First Review Of Star Trek

First Review Of Star Trek

Over the weekend Trek fans were invited to a screening of what many consider to be the best movie in the Star Trek back catalogue, Wrath Of Khan. Imagine their surprise and delight when after the opening credits the film burned up and Leonard Nimoy came onstage to apologize ... asking them if they wouldn't like to just watch the new movie instead!

Review Opinion
By MarkCassidy - Apr 07, 2009 02:04 PM EST
Filed Under: Star Trek
Source: Empire

There are a couple of reviews online now but I think Empire magazine critics tend to be among the best out there, so here is their review. It's pretty much spoiler free ... but if you want to go in completely blind--skip it.

According to recently discovered 23rd-century history, James Tiberius Kirk was literally born of battle — the last fight he ever backed away from was the one he was delivered into. In purely Darwinian terms though, Jeffrey Jacob Abrams was forged by a 21st-century crucible far more unforgiving than a field of photon torpedoes: network television — not HBO, television.

Two movies in to what promises to be a storied career and the 42 year-old director has yet to find any gear but fifth. It’s as if his apprenticeship pacifying the ADD generation has inculcated a native fear of flipping. The heart-stopping second act of Abrams’ underrated M:I-III is a real-time mercy dash that would even leave Bourne breathless. For his latest mission impossible, Abrams sustains this improbable pace for even longer: Star Trek — yes, your dad’s Star Trek — moves like a racehorse that’s just been force-fed dilithium crystals.

Advance word that Abrams’ franchise reboot would witness fulfilment of the near-mythical Starfleet Academy project proves misplaced. The director and his Trekkie-credentialed writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, are so impatient to pitch their neophyte crew into full-blown battle that the Academy years are largely covered by a single title card — “Three Years Later”. Phasers permanently set on stun are not much fun, after all.

From the moment ‘Bones’ McCoy comically smuggles an academically suspended Kirk onto Captain Pike’s U.S.S. Enterprise, Star Trek XI hits warp factor IX and, save for an obligatory sojourn with Spock senior, maintains a velocity that would give Scotty night terrors. This is perhaps NCC-1701’s most radical refit yet — for the first time in the franchise, the Enterprise is a genuine thrill-ride.

Not that the crew are just along for the V-necks. Abrams can do character on the run and the plot deftly deals in decent-sized roles for all of the famous seven. Karl Urban’s gruff McCoy and Zachary Quinto’s piercing Spock stand out, and despite internet rumbling, Chris Pine is also absolutely fine. Of course, as you might expect, the acting mostly requires shouting declarative Trekbabble or wedging witticisms between set-pieces, but both Bruce Greenwood’s stoic Captain Pike and Eric Bana’s wounded Nero forage earthier notes amid the SFX sheen.

That Trek weakness for warping plotlines does bring the usual convolutions, but whenever the Vulcan side of your brain is tempted to pose frequently asked questions about time travel, the breakneck pace drags you forward through the movie’s own brisk running time. On the downside, Abrams is not quite able to apply the brakes in time for the third act, which prematurely climaxes before you have time to drink it in. Kirk has a nice Indy moment and the Enterprise does a good impression of the Millennium Falcon in the Battle Of Yavin, but Spock’s dogfight with a drill is unlikely to enter Starfleet legend — what is pointy ears doing flying anything? — and Bana’s Nero deserved at least one villain’s mulligan.

Those hoping for a battle of wits to equal Kirk and Khan — or for hardcore Trekkers, to rival the Balance Of Terror episode that introduced the Romulans — will be left wanting. This is a Sulu-sized miscalculation. The Enterprise is a handsome ship, as evidenced by the hero shot Abrams gives her in the rings of Saturn (let’s call it the screensaver), but she was built for games of Battleship, not Asteroids.

Indeed, where XI ultimately falls short of the very best Trek, or indeed of all great science-fiction since Jules Verne, is in its want of big ideas. As a MacGuffin the movie boasts red matter — like a massive snooker ball, only deadlier — but it doesn’t find enough time to showcase the grey variety.

Very much like its dynamic young cast, this Trek is physical and emotional, sexy and vital even, but it is not cerebral. The movie is not exactly empty-headed; indeed it has some smarts, but it doesn’t live up to the high-mindedness that was part of Gene Roddenberry’s original mission statement.

