Star Trek Meekly Goes Where Other Movies Have Gone Before
One thing that could have made all of the action scenes more interesting would have been a leading man with a rakish glow. As Spock, Zachary Quinto is fine, but it’s a largely thankless part. C-3PO had more chances to act, and it’s hard to picture little girls craving news on who Quinto’s dating. As for Kirk, he’s played by Chris Pine. Who? He’s not just an unknown. He’s an unknown unknown. Casting a big-budget movie that largely depends on the charisma of a guy who isn’t one of the top 1,000 actors in Hollywood was a gamble that seemingly indicates Abrams wanted no name to upstage his on the marquee, and he got his wish. Chris Pine wants to be Tom Cruise but he isn’t even Mark Hamill. The special effects save him to a degree, but Pine doesn’t hold your attention. He’s handsome in such an unremarkable way as to suggest he should be playing the second-oldest brother in a prime-time soap about a large family. Many an actor who never quite made it on the big screen — Charlie Sheen, say — has ten times the devilish charm of Chris Pine.
Pine is symptomatic of the essence of J.J. Abrams: He has a TV soul. He casts TV-ish actors. The staging of his thrill sequences is fine for the small screen but light years shy of real masters like Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, or Paul Greengrass. And he loves TV writers, workaday scribes like this script’s authors — Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (Lost). They are not, to put it politely, overly-burdened with talent. They got started on stuff like Xena: Warrior Princess and to a degree they’re still there. So when they attempt wit, all that comes out is camp. Meeting Uhura, a linguist, Kirk says, “You’ve got a talented tongue.” The writers’ idea of a snappy comeback is “Tell me something I don’t know.” Their notion of characterization is to throw the word “logical” into every line Spock delivers and they actually include the lines “I’d like to kick some Romulan ass!” and “Are you out of your Vulcan mind?”
Trekkies emerging from the theater were heard murmuring things like, “It’s great that it was kinda campy, just like the show.” That’s making a virtue out of necessity. If Abrams and his writers knew how to create something as fiercely non-campy as The Dark Knight, don’t you think they would?
Star Trek
Directed by: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana
2.5 stars/ 4
127 minutes/Rated PG-13
Speaking of “campy”, the new “Enterprise” looks like a drawing from a mid-Seventies MAD Magazine “Star Trek” parody. When they can’t even get production design right, you know they’re in trouble.
I’ll wait for the DVD. In the bargain bin.
clear ether
eon
This movie was a lot of fun. There are a few plot holes but “Star Trek” succeeds in combining humor with action. The story is never dull, the visuals are beautiful, and the acting is competent. Chris Pine is now a star. If anything, the movie was too short and could have been twenty minutes longer filling in the backstory of the characters.
This movie will satisfy most moviegoers seeking entertainment.
I rate this review 1 out of 4 stars.
Since the idea for this movie was first proposed, there has been nothing about it that has made me want to see it. I’m a big fan of the original series, and as far as I’m concerned, the cast and characters of TOS are an ineffable part of American pop culture. Rebooting the series, altering characters (the great Montgomery Scott is now reduced to mere comic relief), altering fundamental elements of the backstory, and sexing it up with A&F catalog rejects simply insults the memory of a truly groundbreaking sci-fi show.
Nope. I will not be drawn in by J.J. Abrams’ production of sound and fury. Not this time.
=M=
As the late Kurt Vonnegut stated: The best thing about science fiction is that it assures us that there will be a future.
Star Trek is on my list of cultural investments because there has to be something that I will like about it. For example, there will be a future!
Star Trek? It’s freaking Star Trek! It was fine when I was 10. Now? Add a large dash of Harry Potter and a heaping spoonful of Who Cares? Now tell us. Are there any adult movies worth seeing?
Being a Trek fan from the sixties, I’ll give it a chance. Abrams makes entertainment for the masses. The rest of my Trekkie buddies need to have a big hot cup of STFU and let him work his magic. Magic, you say? Yes, magic. This wasn’t made for old trek fans, it is trying to make NEW ones. If what I’ve heard from my half dozen non-trek addict friends is any indication, they’ve finally broken out of the Trek quicksand, and maybe forged a new generation of fans.
