The Escapist Presents: MovieBob Reviews Star Trek

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

I saw it, I liked it. All that matters to me.
But for yor next review I suggest a less nagging and more well rounded focus. This movie is a tribute not the movie to change the hopes of the masses. When viewed as a tribute, I think it's a great movie.

I've seen several people pointing out that MB gave it a 6 out of 10 (a generally positive ranking) and trying to figure out why everyone is on him about "hating the movie".

Personal anicdote - I am a big time Tolkien geek (admit your inner geek, and embrace it). Coworker is likewise quite the Tolkien fan. We both had gone on Opening night to see Fellowship of the Ring. During lunch the next day, we talked about all the things they left out, changes made, and why we didn't like those. Someone in the break area said, at the end of lunch "So you hated the movie?" When we replied "No, we really liked it a lot" they replied "But you just spent an hour listing everything you hated about it..."

Thus my main issue with this review; the first part was a 'before' bit saying how he was totally prepared to hate this movie. The large majority of the second part was spent detailing everything he hated about it.

In doing so, he drowned out his own message that it wasn't a total bomb. If you think they got 60% right, and spend all your time complaining about the other 40%, you lead people to form the conclusion "Wow, he really hated that"... and having said so much, when you try and throw out something that seems to contradict most of your message (I'll give it a 6 out of 10), the easiest thing for a viewer to do to reconcile the conflict is disregard the smallest part possible. That would be the bit at the end where MB says 6 out 10.

So, I think that, while MB may have thought the movie OK but not great, he's managed to convince everyone he'd prefer to burn the print than admit he'd seen it.

That is why I think it's a bad review; not his opinion, but the fact that he seems to so horribly miscommunicate his overall view (an OK film) by ranting so loud and long on the parts he didn't like. To be honest, skip the last 30 seconds, and I'd have thought he gave it a 2 out of 10 max...

Yahtzee: "Fans are clinging complaining dipshits who will never EVER be grateful for any concession you make"
Thanks, MovieBob for single-handedly proving how completely RIGHT Yahtzee is.

Just because it's not the Star Trek movie YOU wanted to see doesn't mean it's a bad movie. The movie was great. As someone who has never liked the other Star Treks, I thought it was a fun, action-filled ride, which is all it was supposed to be.

The filmmakers didn't set out making this movie so that it would win academy awards and tug at the heartstrings of stuffy film critics. They did it so that they could take an otherwise dead saga and give it new life and make it enjoyable, which they did with great results.

And it doesn't matter what you, or I, or anybody else thinks about the movie, because it's raking in cash either way whether you think it should or not.

(Oh yeah. No offense, but no matter how hard you try, you won't be as funny, as popular, or as intelligent as Yahtzee, so stop trying to rip his fast-paced brutally honest style of Internet humor. He knows how to do it like nobody else can, so it's pointless to try)

Oldcastle:
If you think they got 60% right, and spend all your time complaining about the other 40%, you lead people to form the conclusion "Wow, he really hated that"...

Speaking in my own defense: The thing is, the "liked" category in this case isn't really jam-packed with stuff that lends itself to longform dissortation. The things I can unequivocally praise in it's favor are, in order: It LOOKS great, two of the actors REALLY bring it and it's well-directed. Two of those things you already know from the trailers, and even though the FX are top-shelf they aren't really worth "writing home" about... it's not like Jurassic Park or Matrix where the FX are good AND it's stuff you've never seen that permanently changes the visual landscape of filmmaking. It's pretty, but it's nothing new. "The effects are good" pretty-much covers it.

On the other hand, the "disliked" category is mostly stuff you kinda have to elaborate on: Script is REALLY bad, main story is badly-structured, female lead thinly-sketched and uninteresting, male lead is a block of wood, etc.

MovieBob:
Speaking in my own defense: The thing is, the "liked" category in this case isn't really jam-packed with stuff that lends itself to longform dissortation. The things I can unequivocally praise in it's favor are, in order: It LOOKS great, two of the actors REALLY bring it and it's well-directed. Two of those things you already know from the trailers, and even though the FX are top-shelf they aren't really worth "writing home" about... it's not like Jurassic Park or Matrix where the FX are good AND it's stuff you've never seen that permanently changes the visual landscape of filmmaking. It's pretty, but it's nothing new. "The effects are good" pretty-much covers it.

