ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Negative ST reviews

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Aug. 14 2009, 9:06 am

From here (emphasis mine):

Quote

FSR review ends with: "its real strength is in the fact that it is delivered with a ton of energy, it presents a story that is easily grasped by fans and newbies alike and is a big, kick-ass ride.¿ Sounds like it's just all action and thrills without much thinking or reflection going on. Shame.


Quote

I don't like this film at all. For decades I've cheered on Captain Kirk, the hero protagonist. In this film Kirk is drinking and gets into a fight when he won't leave a girl alone because she won't tell him her name and quick as a flash glasses one of her buddies. Hero's don't glass people, thugs do. Great way to make this sort of crime look cool. Whoever wrote that scene easn't thinking


Quote

If you want action, one dimensional characters and to watch scenes that bad producers thought would be ¿cool¿ to put into a movie without any consideration to the actual plot then this is the movie for you. The special effects are great and the best part of the movie. On the other hand you are looking for something other than exaggerated characters, rehashed lines and memorable moments from the original series morphed to fit on the big screen save this one for the video store. This could have been great with some good writing. Disappointed to see this happen¿. I don¿t think Gene would have approved.


Quote

I was disapointed by this film. It's all about special effects and "coolnes", wich is not what Star Trek is. The worst thing is Spock. JJ Abraham made him way too much emotional. Even Leonrad Nimoy plays it's part differently. I like Zachary Quinto and he did play well but the young Spock shows too much emotion.


Quote

This movie was Nemesis 2. I can't believe that all the people saying "this movie is SOOOOO much better than all the others" aren't seeing that. They literally cribbed the exact same plot from Nemesis with new special effects.


Quote

Sadly, these reviews kind of confirm the death of Star Trek for me. What made the original series special -- much like the original Twilight Zone -- wasn't flash, or excitement, or action. It was about stories -- stories that had deep and meaningful themes that were told in an "alien" setting that encouraged viewers to look at things in a different way. Certainly, not all of them reached that high level, but many did. Some were stories by real titans of science fiction, and therein lies the rub. The folks behind this new movie -- like so many of the prior Star Trek movies -- aren't gifted writers. They simply aren't capable of reaching the kind of poetic insights that the original series reached. It's simply easier to producer shallow, Transformers-style nonsense than literary science fiction. Too bad. Because you can have a story and excitement and special effects.


Quote

I am disappointed that none of the reviews commented on it being a smart movie, because thats what I'm looking for in my science fiction films. Smart and thoughtful films, not action packed, explosive, "accessible" films. With the exception of The Dark Knight there aren't many films that are smart, thoughtful, explosive and action packed.

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Aug. 14 2009, 9:15 am

From here:

Quote

This leads to my biggest problem with the movie: they take the shorthand way out when this is supposed to be these character's first big adventure. We're just tossed into the fray and it's full of assumed knowledge, like why the Romulans and Vulcans hate each other, or what the Federation stands for.


Quote

Again, going back to Khan, that film was about something. It explored themes and ideas about growing old, trying to hold on to youth and the past long after one¿s prime, and what happens when that past comes back to haunt you. Kirk spends all of Khan trying to ignore death, cheat it, until it unavoidably hits him square in the face. This new Trek isn¿t ABOUT anything, thematically; it bandies about talk of destiny and facing your fears, but it¿s all lip service. And like I said, that makes it fun, a lot more fun than almost any other Trek film out there, but it's full of sound and fury and little else.


Quote

Kirk's childhood segment (the car chase in the trailer) really, really blows, and its soundtrack choice was so glaringly dumb (and pandering to the mainstream) and out of place that I became frightened that J.J. Abrams had fully transformed into Michael Bay.


Quote

Zo¿ Saldana gets a few moments of requisite girl power before being relegated to very pretty window dressing


Quote

I¿ll be honest, though: when the credits came up on this and the applause died down, I couldn¿t help but shake the fact that I still wanted to watch Wrath of Khan on the big screen.

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Aug. 14 2009, 9:19 am

From here:

Quote

The movie is for the casual fan that wants an action fix


Quote

This movie was weak,and there were many details omitted to keep it snappy that would have satisfied both old-timers and newer fans but no. I still haven't forgiven Orci and Kurtzman for the horrid bodge they put on Transformers.
Thanks alot D-bags,yet another franchise you've ruined attempting to "revitalize" it.

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Aug. 14 2009, 9:21 am

from here.

Quote

It¿s watchable, yet still terrible cinema.

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Aug. 14 2009, 9:28 am

From here:

Quote

Problem is: It¿s not just niche marketing, it¿s become the way of American film culture.These action/comic book/TV/fantasy/CGI flicks are not about plot.Their only purpose: teaching audiences to watch movies crudely, as teenagers, as a boy. At that, Wolverine and Star Trek succeed ####ably.