Take a deep breath, open your mind, and go WATCH the film. It’s better than all but one of the Trek movies. Seriously.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Falconsword
What I want to know is whether it has the statist over-tones that are so prevalent in all other Star Trek and have meant I never liked it. I prefer, naturally, Babylon 5 and Firefly, both with libertarian/anti-statist themes running through them.
But what I really want to do…does it have a liberal bias???
The movie was awesome, there is some kind of misderection for purpose going on in this review It is nowhere close to representing what the movie was like.
The movie is funny, fast paced, and does not preach any statest or utopian morals which is actually a departure from many of the previous Star Treks. All of this and a blend of special effects that feel like a natual part of the movie instead of a “push the flash and visual eye candy” in your face to sell the movie.
The movie is easily 4.5 out of 5 stars, the review is 1 out of 5
The movie was awesome, there is some kind of misderection for purpose going on in this review It is nowhere close to representing what the movie was like.
The movie is funny, fast paced, and does not preach any statest or utopian morals which is actually a departure from many of the previous Star Treks. All of this and a blend of special effects that feel like a natual part of the movie instead of a “push the flash and visual eye candy” in your face to sell the movie.
The movie is easily 4.5 out of 5 stars, the review is 1 out of 5
I haven’t seen it yet, but I just have to mention that ‘Rotten Tomatoes’ (which is a collection of reviews from all over the world, incuding all the majors) pegs ‘Star Trek’ as of this writing with a 95% approval rating, with 186 good reviews to 9 bad.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/news/1819251/critics_consensus_star_trek_is_the_best_reviewed_wide_release_of_2009
Hey, I’m just sayin’.
Well congrats you are in the 5% that don’t like it…so now I am even more stoked for it!
Soooo…every other Star Trek movies that mixed original cast and those from “Next Generation” was a mega-super-blockbuster?
This is a reboot, yes. Having watched the movie during a prescreen, I went in with assumptions and expectations, and in being a Star Trek fan, I was most surprised and impressed with the film.
It is a reboot, it is not meant to rehash a previous story line. In fact, what this movie does is open up posibilities to the future of Star Trek.
Saw the movie this morning. I am a Star Trek Fan and I enjoyed it. I like how Chris Pine seemed to embody the Kirk character. Urbana’s “Bones” was pretty well done. It seemed to have the right mix of action and story. Trust me when I say, you will not be bored. As for the review, 1 star.
“And when one giant beast nabs another as it’s about to eat Captain Kirk on an ice planet, the moment is practically spliced in from Jurassic Park.” I thought of Phantom Menace.
You just can’t enjoy a movie without injecting a bunch of politics into it. I refer to the “affirmative action” issue. *M*A*S*H* was a great example. The first seasons were the best…. then later they had to droll it out with points to make. Don’t get me wrong, points are good to make, but they can be so heavy handed.
Are you sure you watched the same movie as me? It was a fun, entertaining movie well worth the (overpriced) admission. Who cares if it doesn’t follow Roddenberry’s Star Trek canon. Guess what, the Star Trek franchise was getting BORING and PREACHY! It needed this shot of adrenaline!
As I have seen on other blogs…
This title about sums it up.
“Star Trek 90210″
GTR
I am entertaining serious doubts as to whether the reviewer actually troubled himself to attend a screening of the movie he so bizarrely panned for characteristics which it manifestly did not possess.
This film was as close to apolitical as any I have seen in recent years. Spock’s admission to the Institute was merit-based, not “affirmative action.” He just turned it down because of the insulting condescension of the Council and the implied insult to his mother. No Nanny-state Liberal bias there.
So, then JJ Abrams eschews the Hollywood big-name narcissist society in favor of giving some new folks (who happen to be very talented) a shot and not bloat the budget and distract us from a ripping good story? And this is a BAD thing in Kyle Smith Land? Duly noted. Maybe he’d like to look at Hugo Chavez’ social calendar from some more reputable candidates.