Where overarching themes can be discerned, they primarily relate to the nature of friendship and teamwork, which is all very well, but it’s a grunt’s eye view of battle. Even a captain would appreciate the importance of battlefield tactics and how they intersect with military strategy and, ultimately, political vision.

For anyone who has endured the longueurs of both the Star Wars prequels and Matrix sequels, the distinct lack of politicking and speechifying will doubtless come as a blessed relief, but in a time when the United States is engaged in two wars, the failure to even acknowledge the issues arising from space imperialism and the Prime Directive is to flinch from battle. Harsher critics may even deem it a dereliction of duty. Season three of the rebooted Battlestar Galactica turned half its cast into Iraqi-style insurgents — and that was on television.

Ultimately, any boldness one can attach to the going here really belongs to the rescue of the Trek franchise from cultural irrelevance. This is a not insignificant achievement. As Abrams has noted himself, making 45 year-old tricorders desirable for the iPhone generation is a hell of a tough gig. Doing this while simultaneously pandering to the doctorates in Klingon is a task of Herculean, nay Sisyphean, proportions.

But Abrams and his crew pull it off. Save for the typically muddy motives of the modern bad guy — oh, for a truly Evil Empire — there is nothing much to confuse the multiplex masses, while there are plenty of in-jokes and visual details for the forum-dwellers to chew over. More to the point, the film is sassy, young and hip in a way the franchise has not been since the ’60s. It’s neither The Hills in space nor fan fiction with a $150 million budget. Kudos is due.

There will, of course, be some disquiet from the faithful, and not just because Kirk’s birth is yucky and his besting of Kobayashi Maru comes off as cocky. Fans of the TV show will note planet-sized deviations from accepted Trek lore. To excuse their creative licence, writers Orci and Kurtzman have Uhura explain that Nero’s time-travelling misdemeanours has fashioned an “alternate reality”. It’s a nifty enough trick often used on the show, but what will really bamboozle the keepers of the canon is that unlike the many episodes that dabbled in fractured timelines, there’s no smallscreen amnesia to put things back in place for next week. The franchise has been permanently shifted to new rails: this is a world where Kirk doesn’t grow up to look like William Shatner. Trekkies had better get used to it. Welcome to the new ’verse.

The fanbase placated and a brand-new generation blooded, there is undoubtedly even better to come. The characters feel thin right now, not just because of the limited range of the new cast, but because ultimately they are characters playing characters, actors imitating icons. Once the new Enterprise crew are established in their own right and the franchise freed of all that expectation, the characters should start to feel properly human again — or at least, half-human.

Verdict
Odd-number curse be gone. The most exhilarating Trek to date marks a new future for Kirk and co. If this can boldly go on to seek out ideas to match its speed and style, a franchise is reborn.

4/5 Stars

X-MEN Franchise Producer And DARK PHOENIX Director Simon Kinberg Boards Upcoming STAR TREK Prequel Movie
Related:

X-MEN Franchise Producer And DARK PHOENIX Director Simon Kinberg Boards Upcoming STAR TREK Prequel Movie

STAR TREK 4: Chris Pine Weighs In On Movie Getting Yet Another Writer: I Thought There Was Already A Script
Recommended For You:

STAR TREK 4: Chris Pine Weighs In On Movie Getting Yet Another Writer: "I Thought There Was Already A Script"

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 4/7/2009, 2:09 PM
Well, im frakking delighted to say, it looks like i may have been wrong! I know i havnt seen it for myself yet but Empire were as against Pine playing Kirk as i was
UncleEd
UncleEd - 4/7/2009, 3:33 PM
i cant wait for this movie. i wasn't too big a fan until Voyager and TNG, so to see another S.T. movie come to theaters is a god send. hell, i'll even drag my chubaka lovin', light saber wielding, friends to see it with me, as i was dragged for 3 nauseating, craptastic, CGI overloaded, not-even-important-enough-to-mention movies lol.
Talontd
Talontd - 4/7/2009, 3:39 PM
@ROR

I'm an Empire fan as well, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough to get my $10!

