The Escapist Presents: MovieBob Reviews Star Trek

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

There is nothing wrong with a good action movie the problem is when they try and slap a series on it that doesn't really fit. I liked transformers not quite what I wanted but a decent action movie in itself. The real problem I have with this movie is that the cast just doesn't seem to click like the casts of the original star trek or Star Trek:TNG. Also that it is not as technical as the other ones seemed to be.
It feels like taking a franchise and just slapping it on top of a movie. A good movie but the franchise just does not seem to fit correctly. I think it may have even worked better if they did not try and tell an early story of the originals. If they would have made up new characters for a time before kirk or something on those lines it may have even worked better. But as it is the cast now just does not mesh like the cast back then.

Agree with you entrierly on Transformers, only bested by fantastic Four the Silver Surfer as the worst movie of 2007 and if you try and push that Transfromers was worse than that abomination you are talking out of your arse. Ateast transformers had some action >_>. Have not seen the Star Trek movie but from what I have noticed MovieBob is highly biased on the things he likes IE ninteno and that always carries across in his stuff so cant really trust him on this opinion.

CaptainCrunch:
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.

Wait wait, isn't what is 'good' totally subjective? And if the masses enjoy something (As seen in Box-office sales), then isn't it safe to say it's mostly viewed as good? Not everyone would agree on a film, but popularity isn't something to be dismissed. Take the new Wolverine flick as an example, which has a 40 or 50 something on Meta Critic: It did exceedingly well at the box office, most people I know say they enjoyed it as a fun action movie (I know I did), but critics aren't taking to it too well. So, is it good or bad?

CaptainCrunch:
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.

No, no I find reviewers and critics usually cast their opinion (Educated or not) into a medium that is ruled by subjectivism and fads. Even a movie panned by critics will do awesome in sales, and so who is right then? The pretentious 'know-it-all' critics who said it sucked? Or the Movie Studio execs, Actors, director, and producers walking off into the sunset with the press a buzz and millions in their pockets? Or the people who went out to see a simple film and were entertained for two hours?

God almighty, got half way through but found myself compelled to turn the video off, this is one of the most low-rent video reviews to grace the escapist. Movie bob's voice is one of the most annoying and adenoidal voices i've ever heard, with his near continuous attempts to be 'funny' through the use of visual aids and quasi 'in-jokes' grating against my very soul. His opening rant is so damn boring with it obvious that he it just trying to be 'edgey' and 'contentious'but succeeding only in making himself sound like a nerdy twat.
I honestly don't understand why a site like the escapist would publish such terrible content, with it lowering the very tone of the entire site.

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.

Baby Tea:
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.

Thank you both, I completely agree. Also MovieBob cut down on the swearing. I had to stop half way through because all of your swearing made it way too hard to listen to.

Baby Tea:
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.

I came to this website after seeing ZP. Then Doomsday Arcade appeared, as well as 'There Will be Brawl' Such good quality videos. I agree with you completely.

Oddly enough now that I think about the "audience" of the movie this Star Trek movie did not interest me but all the people I know who I would file under the "jock" category with their fantasy baseball and basketball.

I do plan on seeing the movie because of just seeing John Cho playing the role of Sulu, but finding out the actor who played the lead role from Shaun of the dead and Hot Fuzz as Scotty just piqued my interest and I hope his acting is just as good because he deserves a lot of credit.

Good review being entertaining and trying a new angle with the before and after.

EDIT: Was it strange that I did not notice the swearing?

Ah yes, in the halls of Unskippable, Zero Punctuation, Unforgotten Realms, There Will Be Brawl and Doomsday Arcade, we now have MovieBob's Yahtzee-for-movies-without-the-comedy. I'm sure Yahtzee wasn't the first to do the whole "Talking fast with a MSPaint-drawn background" thing, but he's the first to nail it.

Simple fact. American voices can't do talking fast and expect to be good. It's like the American kid who tried to do a ZeroPunctuation and was rubbish. Also, leave publicized hate to the professionals - it IS a skill to hate without senseless ranting, and I hate to say this MovieBob ('cos I LOVE people who spread the hate), but you don't got it.

Lastly, I LIKED Transformers. It could have done with more robots beating the hell out of each other, but I'm fairly certain that's what'll happen in the sequel this year.

Moviebob, I respect you, I support your reviews and your Game overthinker segments but after this....I don't know. I liked Star Trek when I saw it last night and well, I know the Trekies are going to flame my ass for this, I thought the original movies and series were slow, and boring since nothing EVER HAPPPENS until the last 5 mins(at least the first one).

Also I thought the guy who play Scooty looked familar, I couldn't fugure out who it was since they had him shave off his bread and mustace.