I urge all readers to ignore this review with extreme prejudice, as I will all future reviews by this obviously clueless (and possibly delusional) writer. This is an EXTREMELY satisfying film on every level, accessible to Trek neophytes, hard-core Trekkers, and everyone in between.
I will take the Orig movies and actors over these any day.
Star Trek II, III, IV, VI, Generations, and First Contact, were all better Star Trek movies.
Blowing up Vulcan and having 2 Spocks in the same time period was a stupid plot line, sorry
for the spoiler but you aint missing much by knowing that.
It sucks! It’s awesome! The movie was shot too blue! There was too much symbology! The chicks were hot! The girls were ugly!
Who cares.
It is getting to summer and I could care less what any of the second-rated hack movie “critics” have say.
I imagine that those who had to pay their own way to watch, hated it. And, those who got a pass to watch it, loved it.
I will pay to get out of 100+ F heat in Phoenix to sit in a 60 degree F theater.
If only they served beer in theaters, then no movie would suck. Except anything with Garafalo not getting her head evacuated with a boulder, or Clooney playing a multimillionaire crime solving international fashion model art thief, or a suddenly ex-comatose Damon awaking in a gutter outside a Thai tranny whorehouse suddenly chasing a mysoginistic slightly gay sounding English secret agent trying to order a mixed drink.
Wow! This crap practically writes itself! Who needs the movies anymore!
I’m surprised at this review! We loved this movie, plenty of action, human intrest, and the Leanord Nimoy part was creative and more then just the usual cameo. I clearly saw at least some part of Roddenberry’s orignal vision. It’s just more vamped up for modern times. This will bring in more fans and that’s great for “Star Trek”. It may not be perfect, but if your a Trek fan for all these years, just be happy we GET a movie, and that the franchise is not dead!
4.5 out of 5…alot of fun! Go see it
My problem is this isn’t a reboot like they claim. When they rebooted the Bond franchise they were discarding the decades of cruft and returning to the origional source material. When they rebooted Batman they discarded the silliness of the later films and went back to the origional source material. The new Bond was instantly recognizable as Bond, the new Batman was just as clearly a return to a pure Batman. For Bond they even went back to the canonical Casino Royale and updated it for a new era.
Ok, so what was the original source material being returned to with this Trek ‘reboot’? Anyone? Bueller? No, there is another word for this, reimagining. See Superman Returns for how that works out.
And good grief, all I had to know was it is yet another time travel episode to know this is one to catch on video.
The cast looks like a bunch of high school and college kids trying to portray the original crew. Capt. Kirk kid is just to wimpy looking.
I am 57. I was 16 when the first show played in 1966. Trust me, people, time after time I have learned, once again, you can’t go home. Home has changed, you have changed. Leave Star Trek in the wild and weird 60′s, It was perfect for that decade. I loved the space battles, the sexy scenes and clothes, the silly jokes, even the wrinkled picture of the Andromeda galaxy on the over Spock’s work station and the philosophical moments “exploration is our business”. I loved the fact that science fiction had come of age, finally, taken seriously! Remember that 2001 (1968) and Star Wars (1976) were both in the future.Star Trek wasn’t Bradbury or Clarke, but it was mostly good entertainment I loved some of the lines “For the world is hollow and I have touched the sky!” Almost mystical!
Great fun, made some memorable shows and some really pathetic pieces of junk, all done with a smile and a nudge. I wish they hadn’t bothered on this one. They should have contributed the money they spent (on this movie) to NASA, maybe it would buy some food or an extra suit for the real astronauts.
I hate the political correctness of this era. Love the bellicose and unashamedly pro-Freedom, pro-America stance of the first show. I may not get this one (even) out of the library. If it is bad as it sounds, it would hurt too much. Like seeing a handsome old friend on skid row.