Who am i kidding, i was gonna see this in IMAX regarless, lol.....better make that $17!
SirExcalibur
SirExcalibur - 4/7/2009, 4:17 PM
YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I better get to work on my costume:P
shibazz
shibazz - 4/7/2009, 4:22 PM
ooooh yeah , kick ass space fights and Spylar..... what more could i ask for. oh yeah, boobs
Hyson
Hyson - 4/7/2009, 7:23 PM
TLDR: I have never watched any Trek. I am excited about this. Also, I will have to look into the comics that are released beforehand. When are those to be released?
SpiderBat209
SpiderBat209 - 4/7/2009, 8:10 PM
Welcome Back, STAR TREK! woot woot! :)
darthstern
darthstern - 4/7/2009, 11:57 PM
I dont know man the thing about trek was it was a thinking mans show not so much an action show. To much action could hurt it and the empire review did brng this up well i still go see it tho cant be worse the star wars the motion picture can it
ohh yeah and
nick cage for spock
Shaman
Shaman - 4/8/2009, 6:41 AM
Yeah... I'll take "ENGLISH" for 500, Alex!!! How' bout you kickstart your "Translation Modulator" and give that a go!?!?!?! I mean, i love kung-fu movies but i don't read reviews written in FREAKIN' MANDARIN!!!

Here's what i could get:

Bla bla bla *using idiotic fanboy terms that don't mean shit in a scientologistic manner* bla bla bla, the characters in their 20ies aren't as "witty" as when they were in their 40ies bla bla bla, there is more action than character development bla bla bla, the origins of the characters are slightly different than what was "accepted" but never shown before in the franchise's history bla bla bla, the young actors were decent but not as good as the more experienced predecessors bla bla bla...

I'm sorry, am i the only one that feels that the perfect word to use to comment on this shithole review is: "DDDUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!"

They can try to act smart, using official trekkie sounding terms, if you don't have the logic and common sense to "accept" the facts, then you make yourself look like a talking turd on a stick. Might as well finish the review saying "HIIIIDY HOOOOOO". Here are the FACTS, and they are undisputed:

1- Young people most oftenly appear a tad less witty than when they get older! As wisdom is most commonly acquired through life experiences which these younger characters OBVIOUSLY haven't been through yet!!! IT'S THEIR FREAKIN ORIGINS!!!!!!

2- Young people are prone to having to SEARCH for their path and go through much "action" in their lives before they get to know themselves and become adults! So NATURALLY, there will be more ACTION than character development!!! IT'S THEIR FREAKIN ORIGINS!!!!!!

3- When ORIGINS appear AFTER what was already known of the characters existence, most oftenly they vary a bit to spice things up. It is also one of the reasons that most comicbook movies deviate a tad from the source. They have to take "the whole accepted origins" of EVERY character that was explained through countless years of shows, movies and books and incert ALL THAT into a single 2hour movie!!! After all... IT'S THEIR FREAKIN ORIGINS!!!!!!

4- Naturally, younger actors have less amount of experience than older ones!!! It is very rare that you can find a "phenom" that is as gifted from birth as an actor that had to achieve greatness at what he does through trial and error.

So in case anyone of you missed this detail... IT'S THEIR FREAKIN ORIGINS!!!!!!

And out of all that "FANBITCH RANTING", they even gave it 4 stars out of 5. See now normally, for a prequel movie of a highly successful franchise that has been around for decades, 4 OUT OF 5 FREAKIN' STARS IS MONUMENTAL!!! And certainly not worth all that blabberbitching.

That was MY review of the review! I give the review a -2 stars out of 10!!!

Shibazz- I would've enjoyed boobs in there too but i guess it wouldn't be appropriate. You should go check out the new Friday the 13th, there were so many tits in there i didn't know which way to look at!!! And apparently, it's even in the script that the tits in that movie have perfect nipple placement :)) IMHO, it's a win win situation!
vonstallin
vonstallin - 4/8/2009, 7:38 AM
I was with JJ from the start....I always felt that he could pull it off...Finaly a star treck (modern day) that go beyond the standard trek mode...
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 4/8/2009, 7:40 AM
lol, i must have been reading a different review to you Shaman because the only time he mentions a single Star Trek fanboyism is when he says "Warp Factor 9"..Plus, where was the bitching you mention! That was a glowing review! It wasnt a "This movie is awesome..its so awesome..see it..its awesome" review, it was a balanced rundown of what he thought was good and bad about the movie..like all reviews should be i feel

That being said, this dude does get a little wordy..maybe even pretentious sometimes, but he knows his movies.
Shaman
Shaman - 4/8/2009, 12:05 PM
Fanboy-isms:

-Jeffrey Jacob Abrams was forged by a 21st-century crucible far more unforgiving than A FIELD OF PHOTON TORPEDOES: network television...