Fair enough. If most of your talking points are "bad things", and you really can't say a lot about the good parts, it does put you in a difficult spot. It's a damned if you do or damned if you don't situation. I never said people were being rational about drawing the conclusion; just that they were.

MovieBob:
On the other hand, the "disliked" category is mostly stuff you kinda have to elaborate on: Script is REALLY bad, main story is badly-structured, female lead thinly-sketched and uninteresting, male lead is a block of wood, etc.

OK... The Female lead not having much may be a valid point. But, in the original series, she didn't really have much. People talk about the historic nature of the part, but forget that Nichols was ready to quit at the end of the first season because most of her dialog was "Hailing Frequencies Open, Sir". She has said the only reason she didn't was that MLK Jr. asked her to stay on, because just seeing a black female office on the bridge was inspiring.

So, sadly, in that manner, not much has changed.

You know it was actually a good film for me, althought he was dead on with his critism of transformers for me (even riftrax couldn't save it) and there was a few issues with it.

1. the enterprise herself, the neck needs to be further forward , it looks more like it was designed for bobsleding in its current condition and the engines and there plyons need to be moved a little further forward and abit more outward like on the original and the ship would be perfect.

2. tone down checkovs accent, I know hes actually speaking russian but god that accent is annoying, I could barely understand a word out of his mouth

3. the sets, the engine room looked like a plummers nightmare, and why does half the ship look like an industrial complex with white hallways full of tubing everywhere?

I would have liked it better if some of the hallways resembeled the ones off the enterprise from star trek 2, battlship like with space tight doors for hull breaches and piping in places that made sense, like a cross between the old engine room from the original series with the one from st2 would have made much more sense, it just seemed like half the ship sets we're lifted from battlestar galatica

4 the spock/ uhura thing: if it wasn't for the kissing, and abit more conversation between the two that showed of it smiliarites I think it would have worked.

5. tone down kirks sexual drive, seemed like all he was obsesed with was sex, and the boob grab was just stupid.

if they had made it more about him being obsesed with starfleet and why she was going in it the thing in the bar would have worked without it seeming like he was sexual harrasing her.

you know like "lingustics?! then why the hell are you going into starfleet your just wasting your time there and you'll get yourself killed out there in the middle of nowhere for no reason"

and made it seem like he liked her more as a person rather than her body, you know a sparring partners rather than an object of desire like dianna and tom in "waiting for god" sort of like bones and spock in the original series, they always loved to have verbal fights.

but as is it was a great film I liked it better than all the tng films, althought I still thing st2 was the best but this is a close second behind 3,4 and 6.

I would class myself as one of the masses that this film is trying to entertain.. and i really enjoyed this film 10/10.
It was funny in parts, full of action, well paced and it explained itself.
While i disagree with MB about a lot of things, i do agree that the script wasnt amazing, however this film didnt need an amazing script. If its aim was to entertain 'trekkies' then it had mixxed reviews as far as i can see. Some were happy to see there loved old series given a new boost, however the really hardcore people who have learned to speak klingon will not have liked it...
I watched the film last night and have spent the morning watching old star trek videos online... and MY GOD.. that is some of the most boring dialoge and acting i have ever seen...
Seriously, how did people get hooked onto that?? the script was dry, the acting poor, the visual effects were worse than the orriginal star wars which did well with the technology of the time. There was too much time spent sitting around chatting..
And what you said about ahora is wrong... in the old star treks she appeared to do nothing... would ocasionally say something but never of importance.. saying she was a role model and inspiration to women is wrong, she showed what women of the time were thought of as..
Sorry if it seems i;ve gone on..
But i respect MBs opinion.. and feel he is clearly a frustrated trekkie who would like a boring film with amazing script and deep emotional charachters rather than to be entertained.
If i wanted to be bored i would attend my Quantum Mechanics Lectures instead of writing this.. but if the film was as i feel you and many trekkies would want it.. it would not sell and normal people would never see it.

p.s
MB i do feel your reviewing style is similar to that of yatzees but done in a worse manner. Not as funny or clever.
Sorry if this seemed a personal digg at you, but your review style and content annoyed me.