Saw it and give it a B+. I liked all the acters pkaying Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty and how they interacted. That was the ley to the success of the original series and will be the key to the success of this rebooted movie series. McCoy and Scotty steal every scene they are in. The exterior shots of the Enterprise are fantastic, the interior shots less so. The move did suffer from the flaw of trying to be bigger then all the pervious Star Trek movies. More CGI does not make for a better movie! Like the movie “Transformers” the CGI shots look good in short clips. But the overall impact of so many shots over two hours becomes tedious.
The best hope for the future of the franchise is the growth of respect that Kirk and Spock have for each other and how, like the old series, each main character brings their individual perspective to solving the problems they face. It is that interaction that was the heart and soul of the original series and will hopefully drive the new one. They just need better (smaller?) plots to play against.
Cheers,
LoneStarJeffe
Hey, you can smear Obama, create a civil war among Republicans, and substitute “fiduciary duty” as a Gordon Gecko-ish prevarication for “liquidation” (I sense a rap song here), but *leave* all things Captain Kirk-ish and Spock-ish to the higher, more enlightened authority in the majority.
I loved it. Thoroughly entertaining. I simply find nothing sacrilege about “rebooting” a franchise into modernity. The most surprising aspect of the film was the humor – very funny in parts – but not enough to discredit the “gravitas” of the plot. If you like sci-fi/fantasy movies, odds are you will enjoy this movie…now on to 2010 and Green Lantern!
Really well made movie that was fun and exciting. I’m not sure what the reviewer’s problem is, but I’m guessing it has something with his desire to be noticed for going against the grain (the movie has one of the highest sci-fi scores I’ve ever seen at Rotten-Tomatoes). It is so far superior to the other Trek movies (other than Khan) that it’s a shame it has to share the title. It was fun for me, not too adult for my child, and the best money I’ve spent on a film in a year.
I thought the casting was great, especially for Simon Pegg as Scotty. The only drawback of the movie was too little of him.
Well according to the polls, I’m in the 5% who could not stand this movie. I tried. It started off sort of entertaining, but took a hard turn into one of the most juvenile spectacles I have ever seen. I felt like I was watching a high school play, enhanced with, and done
way too many times, computer-generated bells and
whistles. With stabs at hair-raising moments, (you knew this when the music and special-effect
noise was cranked up);they were all non-events,
as the outcome was predictable in every case. It
was especially depressing to watch Lenord Nimoy pronouncing each word containing an “s” as his ill-fitting dentures betrayed him.
To sum up, there was nothing new nor remotely
engrossing in the “action scenes”(which have been done and done again, ad nauseum, in every other sci-fi since Star Wars, with the outcome as predictable as rain).The moments of
“soul searching drama” fell flat every time.
And, as per usual, with films like this one, they throw in the ugly/cutsy creature to add
enchantment, once again ripping-off Star Wars.
I loved it and I have been watching Star Trek since it debuted. All the actors did a great job with the characters. It was fun, exciting and it had heart. Yeah, some of the scenes can compared to other movies. It it did not feel derivative. There are no original ideas, just original takes.
This was a fresh take on an old series and it breathes fresh air into something that was really getting stale.
Worth seeing.
Why is it we only get bad reviews and put-downs from Kyle Smith?
It’s one thing to have high standards. It’s quite another to have impossible standards.
JDdubya: Actually, some movie theaters DO serve beer! Here in Austin, TX we have the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema. You show up about 45 min to 1 hour before the movie and order food and “beverages”.
I noticed a few of these types of theaters popping up in several cities. You should check yours. They might have something similar.
…and I still enjoyed the new Star Trek movie.
“31. gus3:
Why is it we only get bad reviews and put-downs from Kyle Smith?”
In order for Kyle Smith to enjoy a movie, it must have some kind of orthodox conservative message. If it doesn’t…the movie is liberal Hollywood dreck.