-moves like a racehorse that’s just been force-fed dilithium crystals...

-Phasers permanently set on stun are not much fun, after all...

-Star Trek XI hits warp factor IX and...

-This is perhaps NCC-1701’s most radical refit yet... (As if the ship's number was commonly known)

-"warping" plotlines...

-the Vulcan side of your brain is tempted to pose frequently asked questions about time travel...

-the Enterprise does a good impression of the Millennium Falcon in the Battle Of Yavin...

-This is a Sulu-sized miscalculation...

-Doing this while simultaneously pandering to the doctorates in Klingon is a task of Herculean, nay Sisyphean, proportions...

-his besting of Kobayashi Maru comes off as cocky... (WTFH???)


Negative comments (although they seem to be all accompanied by positive ones, it just makes them seem even more like insignificant banter to fill a page):

-the Academy years are largely covered by a single title card — “Three Years Later”. (might not be meant as negative but it is since it's an origin story which "should" provide enough initiation.)

-That Trek weakness for warping plotlines does bring the usual convolutions...

-the third act prematurely climaxes before you have time to drink it in...

-Bana’s Nero deserved at least one villain’s mulligan (what was that supposed to mean? To me it just sounds like he didn't get something he deserved, hense the negative feel to it.)

-Those hoping for a battle of wits to equal Kirk and Khan — or for hardcore Trekkers, to rival the Balance Of Terror episode that introduced the Romulans — will be left wanting.

-It doesn’t find enough time to showcase the grey variety.(meaning it's not inteligent or as they put it "not cerebral".)

-doesn’t live up to the high-mindedness that was part of Gene Roddenberry’s original mission statement. (They have more than one paragraph dedicated to the "simple mindedness" of the film. In my book, that's pretty damn negative. Say it once sure, twice alright but have more than one paragraph about it??? They took more time searching google for synonyms of the word "dumb" than they took praising the movie!)

-a grunt’s eye view of battle...

-Even a captain would appreciate the importance of battlefield tactics and how they intersect with military strategy and, ultimately, political vision...

-in a time when the United States is engaged in two wars, the failure to even acknowledge the issues arising from space imperialism and the Prime Directive is to flinch from battle...

-Harsher critics may even deem it a dereliction of duty.(No no, those aren't my words, they're from my harsher collegues)

-typically muddy motives of the modern bad guy...

-There will, of course, be some disquiet from the faithful...

-Fans of the TV show will note PLANET-sized deviations from accepted Trek lore...
(meaning MONUMENTAL)

-To excuse their creative licence, writers Orci and Kurtzman have Uhura explain that Nero’s time-travelling misdemeanours has fashioned an “alternate reality”. It’s a nifty enough trick often used on the show, but what will really bamboozle the keepers of the canon is that unlike the many episodes that dabbled in fractured timelines, there’s no smallscreen amnesia to put things back in place for next week...

-The characters feel thin right now, not just because of the limited range of the new cast, but because ultimately they are characters playing characters, actors imitating icons. (IMHO, TOTAL DISS!!!)


So although his review IS POSITVE (4/5 stars), it is written in such a whiny bitchy contradictory manner that i feel like i'm listening to Fran Dresher... "I mean it's good... but this sucks... but it's good... but that needs changing... but it's good... but it shouldn't be like that... but it is sooo good... but that was lacking." LIKE MAKE UP YOUR [frick]ING MIND!!!!!!

How'bout you write a whole paragraph without any contradicting insinuations YOU INCOMPETANT [frick]TART!!! Bring back that guy they fired from FOX, at least his review of Wolverine was decently written!!! If your review is equaly balanced, the movie deserves nothing more than 2.5 on 5. If you put more negative comments than positive, how the hell could it have more than 2 stars??? THIS GUY GAVE IT FREAKIN 4 STARS!!!!! BUT SHAT ALL OVER IT THE WHOLE TIME!!!!
SirJediFrank
SirJediFrank - 4/8/2009, 1:20 PM
Shaman so is it an Origins movie? hehe. Yeah i think i see your point.
I think it is pretty obvious that since the actors/characters are young, a lot of the "usual" critic that could be made to a different sequel or prequel DO NOT apply here.
The review´s author is simply higlighting in words what will eventually be obvious for us, by watching the movie.
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 4/8/2009, 1:51 PM
I dunno, i didnt see any bitching,,just critisism.No movie is perfect..even if the likes of Harry Knowels would have you believe that he creams himself regularly in the cinema!. He points out things that some people may have issue with and contrasts them with the things he doubts anyone will..but hes saying non of it spoiled his enjoyment of a great movie. I like these sort of reviews because you know the critics are not gushing because they are fans or because they allowed certain negative aspects to pass them by because they were so enamored with the positives. The wolverine review?? Well written??