*SPOILER WARNING*

As a huge Star Trek fan, I went into the movie really excited about it (even though I had seen his review). It was fantastic in all but one area: the script. But the script was SO bad that it made the whole movie suck for me.

My problem wasn't that they strayed from the continuity of the original story. I expected they might and was prepared to accept it. No, they instead ERASED 50 YEARS of Star Trek!!! What the FUCK???

In the entire series ever made all they've ever talked about doing was protecting the timeline and have more than once put themselves through hell to prevent any signifigant changes. Oh, but that's not important now because half the characters were wiped from existence because Spock's cool with the changes made (and there were SIGNIFICANT changes, especially some the changed Spock)

And why did this happen? Oh, well because of a catastrophy in the future that we're not going to really be told about with an enemy that looks nothing like what we've seen before, similar to the Klingons getting forhead implants when the movies started. But why would they explain anything, since they just destroyed the entire Star Trek Universe?

I get that this is supposed to be a whole new story to attract people to Star Trek again, but what they've done is exactly what they got wrong with Transformers. It's a very pretty but entirely empty that will make the mentally inferior of our society to shout a combined "Oooo.... Shiny!" before they can altogether agree that it was the best thing of the God Damned Millenium.

This was not Star Trek anymore than a person who ties a red blanket around their neck is Superman.

First off,

To qoute: "The worst film of the decade"
-about the film "Transformers"

Surely someone remembers some craptastic film like, I don't know...Catwoman with Halle Berry? Nuff said.

Okay, I'm agreeing with Baby Tea here, you can't expect every single type of film to be a masterpiece especially when it's branded. In the world of Hollywood movies, movies that can cost HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of DOLLARS to make your not gonna want to make out just to please the fans. You are going to wanna make appeal to the entire general audience. Take for instance Transformers, Only the fans know what all the Transformers are or who the Fallen are or how many constructicons it takes to make Devastator (7) most other people don't. So if your going to make exspensive and appealing you can't make it out for the fans alone, TRansformers don't need to look like cardboard boxes glued togehter to make a body and Star Trek doesn't need to look like it was made IN THE 60's!

And one more thing bout Transformers, I like it, sure the acting was sub-par, but the only reasons people went to see it was becasue it was an awesome action flick. Personally I went to see cause I wanted to see my favorite cartoon/comic book series be brought to the big screen and made to look awesome. Also to see Megan Fox her name suits her she is hot!

Sorry for the long rant and oh yeah, MovieBob...don't cuss so much in your reviews. It's hard to take you seriously when you sound like you have an extremely limited vocabulary.

Ok, this is the 1st time that I've seen MovieBob. However, in conjunction with what movieBob said, and what my friends have said after seeing it. This movie isn't (obviously) for the "hard core" Classic/Next Gen fans. I'm not going to see it as I'm one of them, and I might watch it if it comes out on satellite (ok, not if, but when).

From what I heard, aside from what MovieBob has said I don't like it since it basically re-writes the history and (from what I've seen) smacks the original fanbase around a little. And (again from what I've seen) it's about the bling in this movie, which the original and next gen was NEVER about.

Pantherman

Sad to say but the 50 years of Star Trek

Rogue 09:
*SPOILER WARNING*

As a huge Star Trek fan, I went into the movie really excited about it (even though I had seen his review). It was fantastic in all but one area: the script. But the script was SO bad that it made the whole movie suck for me.

My problem wasn't that they strayed from the continuity of the original story. I expected they might and was prepared to accept it. No, they instead ERASED 50 YEARS of Star Trek!!! What the FUCK???

In the entire series ever made all they've ever talked about doing was protecting the timeline and have more than once put themselves through hell to prevent any signifigant changes.

To be fair the erasure started with the prequel series Enterprise which thanks to its "Temporal Cold War" plot hosed what little continuity existed in the Star Trek Universe. This movie sadly follows that trend and makes things worse in that it doesn't explain how the main villain would avoid the Grandfather's Paradox.

The fan film "Of Gods and Men" made more sense than this.

jacobschndr:
First off,

To qoute: "The worst film of the decade"
-about the film "Transformers"

Surely someone remembers some craptastic film like, I don't know...Catwoman with Halle Berry? Nuff said.

Hell, what about The Mummy part 3?

ahpuch:

In the end I think he under stated what I felt was the biggest flaw in the movie - A bunch of Cadets are given control of a federation flagship which has hundreds of people on board who should be far better qualified. If you really need 24 year-olds to take command of a starship, find a way to do it that is not insulting.