I just saw it and thought it was extremely fun. I guess if you go in either expecting Macbeth
or hoping for a tirade against Obama then you’re apt to be disappointed, that being said
absent was the one-world socialism of the Next Generation/Ron Moore era, which ruined
Star Trek for me. It’s a fun, non-political sci-fi flick; nothing more, nothing less…
Ok, so a friend and I were going to the movies, and he wanted to see the new ‘Star Trek’. Even though I had no interest in seeing it, I reluctantly agreed. At least I would be able to say with certainty that the movie sucked.
I was definitely wrong. I won’t say that the movie was great, but it was definitely very good, and way above my admittedly very low expectations. Star Trek hasn’t had a decent movie since “The Undiscovered Country”, the Next Generation movies were simply awful, and I don’t think there’s been a Trek movie that felt epic since “Wrath of Kahn”. But this new one is definitely approaching epic, and has really been able to escape the inertia of the franchise itself, which, IMO, is what sank most of the other films.
This film looks great, the writing is pretty solid, and the casting (which was my biggest fear) for the most part worked. Except for Zachary Quinto. While he really looks the part, I never really bought him as Spock, and the scene where he interacts with his older self made his inadequacies all the more apparent. Quinto’s voice just doesn’t have the same baritone timbre and presence of Nimoy, and he lacks Nimoy’s physical presence and timing as well. To me, Nimoy always brought a sense of calm certainty to his character’s intellectual superiority; even though he was often times condescending, you always knew that Spock’s reasoning was correct. Quinto’s Spock just comes across as an arrogant asshole.
The thing I most enjoyed was the set production. For the first time, the sets of Star Trek don’t look like they were filmed inside a closet, and the Enterprise itself, while updated, still pays homage to the original series with its analog knobs and levers. What I liked the most was how small and intimate the bridge was, and how expansive and almost primitive the engineering section was, with its vast array of pipes, tanks and valves.
Over all, I’d give the new Star Trek a ‘B+’
=M=
I liked it… as for a reboot, it gave a semi-credible reason for being on what is essentially an alternate history track. For fans of Eric Flint’s 1832 series or anything from Harry Turtledove, this is nothing new.
If I have any problems with it, they boil down to two things:
Teeeeennnssss in Spaaaaaaaaaace!!!!! (think of the Pigs in Space line from the Muppets)
and
From a military structure standpoint…. yeah, right. I don’t think so. Heck, in any reasonable world, Uhura outranks Kirk… Sulu and Chekov appear to now be Enlisted ranks.
But that’s okay – it’s Star Trek – it’s Space Opera for cryin’ out loud. Yes it’s got plot holes… gaping ones. So did all of the previous movies and series.
It beats several of the previous movies for action and holding your attention, that’s for sure.
Oh – there is one, repeat, one possible political statement I caught – and I’m still not sure exactly what side it was on.
There is a sort-of torture scene involving CAPT Christopher Pike – he’s laid out and strapped down to a board. And for apparently no reason whatsoever, there is ankle deep water all around him in the room they are in.
My mind immediately flashed “waterboarding” at me – but if it happened, they never showed it. And apparently Pike didn’t break until they hit him with a really ugly updated version of Kahn’s brain control bug.
the new Star Trek cast did an awesome job emulating the originals as did the script writers — fun and enjoyment were had by all in my group
Blasphemy!!!
I’m a 52-year old non-Trekkie, and I saw the film with my family today. I thoroughly enjoyed it – fresh faces, good effects, adequate storyline with no global warming preaching, etc. Don’t we all need a bit of escapist, mindless entertainment now and then?
You couldn’t be farther off base! The movie was well-cast, well-acted, had outstanding special effects and as excellent a script as has ever been written for a Trek film.
While I do share your view about the redesign of the Enterprise as singularly poor, many of your other comments and mis-statements lead me to believe you haven’t even seen the film!
Kyle – I completely agree with James Hudnall, above, and like Mark I’m not sure you went to see the same Star Trek I saw yesterday (and hope to see again soon while it’s still in theaters).
This hard-core TOS fan since 1965 loved it! For those who haven’t seen it – my recommendation: don’t wait around for the DVD. If you enjoy it at all, you’ll kick yourself for not having seen it on a big screen with big sound.
