The Escapist Presents: MovieBob Reviews Star Trek

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

MovieBob Reviews Star Trek

MovieBob takes on the souped-up remake of one of Nerdom's most treasured franchises.

Watch Video

Woooooo MovieBob!

I like the format with the before and after. I'd like to see it more with more big movies.

Very interesting review. Last night, I was in a taxi, and the taxi driver was basically saying that the movie was one of the greatest movies of all time. He just would not shut up about it. I'm sorry, but I just don't think it's going to be THAT good.

That review sucked. Your taste in movies is terrible. Transformers wasnt that bad, at least it was entertaining, which is what a movie is meant to be. What the hell do you expect? Also you have an annoying, grating voice I'm sorry to say. Stop trying to be Yahtzee.

well i've never seen star trek before and the movie have at least one good actor Mr Simon pegg, so maybe i will go watch it.

thank you movie bob

Definately a good review. It was entertaining, but still phrased in a way where I can form my own opinions about it. Star Trek being decent despite using the writers of Transformers means I'll probably enjoy it. I'll be sure not to go in expecting too much character-driven drama. :)

God dammit movie bob, ive tried so much to get over wanting to punch you in the face but with each new video...Anyway, by cool im guessing they mean "profitable". Also Simon Pegg an abercrombie and Fitch model? Really? I cant imagine what you look like if thats your standard. Anyway i couldnt be arsed to sit through the rest of your review, needless to say i disagree with you.

This is my first time watching MovieBob, and I'm usually entertained by the videos hosted by the Escapist...but not this one.

First I certainly hope it's not supposed to be funny. I got a whiff of 'humor vibe' every now and again, but found my brow furrowed through most of the review. Never smirked or smiled, so I hope those attempts at humor aren't meant to be hook for this series.

Second, I was really very disappointed with the production values of this video. Maybe that's me, but everything else here, even ZP, looks better. This looks like it was done in Microsoft Movie Maker. Maybe it was? It works for ZP because ZP is fast, random, and humor centered, not 'review' centered. This might work if it was funny, but even if it was funny it just seemed thrown together in 15 minutes after hastily writing the review in a previous 10 minutes (Don't forget a bunch of expletives, because that obviously makes a point more valid) and doing the voice-over in one take on a crappy analog $6 mic from Staples. Maybe it's the compression, maybe it's the quality reduction in order to make the whole thing 'streamable', but it sounds like it was done by sitting at a kitchen table and talking into the mic built into your netbook. I suppose this second point is more aesthetic then anything else, but it really bugs me. Maybe that's me.

Thirdly, and finally, it seems I have the same problem with this movie reviewer as I do with nearly every reviewer around: Everything has to be an epic masterpiece, or it's balls. Granted that Star Trek was given a 'in the middle' sort of 'grade', but with the hate on the new X-men Origins flick and Transformers, it just strikes me as nerd rage rather then serious review. Apparently you can't just have a fun action movie anymore, it has to be super well acted with no artistic license from the source material whatsoever. Anyone remember the first Die Hard? Poorly acted, campy action, and silly one-liners. But you know what? It's awesome. It's awesome because it's a fun action movie. But as soon as it's a brand, it's shit if it's hits that same style. Yes it's important to have at least decent acting and story and the like, but it seems like lately it has to be Oscar worthy and exactly like the source material in order for people to just shuttup and enjoy a movie these days.
But maybe that's just me.

Anyways, pardon the long post. I'll try watching some of the older ones to see if it's just this one that bugs me.

AAAAArgh the swearing.

I don't get it, why so much fucking swearing about the fucking things you don't fucking like?

That was good (in a can't decide if it desperately wants to be Nostalgia critic or Zero Punctuation kind of way), but does the word fucking really have to be in every paragraph? It didn't add anything, it's not funny and it's just really purile.

DalekJaas:
That review sucked. Your taste in movies is terrible. Transformers wasnt that bad, at least it was entertaining, which is what a movie is meant to be. What the hell do you expect? Also you have an annoying, grating voice I'm sorry to say. Stop trying to be Yahtzee.

Wow, someone's a little emotional today. A review sucked because you didn't agree with it, that's completely logical. Don't judge it on its merits, instead just randomly trash the reviewer and his opinions.

Excellent review as always, Moviebob. Although I disagree with your opinion and actually enjoyed this film, I still enjoyed this review (it raised some excellent points, especially the ones about the new Kirk).

Also, I don't know who invented midnight screenings, but thank you for giving the geeks one more Star Trek devoted night.

I think that if I need something to remind me why I like Star Trek then I will watch First Contact again.