See, this is just a complaint that makes it look like you didn't pay attention to the movie. The only cadet who honestly had no reason to get anything was Kirk. McCoy and Scot are nearly 40 and are a qualified doctor and a qualified engineer, Sulu appears to be a pilot in training so not just some cadet and Uhara knows more than the qualified person she replaces.

If you really want to complain about the movie find something to complain about. This is just as silly as the complaint about the bridge looking like "an apple store" instead of something put together at the Ikea.

Always enjoy Moviebob reviews and this one was no different.

Even with a great movie or game, whether I'm a fan or not, I want to know what other people hate about it.

Moviebob's vids might not be as slick or funny as some other reviewers, but at least I don't have to read.

I have now met the first thing I don't like on this entire site. I listened to this review and went back and listened to others and I think man you just need to stop hating the world. I know a-hole attitude draws ratings and contreversy, but I won't listen to another thing you say. You don't bring up merits to what makes it good or bad, you spend the first 2-3 minutes going off on some tangent that has nothing to do with the review itself. To me it just seems to be that if you hate everything and swear about it, it will be fine.

As a stand alone film meant to present Star Trek something that people grew up loving to a new generation to enjoy I think the movie did very well. You can't blame anything on the script writers as I recall Mr. Spok had the final say on EVERYTHING that went into the script and everything that had to go out. So I think you need to do your research a little more instead of just spouting off at the mouth for no reason what so ever. When you become more professional then maybe I would give you a chance, but until then I feel you are an unprofessional hack and The Escapist should get rid of you.

PS> This had nothing to do with your review of the movie. I accept that people will always like/hate things, it's the way you present yourself.

For all that is Geeky and Holy stop trying to be Yahtzee, as you are definitely NOT close to that quality and humor. This is the first and last time I will watch this dreck. Ugh... I feel dirty for just watching this review.

I'm really, REALLY not looking to get into the "old Trek vs. new Trek" thing because, really, I don't care - my issues with this movie are with filmmaking, not continuity trivia. But, on the following points...

worboysr:
I watched the film last night and have spent the morning watching old star trek videos online... and MY GOD.. that is some of the most boring dialoge and acting i have ever seen...
Seriously, how did people get hooked onto that?? the script was dry, the acting poor, the visual effects were worse than the orriginal star wars which did well with the technology of the time. There was too much time spent sitting around chatting..

Just to one point, here: "Star Wars" was made in the late-70s, more than fifteen years after trek had aired. It's also a feature film as opposed to a season-long cache of television episodes, so the technical comparison isn't really "apt."

And what you said about ahora is wrong... in the old star treks she appeared to do nothing... would ocasionally say something but never of importance.. saying she was a role model and inspiration to women is wrong, she showed what women of the time were thought of as..

I'd say this is an area where time needs to be taken into account. The series was on the air in the early-60s, during which time many schools, places of business and even whole sections of the COUNTRY were still segregated and African-Americans were LEGALLY discriminated against. Having a black woman in the main cast of the TV series in a role where she was as smart as (or smarter than) most of the cast in a job where she wasn't, say, bringing Captain Kirk his coffee... that was IMEASURABLY huge. The new Uhura, by contrast, has about the same "sized" role but via that stagnation it's a step backwards. The first iteration of this character had a much bigger role than almost any other black woman in entertainment in it's time, while by contrast the "new" version has much LESS import than the average female character in THIS time. In fact, this is one of the most phallocentric ("primarily male-focused") science fiction films in some time, which IMO is a bit sad.

who would like a boring film with amazing script and deep emotional charachters rather than to be entertained.

See, this is exactly the problem: An "AMAZING" script (your words) would be entertaining. The two concepts are not mutually-exclusive - a movie does not have to be DUMB to be fun, just as a fun movies does not need to dumb itself down to "work." "The Dark Knight" had one of the smartest scripts and some of the deepest, most emotional characters of any film that year and it was "fun" as all hell - AND it made more money than "Star Trek" will make, I can damn-near GARAUNTEE you that ;)

Well, I guess this is why I'm neither a movie buff or Star Trek fan; I can't really complain about it, seeing as I enjoyed it.

