with the Wolverine movie is any indication.

[Bounty]

About two-thirds of the way into the ridiculously satisfying new "Star Trek" movie, opening Thursday, there comes a brief shot of the crew on the bridge of the Federation Starship Enterprise. The film has been picking up familiar names as it goes, but you suddenly realize with a jolt that everyone, at last, is here: young, hopeful versions of Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto), communications officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and pilot Sulu (John Cho), Bones (Karl Urban) and Chekhov (Anton Yelchin) and Scotty (Simon Pegg).

It's a throwaway image, yet you feel the final pieces of the puzzle snap into place with a witty and intensely fond reverence. I just about wept with joy, and I'm not even a Trekkie.

[Jon]

theonion's spin;

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/t ... =a-section

[Bounty]

DVDTalk has a glowing review up, calling Trek possibly the best movie of the year. I'll add a link later, c/p'ing in Elinks is a bitch and a half.

[Bounty]

Ghetto edit:

120 minutes of unrelenting goose bumps.

An artistic blood transfusion of immaculate execution, the new "Star Trek" boldly goes straight to the senses, providing a full-throated rush of operatic sci-fi, cleverly conceived characterizations, and a swarm of franchise homages and surprises that take incredible care of the brand name's impossible 44-year-long pop culture reign, while forging firm new ground for those who couldn't tell Kirk from Spock with a gun to their head.

[ray245]

theonion's spin;

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/t ... =a-section

That's not the funniest part.

The funniest part is those trekkies who failed to understand that the Onion is not a real news organisation, but as a satire program. All they cries of being insulted that a comedy show is insulting them by pointing out the obvious(something they failed to understand) is the funniest thing ever. Hell, they even tried to argued that the news shows is inaccurate.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/sho ... php?t=6913

Take a look at what one person said.

Exactly. The reporters on this piece seemed to be living in their own little ironic world.

[Havok]

So apparently Kanastrous has seen it, but has decided not to give us a proper review... and has nothing more to say other than "I can say that it's definitely worth seeing".

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 9#p3079319

[Bounty]

I'm just back from an advance screening. I can only say that if anything, the reviews don't do justice to just how solid a movie this is. There's a pure love of filmmaking and Star Trek that oozes from every scene; the prologue alone would have been worth the price of admission. It feels as if someone who is both supremely skilled as an artist and absolutely in love with Trek has gone over every single scene with a fine comb until it was *perfect*.

It is without a doubt the best of the Trek movies, one of the greatest SF films I have ever seen, and the best movie of the year so far by a wide margin.

I'll add a full review when Alyeska's moratorium is lifted.

Also, RT's now at 29 reviews and 100% positive. I'd be surprised if it drops much at all.

[Worlds Spanner]

Now *that* is a review.