Kyle, it’s hard to tell from your off-hand reference to “a time-travel twist”, but perhaps you missed the point that this “twist” was actually the bedrock on which the entire story was based. It was also the element which drove the quirks in the characters you listed, and which perhaps mislead you into seeing Pine’s impudent, boyish Kirk – in particular – as a flaw in Pine’s acting ability, rather than a pretty fair depiction of the hyper-intelligent, womanizing wise-ass Kirk would have been had he grown up without the balancing element of a father.
IMHO, while I tend to see many time-travel story elements in science fiction too often reduced to gimmicks used to fill plot holes, I think this is one case where it was an inspired choice on both the level of the film/story itself as well as with respect to its implications for a completely re-imagined series. Nero’s appearance at the time of Kirk’s birth is not only a perfectly valid continuation of the original TOS story arc, but it also nicely throws the entire deck of TOS Universe cards into the air in a way that provides a lot of room to tell completely new stories centered around characters we already know well and love.
Maybe one had to be around to experience TOS when it first appeared, and then later suffer through the distortions of TNG, DS9 and, especially STV, but I for one really enjoyed the various homages and outright nods to the original TOS universe I’ve always liked best (with a special acknowledgment to Karl Urban!). There’s nothing new under the sun, Kyle – especially in the movies. As such, the fact that there are similar scenes in most action films is not something worth whining about, IMHO.
Abrams directed an exciting and enjoyable movie with an edge and a window into future sequels. It remains to be seen if the new cast and screenwriters will be up to the task of re-imagining Trek in a way that is as both as compelling and as entertaining as the original. If they do even half as good a job as the crew responsible for Battlestar Galactica (even with its truly abysmal ending), I’ll be a fan.
This was the most fun I’ve had watching a movie in years. Great action, great characters, and I was left wanting more as the credits rolled. The biggest problem with the movie is the Star Trek name, as that will no doubt scare a lot of people away who would otherwise enjoy this romp through space.
I admit having no idea who Chris Pine was walking into the movie, but I consider that a necessity to rebooting this franchise. He comes with no baggage and people have no expectations above and beyond what they see in this movie. From where I was sitting I think he pulled it off. If I was doing a review I certainly wouldn’t have dedicated a long paragraph to how an unknown actor shouldn’t be cast as a lead.
The bit about the engine “fizzling” was a tip of the hat to Star Trek III – one of the many nods throughout this movie to the Trek lineage.
Settle down, Kyle Smith. You *really* shouldn’t be reviewing films as it seems you cannot sit back and just enjoy something.
I am no Trekkie. I have seen TOS eps, TNG eps and a handful of DS9 eps. Nothing of Enterprise eps. I’m about 50/50 for liking a Star Trek film. And, JJ Abrams’ last film venture was essentially an Alias episode/TomCruise(TM) vehicle. (Love JJ’s shows, though)
I thoroughly enjoyed myself in Stark Trek (XI). I was unspoiled so this blew my mind in terms of doing something different with the entire Star Trek franchise. It created a film that new people could enjoy and maybe even go and revisit the Star Trek universe if they have yet to do so.
But it did it’s job in terms of keeping me entertained. And I didn’t understand many of the nods to TOS, but my peeps explained them to me.
Bones – awesome. Loved learning the origin of the name. And kudos to Karl Urban for being able to pull of Bones considering the stature of DeForrest Kelley.
This isn’t an academy award nominee, a golden globe nominee or one of the political films of our times. It’s a frakkin STAR TREK film.
Lighten up, Kyle, or stop giving such “tool” reviews.
I watched the movie. I saw the white guy get beat up. A lot. I saw 10,000 aliens with no home world, and all they had was earth to call home now. The interracial couple thing was in full swing. The hot black chick loved the alien/human hybred.
Let’s see, there was the interdimensional travel by the enlightend one Spock who sat in a chair like a pyramid in a UFO helping the lower life forms.
I liked the movie, but I am sick of the New Age agenda trying to attack the subconscious.