My dad grew up watching Star Trek, though, and he enjoyed it. He even said that the new Kirk smiles/smirks like the original Kirk did.

Let me review your review.
SPOILER WARNING
1. Too nasal, my ears are bleeding
2. Production values? Looks and sounds like it was done on an eepc that was on fire at the time
3. Spent most of that review watching blank red screens.... and they were the best bits
4. You are not Yahtzee, punctuate
5. Star Trek is not, nor has it ever been, high art. You are judging a popcorn blockbuster by arthouse values
6. You are not Yahtzee

Im going to have to agree with most people here, this review sucked.
I dont see how you can say Transformers was a bad movie, i thought it was an awesome movie.
Star Trek did have its moments of boredom, but overall i thought it was great. Im not a huge star trek fan, but i do know whats going on in the movie... maybe thats why i enjoyed it *shrug*
The only thing i would change about this star trek movie would change Zachary Quinto (Spock) for someone else, im too used to him being a bad guy as sylar in heroes (I do admit he did a good job tho).

See, the problem with this review is you are an overly self important uber-nerd wannabe. Yes, this film had some problems, although not the ones you mention (PS, if dropping a vial of goup which turns into a black hole, drilling into the centre of the planet seems unnecessary). Yes, there was some 'fate crap' going on, but it wasn't particularly heavy handed - really, the changes to the timeline primarily only effect Kirk. Everyone else who was there was more or less already in the right 'place' given it is a reboot and some changes necessarily occur.

And as for your other complaints: Yes, I agree that kirk was the weakest role in the film (except possibly spock's dad!) but you're comparing him to william shatner. Bad acting is practically required.

And I agree with the onion: Your basic problem with this film is that it wasn't a boring pile of suck, and might be accessible to other people. Plenty of big star trek nerds I know have seen this, and so far it is a roaring success with them. Sure, maybe no true scotsman...sorry, trekkie...will like it. Whatever.

But what boggles my mind is you don't even discuss the problems with the plot which are actual problems. Yea, yea, destiny. W/e, it's a story. But an exploding sun puts the whole galaxy in peril of destruction? and destroys a planet not in its solar system? And...

oh, wait. You're a trekkie. Bad science is part of the appeal.

MovieBob:

Daveman:
So I ask Moviebob, to quote awesomeness, are you not entertained?!

Yes. Mildly, with MASSIVE reservations. Hence the 6 out of 10. It's an OKAY movie being massively overhyped largely - from where I sit - because people are (for a variety of reasons) amazed that it was any good at all ;)

I suppose that makes sense then. I saw the movie last night and loved it. Loved the casting, the fanservice one-liners (I had happy moments with McCoy's "Dammit man, I'm a doctor" and Scotty's "I don't have the power!"), and I liked a lot of the little moments of character relationships that showed through (I don't know how to actually explain this part. An example I can think of is when Kirk is sitting in the captain's chair and Spock tells him to get out of it).

eh, that's about all I can think of

I really enjoyed this Star Trek flick... While it was far from perfect (and what movie is?) I think that MovieBob needs to lighten up a bit. This is the best "Trek" since First Contact and a spectacular shot in the arm for the franchise.

MovieBob, I'm sure that you could easily find a copy of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn, perhaps you should've just watched that instead...

All I will say is this, I don't think MovieBob and I saw the same film... I have been a Star Trek fan as long as I can remember (somewhere my Mother has a picture of me sitting in a cardboard box watching TOS when I was three...) and I loved this film. It was the first time in a very long time that Star Trek felt exciting to me again. Plus, people seem to forget that the "mythos" associated with the series took years to establish, where as these people are trying to open the eyes of a brand new audience to it in a matter of two short hours, and guess what, it's working. They've gotten the asses in the seats, and they will certainly return when they make the sequel where this new Star Trek will be free to expand the way the series' and other films did.

As a sidenote, I give it two years before we see Chris Pine in a romantic comedy opposite some A-list bimbo, he's just got it written all over him. Hell, he may have already signed for one...

You cuss too much.

There seems to be some disappointment with the new Star Trek film amongst fans of the original TV series. I did try to warn you...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.78264?page=1

By the way, I still haven't seen it and still won't unless...

No, Bob, NO. Stop it. Just stop it.