Wouldukindly:

DalekJaas:
That review sucked. Your taste in movies is terrible. Transformers wasnt that bad, at least it was entertaining, which is what a movie is meant to be. What the hell do you expect? Also you have an annoying, grating voice I'm sorry to say. Stop trying to be Yahtzee.

Wow, someone's a little emotional today. A review sucked because you didn't agree with it, that's completely logical. Don't judge it on its merits, instead just randomly trash the reviewer and his opinions.

Excellent review as always, Moviebob. Although I disagree with your opinion and actually enjoyed this film, I still enjoyed this review (it raised some excellent points, especially the ones about the new Kirk).

What merits does this review possess? Someone sitting, swearing and complaining. Give him a medal, he has an opinion!

Baby Tea:

Thirdly, and finally, it seems I have the same problem with this movie reviewer as I do with nearly every reviewer around: Everything has to be an epic masterpiece, or it's balls. Granted that Star Trek was given a 'in the middle' sort of 'grade', but with the hate on the new X-men Origins flick and Transformers, it just strikes me as nerd rage rather then serious review. Apparently you can't just have a fun action movie anymore, it has to be super well acted with no artistic license from the source material whatsoever. Anyone remember the first Die Hard? Poorly acted, campy action, and silly one-liners. But you know what? It's awesome. It's awesome because it's a fun action movie. But as soon as it's a brand, it's shit if it's hits that same style. Yes it's important to have at least decent acting and story and the like, but it seems like lately it has to be Oscar worthy and exactly like the source material in order for people to just shuttup and enjoy a movie these days.
But maybe that's just me.

Anyways, pardon the long post. I'll try watching some of the older ones to see if it's just this one that bugs me.

I didn't get that at all. I think his point isn't that every movie has to be an epic masterpiece, but that they have the potential be. There are action movies out there with amazing effects, great actors, deep story and everything else you would want in a film in addition to simply being an enjoyable watch. If this was any other generic action space movie I think I would agree with you, but Star Trek carries quite a depth to it. So I think it's a fair assessment to expect more of it.

I'll be going to see it today, so I'll have more to say later.

DalekJaas:

What merits does this review possess? Someone sitting, swearing and complaining. Give him a medal, he has an opinion!

I always enjoy Moviebob because he often dives deeper into the concept then most reviewers. I like his quick delivery and the way he breaks down everything into concrete positives and negatives, i.e. a reviewer's job. Even if I don't agree with that he says, he's still doing his job. I EXPECT a reviewer to sit there, swearing and complaining if they dislike a movie.

Also, I'm sick of people saying that '*insert internet thing here* ripped off Yahtzee' Perhaps he was inspired by Yahtzee, did you even consider that option? Not to mention the fact that just because something has Yahtzee-esque qualities doesn't make it bad. In fact, it can be even better then Zero Punctation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlOXAtPvMDk&feature=channel_page

I'm hardly the "frat boy" demographic Mr. Bob rants about... but I've never liked Star Trek, I was a Star Wars kid, high-adventure space opera beats "big idea" sci-fi in my book any day so I bet I will still enjoy this movie.

His rant just reminds me of The Onion's review of this move...

"Trekkies bash new Star Trek Film as "Fun and Watchable"" basically two things Star Trek NEVER WAS and why I NEVER WATCHED it.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

Though I guess I've lowered my standards for scripting in films, I NEVER expect good writing anymore, I'm just pleased when I get it.

DalekJaas:

What merits does this review possess? Someone sitting, swearing and complaining. Give him a medal, he has an opinion!

PSSSST. Reviews, even those that go into the merits and foibles of a peice of work, as this one does, are all opinions. The destiny stuff may annoy the hell out of some people, but others may think it's brilliant, etc.

Personally, though, the 'destined' crap always pisses me off. It's ok when used to a light degree, like maybe two or three large to medium-sized coincidences occurring, but when the entire cast is made up of people that just coincidentally made it to where they got to be, that's difficult to take in. Somewhat sad that the movie was more popcorn popping than actually thought provoking.

Also, of course Simon Pegg was one of the best actors in the movie, he's SIMON FREAKING PEGG.

DalekJaas:
That review sucked. Your taste in movies is terrible. Transformers wasnt that bad, at least it was entertaining, which is what a movie is meant to be. What the hell do you expect? Also you have an annoying, grating voice I'm sorry to say. Stop trying to be Yahtzee.

dude calm down. just because he thought that transformers sucked and star trek wasnt brilliant doesnt mean that he is wrong. it is his opinion and he can say what the hell he wants because it is HIS OPINION. just because you dont agree with him doesnt mean that his review suck. hell i liked transformers to an extent. i dont think that he is trying to be yahtzee. he talks fast and gave this a bad review. thats all the similarities that i can think of.