#45 Leatherneck:
The white guy dished it out as easily as he could take it. In fact, he relished it to some degree, as evidenced by the bar fight.
And remember, The Original Series (TOS) really did go “where no [TV series had] gone before,” with the first inter-racial on-screen kiss. It was no secret that Lt. Uhura had a thing for fair-skinned guys, from any planet.
We (my son’s birthday – whole family of six went) went and saw it tonight on an Imax screen. We all really enjoyed it. Sure there are the cliche’s – expendable red shirts (bannished from TNG when they gave the red-shirts to the command officers), many things that were canon from the original series (Christipher Pike being saved by Kirk), or movies (Kirk cheating on his third go at the Kobyashi Maru) based upon it.
It was great fun. I didn’t notice any “preachy” moments, and those are something I *despise* from Hollywood.
A ship that tries to make the jump to light speed finds its engine fizzling instead, as in Star Wars
~~~~~
Or, as in Star Trek IV. (Scotty sabatoged the ship by removing a bunch of computer chips)
Kyle sweetie, sometimes a movie is just a movie. Poppa told me not to kill a fly with a sledge hammer.
I’m still trying to figure out the new universe with Vulcan gone, but Romulus still here, Cristopher Pike not in a body box on some isolated planet, and so on. I just wish I had known to take Kleenex–the opening left me sniffling. Lots of humor, delightful character interactions, no bloody violence or gratuitous nudity — who could ask for a better way to relax for a couple of hours? The only thing I disliked was the horrible hair and teeth on the juvenile delinquent, car destroying Kirk.
Was a fan of the original series as a child in the 70′s. Was a fan of the next generation in the 90′s. Watched most of DS9, some of Voyager, and dismissed Enterprise. I must say, I was not optimistic about this movie at all going into it, based on various reviews I had read. But.. I’ve ended up seeing it three times. Absolutely LOVE it. Good plot, an excellent balance of action and story, the effects were not over done (except for the lens flares. Love ‘em, but there is such a thing as too much), humor and references to “inside” jokes, and the new cast was outstanding. Fellow Trekkies forgive me, I must say the new Kirk is better than the original, with all of the bravado and raw charisma but without the over-the-top acting. Sylar who? Quinto IS Spock.
I’m so glad I didn’t let bad reviews (which are in the minority, btw) keep me from seeing this movie.
I didn’t like the way Kirk and Uhura were written. Kirk was a jerk, not “brash”, “arrogant”, or “untamed”. I can’t see this character growing into the Kirk we all know and love.
Nichols’ Uhura was professional, warm, attractive. The new Uhura was written as bitchy and attractive. I can’t see her growing into the Uhura we all know and love.
Scotty was different but OK. Chekov, who shouldn’t even be there, was fine, as was Sulu. Quinto nailed the Spock character perfectly.
The story was OK at best–like most Star Trek stories.
This movie will grow on me in time. They all do.
Did very few people commenting in this section happen to notice that the timeline was changed in the very first minutes of the film? I did, and I shouted, “Hurrah!”
Good riddance to Trek philosophy, Klingons playing cellos in string quartets, and “striving to better ourselves” in lieu of making some cash.
I wanted action, beautiful graphics, the original characters, and NO CANON.
And I want Kirk to be brash, in charge, in command, and ingenious to a fault. Chris Pine fired my imagination like Shatner did in the mid-60′s.
What a terrible review. It seems that Mr. Smith was watching the movie with the sole purpose of finding things to complain about. And it’s obvious that he couldn’t find much. For example… “As for Kirk, he’s played by Chris Pine. Who? He’s not just an unknown. He’s an unknown unknown.” Right, because how well-known an actor is determines the quality of a movie. Or complaining about the line “Are you out of your Vulcan mind?” Yeah, because that’s never been heard in Star Trek before…
I HATE the shakey-cam.
I love the movie.
Kyle Smith was likely told to write a negative review. . . and he did. That’s his job.
Bet he liked the movie though.