Jman1236:
Moviebob, I respect you, I support your reviews and your Game overthinker segments but after this....I don't know. I liked Star Trek when I saw it last night and well, I know the Trekies are going to flame my ass for this, I thought the original movies and series were slow, and boring since nothing EVER HAPPPENS until the last 5 mins(at least the first one).

Also I thought the guy who play Scooty looked familar, I couldn't fugure out who it was since they had him shave off his bread and mustace.

Fun fact: You don't have to agree with the critics everytime. It is better that you are going with your own opinion rather than follow him. You saw the movie and you stated why you didn't like the original series.

I prefer having that slow character build up and writing from Star Trek:TNG. However I do like that Moviebob stated to not expect this to be the Star Trek that I grew up with. I just hope the movie doesn't have the ADD that Transformers had. Transformers was good to watch once. When you saw the movie more than a couple of times you realize the pacing was off, too much jumping around and finally making those old jokes to hook line and sinker us old dogs(I'll tell ya they get you everytime because you know you want it).

Because of your nonsense series 'game overthinker' all your opinions are now void. Your ragging on Star Trek because you think it's cool not because you actually think it sucks. Same as your overthinker BS.

It's a popcorn action flick, what the hell do you expect? The entire bridge meandering on whether or not to shoot Nero into oblivion? Your review could've been saved by some good jokes but this endless whining (in combination with the voice) just grates the nerves. Please fire this guy

LlamaNL:
but this endless whining (in combination with the voice) just grates the nerves. Please fire this guy

Actually he holds back his real voice. Moviebob has a Boston accent from what I remember. He sounds completely different with the two voices.

I was just asking last night where MovieBob had got too.

Sorry BT, but from the looks of it I agree with MovieBob on this one. Simon Pegg was always the reason I'd watch it and the basic writing looks shit.

What this seems to be is making Star Trek cool. Despite what anyone, even Gene Roddenberry, has to say.

And "cool" films bore me. In the same way RTD's Doctor Who does (Apart from Midnight and Turn Left).

It's REAL easy to take an old franchise and slot the characters into a RIP-ROARING plot, but if you don't bring in the basis of who they are, then you've done the same as they did with Mission Impossible, The Avengers, The Saint (Remember that???) or Transformers.

Franchise reboots need to bring the franchise in, not just the names. Hulk, Spiderman, X-Men 1, Pirates 1 all worked wonderfully.

This, by the looks of it, doesn't. It may be a great blockbuster, but it isn't Star Trek, and Star Trek is what's drawing the punters in.

Reboots need to understand what the series was about and not just replace the shoddy backdrops of yesteryear with CGI whilst throwing out the set dressings.

No one, and I'm going out on a limb here, watched ST:TOS for the visuals; they watched it for the plots. The reboot of Red Dwarf showed this disparity wonderfully recently. Lister belongs in a smeggy scumhole, and is wonderful in it. Put him in "The Truman Show" and he's just not Lister anymore.

Great Review Moviebob. Keep on making more.

Baby Tea:
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.

And to think, I was going to spend my times typing all of this out.
Thank you for saying it for me.

This review....

Fucking. A.

The videos not loading for some reason.

More Fun To Compute:

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.

I think that people who are chronically against enjoying things will find plenty to hate in this movie (as the article from the Onion so eloquently put it), but at least Star Trek fans didn't have to undergo the savage beating that Indiana Jones fans did his last outing, or Star Wars fans for that matter.

Slycne:

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.

I'll have to agree with this one, and I'll be going to see it soon, I'm very interested to see how my opinion will form as I have not really seen much of the original series.

actually with all the ZP references here, Moviebob sparks this in my head "Fans are clingy complaining dipshits who will never EVER be grateful for any concession you make. The moment you shut out their shrill tremulous voices the happier you'll be for it. "

You sound like a nerd in rage, or in heat and nobody wants to fuck you...

Tried to listen, but the audio sounded like someone talking into a tin can with string at best or at worst yelling into a toilet.

What I loved about Star Trek was that is was a cerebral sci-fi. The crew of the Enterprise didn't grapple with powerful adversaries (well, they did some of time), they mainly grappled with the moral and ethical dilemmas that they encountered on a seemingly daily basis. I liked Star Wars too, but that was a quest story, as it was based on Kurosawa films. Star Trek wasn't going to just blast first and ask questions later, they were going to stop, think their problems through, and then engage if given no better option. Their "shoot-last" mentality was refreshing to me, but it was probably BORING AS HELL to people who were used to films that boil down to the good guy's major goal being to kill the bad guy.