"Wolverine is awesome and not as hard to understand as TDN"

Pretty much sums it up! lol, maybe we like different things in a review..i know he is unnessecarilly long winded and like i said, he is a bit fond of his own voice/words..but ill accept that if i know that the movie was scrutinized as much as possible. If its till gets a good review after that then its gonna be good!
Shaman
Shaman - 4/8/2009, 1:54 PM
Sirjed- LMFAO!!! YES IT IS LOL :P

Exactly my point SirJed :)) And the review, especially coming from that mag, should have been written in a manner that EVERYONE wouldn't have to think twice and not just for trekkies. IMO, he purposely repeated himslef using diferent words because he knows that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. If he'd straight-lined that article, we'd have been lucky to even get three paragraphs and he'd have been lucky to keep his job.

When i saw his verdict i went like "WTF?!?!?! 4/5 stars?!?!?! What a minute, let me read this shit again!" And when Roar said he didn't percieve it as negative then i went "Okay, so let me read it a third time!!!" LOL :P But when you look at my list, it's STRIKING how many there are when they're singled out like that. Amongst other positive comments, you'd never guess just how negative that review was. Hell i was shocked when i scrolled down my post and actually counted LOLOL :P

LOL Roar, i meant in a manner we could understand LOL Not "well written" as in Shakespear LMFAO!!!!

You do raise a good point though, if after smearing that much shit on his review he STILL gives it 4 stars than it's a stellar movie!!! And i'm happy about that!!! :)) But i do feel that a review that is meant to establish the ups AND downs of the movie shouldn't bare a rating. But that's just me ;)
MarkCassidy
MarkCassidy - 4/8/2009, 2:05 PM
Mmmm, maybe that sort of review should not have a rating actually..i guess its just for people that go by Empire quite a bit but dont fancy reading the entirety of that novella that this dude likes to write!..just a glance at the star rating

check this out anyway, i dont know if your a fan of the original series but Urban nails McCoy!

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=6938
SirJediFrank
SirJediFrank - 4/8/2009, 3:55 PM
About a month ago i read a Watchmen´s review waaaaay longer than this one (hell i didn´t keep the link, but it was from an Arizona or Phoenix media critic) and he talked and talked ... AND I LOVED IT!

I rarely read full reviews unless they kind of hook me in the first 3 paragraphs.. that guy tried to keep as neutral as possible, making you as a reader realize those little-cinematographic- details Watchmen has.

That review took his time to comment about the acting OF EACH actor,the development of the character´s personality on screen, and compared reasonably the graphic novel and the final movie product... my point is:

WHEN YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN A JOKE YOU JUST HAVE TOLD, TO THE PEOPLE WHO LISTENED TO IT, THEN IT WASN´T A GOOD ONE!!

So, the Stars-rating is kind of contradictory FOR ANY LONG review per se, since THE READER should be abe to rate the movie based on the reviewer´s words afterwards....
...or of course as Ror said, instead just a little paragraph, (you know, the movie´s title, director, country and year, a few sinopsis AND THEN the 4/5 stars)....

.. oh what the hell.. i´ll try to find that Watchmen´s review again to "bring out" (is that a sentence?) to you guys..
SirExcalibur
SirExcalibur - 4/8/2009, 4:56 PM
I totally agree with you Shaman. I don't know about the review but everything you said about it being Origins and stuff was dead on. Couple things in the other comment -This is perhaps NCC-1701’s most radical refit yet... (As if the ship's number was commonly known)" Umm for most people who know Star Trek the 1701 is very well known lol. And "-his besting of Kobayashi Maru comes off as cocky... (WTFH???)" That one I can understand more people now knowing about, but that is from Wrath of Khan. It's a training exercise that only Kirk had ever beaten.
SirExcalibur
SirExcalibur - 4/8/2009, 5:04 PM
Oh and Ror.....that clip was sweet! I really love the original series, Urban does nail Bones, love it!
wolverine81
wolverine81 - 4/8/2009, 5:54 PM
I actually think that is a great way to reboot the franchise but (A BIG BUT) keep them in the theaters. DO NOT I REPEAT DO NOT make it a TV show again. Keep it big budget and SFX loaded and they should be great especially with Abrams (b/c thats where the story is going to come from and might be written halfway decent) at the helm.
Shaman
Shaman - 4/9/2009, 7:37 AM
Thanks for the link Roar, but i can't check it at work. Hopefully, i'll be able to check it out later on :)