I fail to see all the coincidences he was referring to in this review. The only real over the top "coincidence" (incoming spoiler) involves Spock and Kirk on the ice planet.

Besides that, everything else makes sense. Bones is on the shuttle to join Star Fleet for his own reasons and meets Kirk there, thats not a coincidence, thats how people MEET other people and become friends. Maybe Bob doesn't make friends, I dunno.

Also, they all end up on the Enterprise because they are all top students, this makes sense as well. The Enterprise is the Flagship of the fleet, only the best get to serve on it. They are the best, hence they are there, its logical. What about Sulu? He was assigned because he was the best replacement, logical. Uhurah is the best at her spot, logical. Spock is one of the top students/Teachers in all of Star Fleet, obviously he is on there. These aren't coincidences, these are where these characters are SUPPOSE to be serving.

That part of the review was poorly thought out, you say 20+ of them when there is really only 1 thats a little...lets say "hokey".

I overall enjoyed the movie a lot. Bones was perfect, new Spock was good, Nimoy gave a rather unique version of himself in this one acting far more emotional which I found interesting. Uhurah was...okay, she did her job. I don't get the thing with Spock going on and felt that could have been explained, but its not enough to ruin the movie. Sulu was good, although its hard to take that actor out of the Harold and Kumar movies for me. I did however hate Chekov and found him very very annoying. Scotty was okay. Kirk was done well, I saw no real problem and felt and "changes" between him and Shatner can be easily explained via alternate reality.

I've give the movie 8.5/10 easily.

Oh, and yes, Wolverine sucked really really hard.
Here is looking forward to Terminator Salvation. :)

maybe its me but bob seems so wound up in his vision of how things were(ex old star trek) that he instantly views things that change what he is familiar with poorly. He cant open his mind to something different. I bet that if the new star trek was filmed on a $50 set with a $30 camera he would have loved it. He is a pessimist. He starts off saying the film is crap and points out all these reasons why it is crap and only says about 3 things good about it. I think that the reason star trek was rated so bad was that he never gave it a chance. He had this whole idea that it was going to be crap, because it had a different view on his childhood icons, and that is what he thinks it is now. I was the same way with transformers, i hated the lead actor, but i gave it a chance and i liked it, still dont like the actor but found a new favorite actress.

Moviebob this is the first review I have ever seen of yours....and it will be my last. You started the review with 2:30 of why this movie would be crap and then spent the next 3:30 telling us that it is crap. Then you say with your score that you were "generously" giving it a 6/10. I don't know if you checked www.rottentomatoes.com lately but Star Trek is raking in a solid 95% rating. Maybe this is the reason you are ranting like an idiot on a poorly made video instead of writing decent reviews with actual thought and reason. Perhaps you should have checked your blatant fanboyism at the door and enjoyed it for what it was. An exciting, entertaining, engrossing, and overall fantastic movie that made Star Trek relevant for the first time in over 10 years.

OH MY GOD! When I went to see this movie in the theaters (and I'm a HUGE HUGE TREKKIE (and I saw it out of a sense of obligation)) I said to my dad (who was there with me) "looks like they turned the bridge into an apple store!" Now that you've also made that joke in your review I feel very funny. Thank you very much!

P.S. I love your Game Overthinker videos!!

Movie Bob, your review did suck. you are one bile filled unhappy person. Now on to the movie. It was really entertaining. Funny, light, fast, likable character reboots leaving me wanting more. check out spill.com on how a fun movie review is done. Check out rottentomatoes.com to see how badly out of step your take on Star Trek was. Fresh 95% rating. So let's sum up: You are one nasty whiner who says "fuck" too much. Your review of Star Trek is completely off. A fun movie that doesn't cure cancer, but is certainly a great time at the movies. Try therapy. Get a puppy. Try to get laid. Do something. You are one sour person.

I really liked the new Star Trek film. It could have turned out a lot worse. Better this than simply a dead franchise.