I mean, this was a franchise that at the end of its second major series put humanity on trial. Like Asimov, Roddenberry was not interested in flashy lasers and wars and what not. He was more interested in parables and critiques on modern society through the encounters the crew had.

Yes, I agree, you can have a super fun time watching Die Hard. But the backstory for Bruce Willis' character is that he's a New York City cop, not an NYU professor, and the moral of that film is essentially "We should fight terrorists, not be pussies and just acquiesce like that guy who tries to sell out Bruce Willis." Meanwhile, Star Trek has a back story of (JUST LIKE MODERN MILITARIES) rules of engagement and the whole Prime Directive thing. And if I was the guy who did Alias and Lost, yes, I would find that whole "moral standards, ethics" thing a major buzzkill.

Luckily, I'm not.

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.

Quoting for emphasis.

Even tough I hate startrek, so cheesy.

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?

True. Very true.

I find it quite entertaining that Yahtzee appears to be the alpha and omega when it comes to this kind of humour to many, many people on this forum. As soon as Bob showed his face here I expected a huge backlash of comments from people who think he's 'copying Yahtzee', and I wasn't disappointed.

thanks 4 a good review, it did confirm my suspicions about the movie and definatly did not make me want to see it.
What i find intresting is that we have writers who did some xena episodes and an actor who did many roles in it. I always smirk when i see the old xena actors in new movies.

I just wanna know what the fuck was wrong with transformers the movie.

ph3onix:
I just wanna know what the fuck was wrong with transformers the movie.

As someone posted earlier... I went to see that movie expecting to watch robots bash each other for at least half of it. What I got was a movie that really only had that for like 30mins. It was not the "Transformers" that made the name. It was something else. The only reason why it made so money is because they used the name.

I don't think anything would've made this guy happy. Jesus, I had to turn it off half of the way through. I'd rather Hollywood appease the douchebag jocks than anti-social nerds.

You know what I want to see . . . A Star Trek review. Not someone ripping of Yahtzee by annoyingly bitching about Transformers.

First off, outside of the coincidence thing, which merely made me smile, I couldn't have disagreed with you more. And not just about Star Trek, but in fact everything you said.

And now J.J. Abrams with a rebuttal from three months ago.

Couldn't possibly disagree more with the review. I think it's a welcome and entertaining reboot of the franchise, while staying true and loyal to the spirit and core of the original series. Pegg and Urban are, indeed, the standouts, and Uhura does get short shrift, but I think Pine does a fine job as cocky, reckless, girl-chasing Kirk. Let's face it, Kirk was a bit of a dick, but his passion and sense of responsibility (if one can do something to help, one should, whatever the consequence) ultimately made him a good captain, and Pine carries that off well.

Yes, the original series did attempt to disguise discussions of serious and weighty matters in sci-fi trappings, but not every episode was meant to be some sort of object lesson. Star Trek was, at times, nothing but a ripping good yarn, and that's what this movie is.

I don't really get the complaining in here. After watching the review again it wasn't even all that negative, or had a lot of swearing, or was any more like ZP than every wannabe edgy comment posted in here.

Yes, it's nerdrage directed at stuff you like, get over it. If you need some faceless internet personality to reassure you your opinion of popular media is still "the right one", google "star trek review 2009".

Here is all you need to know about this review. The reviewer thinks the script for Transformers "stripped out the nuanced mythos" of the cartoon series.

Uh-huh.

It seems like Yahtzee only with a red background.

This movie surpasses everything since Wrath of Khan.
And it only fails to surpasses Wrath of Khan if you're a fan boy.

A couple of his insights are good. I'll give him that. What's-her-name as just eye candy, yes the crew are hot. All true.

But a lot of it was bullocks. Fate and coincidence? I mean, they all *HAVE* to wind up on the ship together somehow, they're the damn crew. No matter how they contrived for everyone to wind up together, they would have wound up together, and it would have been through a set of coincidences. It was a coincidence that I wanted to play Mass Effect after watching the movie, so while I was watching the ZP review of it again with it my hand, I stumbled across this movie review. What are the odds of me being here right now?

Perhaps the only coincidence that you could possibly place in the bullshit category was that what's-her-name was in a bar in Iowa and bumped into Kirk there. But even then, I never felt like it was bullshit.

-------------

In short: Go watch it, it's fucking great. Fucking 96% on RT. The fact that he opens his review with a massive QQ about how paramount was dissing the fans, which I assure you there was no executive desicion to intentionally alienate the fan base, should be evidence enough that he has a massive chip on his shoulder, and he is too "emotionally compromised" to accurately review the movie. Half of his review was about how much he hated the people behind the movie, and not what's going on with the movie itself.

Nice try. I found this review highly unhelpful, and pretentious at best.

 Pages PREV 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