Quote

Abrams directs action where you can¿t see anything¿ just blur, like in Cloverfield.


Quote

Still selling soap, his flimsy imagery zaps substance from the drama of Kirk and Spock


Quote

Leonard Nimoy¿s guest-star voiceover epilogue about man, ¿Boldly going where no one has gone before,¿ feels as false as Fox News¿ ¿Fair and Balanced¿ slogan

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Aug. 14 2009, 9:31 am

http://www.lowerdecks.com/2009/05/06/negative-review-of-star-trek-2009-leads-to-nastiness/

Quote

Yeah, well, number one, this new Star Trek film was THE most boring and stupid film I have seen for 10 years (except maybe some stupid piece of dreck called Bridge of Dragons that some long distance bus driver decided to torture his passengers with). How many times in one movie can a character be left dangling in a ¿cliffhanger¿ situation? It¿s fairly ho-hum. Spock mentions a star going super nova and threatening to destroy the galaxy (?!;) or did I hear that one wrong. Spock travels through time by popping through a black hole and yet later on we are supposed to be on the edge of our seat when the Enterprise is about to fall into one (but it ain¿t life threatening folks, they¿ll just appear 25 years in the past if they fall into it or so we were led to believe by Spock¿s experience. Of course falling back in time 25 years would be a major inconvenience but not knife edge excitement). The characters all seem like bland cast offs from Beverly Hills 90210. They all seem like drones. There is no tension in the film. No intelligence. Nothing.


Quote

And to those who say this new film is an improvement on the old series cheesiness, I ain¿t ever seen nothin¿ so cheesy as the first ten minutes of Star Trek 11. The hero being born just as his good ol¿ daddy dies valiently. Blah, blah, blah¿

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Aug. 14 2009, 9:39 am

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Aug. 14 2009, 9:43 am

http://darran.tumblr.com/post/106415893/star-trek-negative-review

Quote

The script was not true to Star Trek canon


Quote

Starship engine rooms should look different than a 20th century rat poison factory.


Quote

And while I¿m on the subject of realism, let¿s think about Nero¿s ship.  It¿s a mining vessel for crying out loud; why in the world does it look like the Shadow ships from Babylon 5? That is the most impractical design for a mining vessel that I can possibly imagine.

axilmar1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1576

Report this Aug. 14 2009, 9:52 am

http://google.com/movies/reviews?cid=b5b46b0ed66b4c41&hl=en&oi=moviesr&range=3

Quote

Take the original Star Trek, scoop out its charm, wit and moral integrity and you have the new Star Trek: a dead, stuffed, glassy-eyed replica of its former self. A Romulan from the future (Eric Bana) travels back to the 23rd century to exact revenge for something that happens in the 24th century. This involves Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Leonard Nimoy/ Zachary Quinto) and the rest of the crew being moved to an alternative reality in which the events of the previous films take place in a different Universe. Or something. To be honest, despite the fact that the story is meat-headedly simple, it's extremely difficult to follow what's happening and that's solely the fault of the director. When discussing his reboot, JJ Abrams repeatedly claims he wasn't a fan of the original, as if ignorance of and distaste for the source material were admirable. The Star Trek ¿franchise¿ (the series began to fall apart when it began to be referred to as such) has spent the last decade as an ailing public service ¿ much loved but in desperate need of new ideas. Indeed, this latest film feels as if Star Trek has finally been privatised: it's now all sheen, but utterly, utterly heartless. The sets are so over-designed that they lose any iconic sweep of line the originals once had. The bridge looks like it was designed by Apple. In ten years it's going to look dated. This is an ugly film. Abrams seems visually illiterate, barely capable of framing a shot in some places. The camera swoops and twirls without motivation. Little regard is paid to establishing the geography of the action. As a result, it's often difficult to tell who is where in relation to whom and, as two hours grind on, it becomes harder and harder to care. If you get bored, you can spend your time (as I did) counting the number of trendy lens flares Abrams uses to try to make things look ¿gritty¿. One liners are followed with pauses, presumably spaces in which we're intended to laugh. The biggest casting disaster is Chris Pine's Kirk. In scene after scene, Pine demonstrates himself to be a charmless lump of chipboard. Nobody could confuse William Shatner with Olivier, but The Shat was never less than entertaining to watch. The only cast member who distinguishes himself is Karl Urban, whose quite brilliant performance as Leonard ¿Bones¿ McCoy successfully walks the dangerous wobbly line between paying homage to DeForrest Kelly without tipping over into an impression. Kudos. I wanted to leave during the film (something I've done only once before in my life) but found that I couldn't because my friend in the next seat had fallen asleep. As a casual fan, I felt that Trek lost its way about 10 or 15 years ago. My expectations weren't high, and weren't reached.