I just saw this after watching Yahtzee's "review" of Duke Nukem Forever and although my opinion of the movie eerily matches with yours from the best actors in this to the Apple reference, to the plot and even the final score (aside from me liking Transformers... a lot) e.g. my iMDB post from May 7th: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/board/thread/137417013

Saw the movie yesterday in a „Preview" not expecting it to suck or rock and while it wasn't exactly „bad" I wasn't exactly impressed by it either.
The positive things or what I mostly liked about it were most of the jokes & comments while the characters interacted like the Kobayashi Maru, Chekov's scene (yes I laughed my ass off almost during the whole scene he was talking), most of McCoys and some of Spock's One-Liners etc.
Also I thought both Karl Urban and Simon Pegg did a pretty good job representing McCoy/Scotty and even Quinto wasn't half bad as Spock if he wouldn't have been portrayed as some kind of emo-child during the entirety of the movie and which he went nuts 3 times and beat the *beep* out of random characters for talking crap about his mother.

That aside I thought it was more of a "Mass Effect-Movie" in the Star Trek Universe, lots of explosions and action and stuff flying around and not enough plot or actual acting from most of the main characters and even ship design of the bad guy's ship reminded me of those
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/masseffect/images/f/f0/Reaper.jpg
rather than anything I've seen in any Star Trek series/movies before. Also there were a great lot of new Alien species in the Federation apparently that could've been freshly out of the Star Wars or Gate universe and the bridges reminded me a bit of those universes mixed with the Apple design concept of today.
I also felt some "music video"-influences, especially the scene with the car at the beginning and they really didn't have to start advertising stuff for extra money (NOKIA, Budweiser...)

Aside from all that I had the feeling like Abrams wanted to kick some "Star Trek" fans (those that believe Star Trek is a little more than space battles with spaceships and might've inspired great minds of today and technological advancements and interest in science) in the nuts with the needless destruction of Vulcan, a Spock-Uhura romance and a few random scenes like Kirk meeting Spock by chance after wandering a planet for a few hours, Kirk destroying a defenseless ship and that stuff.

With the somewhat convoluted story and a stereotypical bad-guy on top of that it gets a 6/10 from me and might've been more if I didn't expect Star Trek but a SciFi Action movie xD

That said I think your review kinda sucked. The style it was made in sucked, you constantly trying to "talk big and cool" using words like "f#ck" and crapping all over other people's careers as if you are someone to judge them sucked and the way it was made in seemed very unprofessional and somewhat degrading more than funny...

Just because it's not the Star Trek movie YOU wanted to see doesn't mean it's a bad movie. The movie was great. As someone who has never liked the other Star Treks, I thought it was a fun, action-filled ride, which is all it was supposed to be.
The filmmakers didn't set out making this movie so that it would win academy awards and tug at the heartstrings of stuffy film critics. They did it so that they could take an otherwise dead saga and give it new life and make it enjoyable, which they did with great results.

Well I'm very happy for you, and the other hundreds of thousand people saying the same, but if all other Trek sucked in your and the movie directors perception of things and it was supposed to be a "fun, action-filled ride" why not just use another franchise that was actually meant for it? Take StarGate or FarScape or make a whole new one and call it whatever you like? Why take 50+ years of Star Trek and urinate all over it, because the whole idea of "thoughtful, prophetic, thought-provoking actual SCIENCE fiction" Sci-Fi isn't for you and THAT ONE FRANCHISE that had it in comparison with the other 100s that were about action HAD to be changed to appeal to John and Jim?
Should they go ahead and make a series about Teenagers at Starfleet Academy with pregnancy problems, relationships and drama to appeal to Teenage Girls next?

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.

WHAT I WAS THINKING!! plus Transformers rocked!!!

i have just read all the comments to this review and i has discoved that 1 i have too much free times on my hands and 2 that 90% of people that have posted do not like how you review movies. This was the first one i have see and i did not care for it either. So im gonna ask can you please please stop reviewing cause quite frankly that was painful to watch. I know lots of people have been saying you copy yahtzee too much im gonna have to agree. The only diffrent between zero punctuation and this review was you lack a charismatic accent and comical stick figures.... you even use high english adjectives but where Yahtzee's sounds natural, you sound like you have a thesaurus next to the computer.

Now the actual content of your review was Biased you clearly hated the movie before you went in to see it therefore your opion of it would have been jaded to every little fault. You cannot let orignal bad opion demerit a very entertaining movie, and when looking at the broad scheme of things thats the purpose of a movie to entertain you. Yahtzee's reviews are quite opionated but his opion relays the truth so he can get away with it.

so do yourselt a favour mate and stop reviewing.

 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