Wouldukindly:

Excellent review as always, Moviebob. Although I disagree with your opinion and actually enjoyed this film, I still enjoyed this review (it raised some excellent points, especially the ones about the new Kirk).

Also, I don't know who invented midnight screenings, but thank you for giving the geeks one more Star Trek devoted night.

To be fair he did say it was an overall good movie, but as a good critic he pointed out the flaws.

PedroSteckecilo:
His rant just reminds me of The Onion's review of this move...

"Trekkies bash new Star Trek Film as "Fun and Watchable"" basically two things Star Trek NEVER WAS and why I NEVER WATCHED it.

I think your taking the onion a little to seriously. A lot of the previous Star Trek movies were bad, but they also had a few very good ones. I'd say those and the first few series were very "Fun and Watchable".

PedroSteckecilo:

Though I guess I've lowered my standards for scripting in films, I NEVER expect good writing anymore, I'm just pleased when I get it.

'Tis a sad day when movie-goers have to expect this as reality. Actually to be honest, the majority of film since its beginning has been somewhat weak...

...

...don't know where I was going with that. *Fucks off to watch Citizen Kane again*

Victor Lewis-Smith and Charlie Brooker are ripping off Yahtzee as well. He should sue or something.

Slycne:
If this was any other generic action space movie I think I would agree with you, but Star Trek carries quite a depth to it. So I think it's a fair assessment to expect more of it.

But that's my point! As soon as it has a brand, then it better be epic or it'll be decried. It's higher rated then any previous Star Trek film, according to Meta Critic, but it gets a '6' for what? X-Men Origins slaughtered at the box office, and so did Transformers...but they are bad because...? They aren't like the show? The cartoon? The comic book?
Where has the simple enjoyment gone?

X-Men and Transformers did so well because of the brand, not the quality of the movie.

Wouldukindly:

PedroSteckecilo:

Though I guess I've lowered my standards for scripting in films, I NEVER expect good writing anymore, I'm just pleased when I get it.

'Tis a sad day when movie-goers have to expect this as reality. Actually to be honest, the majority of film since its beginning has been somewhat weak...

...

...don't know where I was going with that. *Fucks off to watch Citizen Kane again*

It is depressing but when shitty writing is ALL YOU GET anymore... you stop caring about it being a necessity and then go and watch (in my case) Casablanca or The Thin Man while weeping.

Sadly I guess my love of great action sequences and sharp direction outweighs my love of good screen writing.

To be fair to Terminator Salvation, exactly how much blood, sex and, well, more blood do you need in a movie consisting of humans fighting giant robots? No-one here is bringing a knife to a laser fight. This shit ain't Die Hard. We will see people atomised in explosions, maybe a cutaway to a Cyborg with machine parts over skin, but what more does it need?

The Brian J:
Woooooo MovieBob!

I like the format with the before and after. I'd like to see it more with more big movies.

Very interesting review. Last night, I was in a taxi, and the taxi driver was basically saying that the movie was one of the greatest movies of all time. He just would not shut up about it. I'm sorry, but I just don't think it's going to be THAT good.

it really is good tho i've seen it... best movie in a while really

Baby Tea:
Where has the simple enjoyment gone?

Simple enjoyment is fine, but like a lot of people familiar with the Star Trek brand I don't find action movies as entertaining as I was when I was a young teen. They target these films to people who are younger than me, tell their audience that it is for them and isn't for me and then suddenly I'm cynical for not being interested in it?

More Fun To Compute:
Victor Lewis-Smith and Charlie Brooker are ripping off Yahtzee as well. He should sue or something.

If you could sue over being cantakerous and swearing alot George Carlin would have sued the shit out of Yahtzee (when he was still alive, RIP George)

And hell, what about The Spoony One? He's pretty much Yahtzees inspiration isn't he?

Wouldukindly:
Also, I'm sick of people saying that '*insert internet thing here* ripped off Yahtzee' Perhaps he was inspired by Yahtzee, did you even consider that option? Not to mention the fact that just because something has Yahtzee-esque qualities doesn't make it bad. In fact, it can be even better then Zero Punctation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlOXAtPvMDk&feature=channel_page

Thanks Wouldukindly! That's a great little series.

More Fun To Compute:

Baby Tea:
Where has the simple enjoyment gone?

Simple enjoyment is fine, but like a lot of people familiar with the Star Trek brand I don't find action movies as entertaining as I was when I was a young teen. They target these films to people who are younger than me, tell their audience that it is for them and isn't for me and then suddenly I'm cynical for not being interested in it?