SirExcalibur- "Umm for most people who know Star Trek the 1701 is very well known lol" Well that's what i'm saying. You would have had to be a fan of the shows to know that off hand. I got on to "liking" the Voyager and DS9 shows but never followed NextGen. I watched Star Trek as a child since we didn't have cable. I was never a fan of the show per say but a fan of the concept. I was however a humongus BABYLON5 fan!!! But for people like me or for average movie goers who are into sci-fi movies but don't know much about that franchise, this review might as well have been written in Mandarin. LOL

wolverine81- I TOTALY AND UTTERLY 100% FULL ON AGREE WITH YOU!!! Keep the Trek on the big screen, don't bother putting that back on the tube because it's passé.

In short, i'll be going to see this!!! Maybe not opening night but i'll go see it :))
SirExcalibur
SirExcalibur - 4/9/2009, 1:37 PM
Yeah you're right Shaman. Guess I have been watching it for all my life so ya :P I want to see Babylon 5 again, I remember my Dad watching that when I was really young, but I don't remember much of the show. And yeah I agree it should stay on big screen, have a new one coming out every 1 or 2 years;) Would be amazing hehe. If they could have all the awesomness in a tv show tho it would be amazing, some of the original series episodes are better than a couple of the movies! lol. but more people will go see it in theater so more money to keep it goin:D
Spock
Spock - 4/11/2009, 10:41 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing a new Star Trek series, but thats just me. This can be only consider an origins for the NCC-1701 crew for it show them together for the 1st time. I can say this there have been more Star Trek series than Star Wars. You really can't keep doing stuff on the same Clone Wars over & over again. Time to move forward past all of that. Not to mention the new Star Gate Series-----I seriously hope it isnt' like Voyager. That has been done already in deed.
cowlady
cowlady - 4/13/2009, 8:24 PM
Shaman et al...if the review were all bravos or all lousy, you'd say it was purile and unrealistic, or the reviewer just had it in for the entire project. Of course it was mixed! I know just so few perfect films. But, as an old-timer, die-hard, and lover of allegory, I am a bit disappointed to find out what I had already suspected...that the cerebral may have been sacrificed to the flash-in-the-pan in order to procure a new generation. Roddenberry, like Rod Serling, had a clear objective--to use a sci-fi context to explore controversial content. To go where no man has gone before. And Trek wasn't perfect. Like the review of this film, it had awesome episodes, wonderful episodes and flat episodes. When it soared, it SOARED. Perhaps there is chance for this new franchise to find its wings. I miss Archer and the Enterprise gang, actually.
cowlady
cowlady - 4/13/2009, 8:24 PM
Shaman et al...if the review were all bravos or all lousy, you'd say it was purile and unrealistic, or the reviewer just had it in for the entire project. Of course it was mixed! I know just so few perfect films. But, as an old-timer, die-hard, and lover of allegory, I am a bit disappointed to find out what I had already suspected...that the cerebral may have been sacrificed to the flash-in-the-pan in order to procure a new generation. Roddenberry, like Rod Serling, had a clear objective--to use a sci-fi context to explore controversial content. To go where no man has gone before. And Trek wasn't perfect. Like the review of this film, it had awesome episodes, wonderful episodes and flat episodes. When it soared, it SOARED. Perhaps there is chance for this new franchise to find its wings. I miss Archer and the Enterprise gang, actually.
Shaman
Shaman - 4/22/2009, 6:37 AM
A mixed review giving a mixed opinion deserves a mixed rating. Not 4 stars out of 5 which is still concidered GREAT. When 4 stars out of 5 will become known as an "average" rating, THEN it would be adequate for this review. I'm not gonna "review" Chrysler's new car saying so much shit about it and then finish off by giving them an award for "best car they ever produced". I wouldn't even bother.
View Recorder