But it's a popcorn movie! The trailer and all the promo material were pretty straightforward about it being a popcorn movie. Sure, it had its superficial moments, but it never sunk to the depths of Transformers (God, that was aweful). While I was in the theater, I felt something I hadn't felt in a long while: I was having a GOOD TIME at the movies. It was fun, there were a few laughs, and it looked fantastic. Take it for what it is and you might actually enjoy yourself.

This is pretty much what I figured from the trailer, but I've got to say I like Transformers...

What I hated about Transformers was the following...

I wanted a Big Dumb Movie with lots of Big Robots hitting eachother...

what I got was 1/2 an hour of Robots and 2 Hours of Megan Fox (who I do not really find hot), Army Dude, Annoying Australian Hacker Chick and Anthony Fucking Anderson. Basically 2 Hours of an over inflated cast of annoying characters who weren't giant robots blowint each other up.

PedroSteckecilo:

More Fun To Compute:
Victor Lewis-Smith and Charlie Brooker are ripping off Yahtzee as well. He should sue or something.

If you could sue over being cantakerous and swearing alot George Carlin would have sued the shit out of Yahtzee (when he was still alive, RIP George)

And hell, what about The Spoony One? He's pretty much Yahtzees inspiration isn't he?

The guy who does the Final Fantasy movies? He might be, but since I remember Lewis-Smith his style more similar to me. Looks similar from one of his old clips on youtube at least.

m_jim:
It was fun, there were a few laughs, and it looked fantastic. Take it for what it is and you might actually enjoy yourself.

The government scientists surgically removed my ability to have fun and enjoy myself at the allotted age. I'm told that it's a necessary operation required to maintain the social cohesion that comes from teenagers liking different things from older generations and provides material for official humour outlets such as The Onion.

Baby Tea:

Slycne:
If this was any other generic action space movie I think I would agree with you, but Star Trek carries quite a depth to it. So I think it's a fair assessment to expect more of it.

But that's my point! As soon as it has a brand, then it better be epic or it'll be decried. It's higher rated then any previous Star Trek film, according to Meta Critic, but it gets a '6' for what? X-Men Origins slaughtered at the box office, and so did Transformers...but they are bad because...? They aren't like the show? The cartoon? The comic book?
Where has the simple enjoyment gone?

Agreed here... I kinda had the feeling of listening to Comic Book Guy from the simpsons talk condescendingly about something he didn't enjoy... mixed with yahtzee and swears here. I enjoyed listening to your review, and I busted out laughing once or twice, but yeah... Transformers was as effective as it was ever going to be, its never had any semblance of reason for anything, and its about freaking cars from space, it was only ever going to be one orgasmic CG/explosionfest, and its wrong to hate it just because it was only ever that. and as for origins, It was enjoyable and fun to watch, followed 3 huuuuuuge movies that came before it, and managed to not let those who went to see the films preceding it down, so yeah, it did good... no reason to hate.

Ive seen so few films deserve that much hate at all, lol. Like Jumper. It was horrendous. If you read the book, (even AFTER seeing it) it made it even worse...

just um... my opinion. ^_^ peace.

Baby Tea:
... Apparently you can't just have a fun action movie anymore, it has to be super well acted with no artistic license from the source material whatsoever. Anyone remember the first Die Hard? Poorly acted, campy action, and silly one-liners. But you know what? It's awesome. It's awesome because it's a fun action movie. ...

And Star Trek the Original Series was campy, poorly acted, and full of thinly-veiled social commentary, which is why it's awesome. It's also the reason why so many people get worried about a new movie - taking something that's awesome partially because it's so poorly made, and making it into an action-packed explosionfest wrought with drama and suspense is kinda the same thing as making Die Hard into Law and Order with a Vengance: the Animated Series.

Some people might like watching a cartoon Bruce Willis / Sam Jackson. Hell, a lot of people might like it. It doesn't make it good, just because people like it though. Film has the luxury of being considered an art form, and as such, there will be those who treat all film as art - subject to harsh criticism and praise alike. Sorta how the Mona Lisa isn't such a great painting - it's popular, but mainly because it was stolen.

What art, music, food, and film critics do is cast a discerning eye on their medium of choice. That's why critics will shower one work with praise, and stomp on the heart of another - it's their job to create such a big rift between good work and bad work, rather than to engineer a Jell-O salad of opinion.

Well check that shit out, budget for the movie goes up, it looks prettier, and the acting and script quality goes down.

Is there some explanation as to why this happens? We can't have super big budget and good acting and writing?

Also, I don't see MovieBob as a "reviewer" - I see him as a far-too-in-depth critic. He rips it apart and gives a great big analysis into everything about it. Whatever "it" may be. I like this though, he stirs up the pot and doesn't have a giant parade of followers behind him saying "I agree with you!" - he makes us think. Or cry.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here