Quote

As the credits rolled on this Trek film, and listed Orci and Kurtzmann as writers, it all made a disappointing kind of sense, as these three guys have never met a contrived and incoherent plot they didn't love. Unfortunately, 'contrived' and 'incoherent' describes the plot of this movie all too accurately. I will freely admit that there's a lot of stuff that I found annoying specifically because I am a Trekkie, but there are also fundamental flaws in the movie as a piece of cinema, with the plot being a prime example. It's badly-conceived and poorly written in the worst possible way, with people acting out of character, and to be honest, stupidly, in order to set up a chain of unbelievable events to keep the plot limping along. A good plot should not depend on shoehorned and forced events, and characters should be consistent, instead of acting merely to service the plot. The science is woeful. I know we have to cut movies some slack, Star Trek was noted for being pretty accurate with the real-world science they used, but that's certainly not the case here. Now to what annoyed me, as a Trekkie. Abrams has stated that he was never a fan of the original Trek, and man, does it show. He and the writers have only a passing familiarity with basic stuff like the command structure of a starship. It seems that, if the captain wishes it, lowly cadets who haven't even graduated from the academy yet, can be promoted to command positions, leap-frogging an entire crew of officers. At one point, I found myself wondering, 'Who the hell is the second officer, and where are they?' And as characters we know will be the main crew arrive on board and automatically take charge of their departments, it raises the question, who exactly was the senior staff when they shipped out? There's a romantic relationship between two main characters, that I thought was highly implausible and unbelievable, for two major reasons. I can't say any more without revealing the identity of the characters, but you'll know it when you hit it. A major event occurs that will have a profound effect on both the Federation and the Alpha Quadrant, which I was not down with at all. It felt like Abrams attempting to demonstrate that nothing and no one is safe in his new shiny version of Trek. The portrayal of the Vulcans was pretty inconsistent. While Zachary Quinto is good as Spock, the elder Vulcans are much too emotional. In one scene, a Vulcan chats away as if he's human. Ironically, the dialogue concerns the repression of emotion. And I'm pretty sure another Vulcan elder smiled at one point. Simon Pegg does the best he can as Scotty, but writing that role as comic relief was a terrible mistake. The humour in general is very hit and miss. Trek was never about ridiculous comedy in the midst of a crisis. The funniest parts are what they lifted directly from classic Trek, for example McCoy Oh Noing about Spock and his 'god#### Vulcan mind'. And as the last negative point, they also changed the iconic 'Space...the final frontier' speech. Two small changes - 'continuing mission' to 'on-going mission', and 'strange new life' to 'strange new lifeforms' - but they add nothing to the speech, and merely serve to again show that nothing is sacred when JJ Abrams is at the helm. Only hardcore fans will even notice those changes, so it's like a secret little 'Up yours' to the fans. The fans that he claims he doesn't need. The same fans that kept Star Trek going for the last 40 years. I'm going to finish with the good points, because yes, there are some. Karl Urban as Bones is bang-on, right from the get-go. McCoy's dialogue is in character too, mainly because they lifted it straight from the source, as mentioned previously. All the main cast are alright. Chris Pine as Kirk grew on me throughout the film. The biggest change of role is probably Uhura, who takes a much more active part than she used to, but that's not unwelcome. And the attention to details on the dates is ok. And that's about all the good stuff. I would be hesitant about recommending this film to casual cinema fans, because at its core, it's basically a stupid movie. I would most certainly advise Trekkies to stay away from it. If given the choice between watching this, and watching the 3 worst Voyager episodes in a row, there is only one way to go. I'd plump for Janeway, Chakotay, Neelix and even Kes over this, and that's really saying something.

Vice_Adm_Baxter

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Aug. 14 2009, 9:57 am

:eyesroll: :eyesroll: :eyesroll: :eyesroll: :eyesroll:

Vice_Adm_Baxter

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Aug. 14 2009, 10:17 am

Quote (Yanks @ Aug. 14 2009, 7:07 am)
Dam... bunch of ST wankers...

The movie did what it needed to do, it brought our crew together and brought new fans into the franchise.

Casting was impeccable.

This movie didn't need a "great Star Trek story" to succeed. I think the next one will though.

I really have to agree with you because TREK XI  was just the opening act, with TREK XII they should be getting to the meatier stories.

DammitJim6200

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6876

Report this Aug. 14 2009, 12:26 pm

Axilmar.....JJ Abrams Star Trek is REALLY CRAP,
NOTHING in the movie suggest that they were fans of Star Trek, we all know it's garbage,
it's just that because Jar Jar Abrams turn a sci-fi classic into a LOUD, BOMBASTIC, IMMATURE NUT RIDE, people flock to see it to catch excitement,
thats all it is, it has nothing to do with Star Trek,
the acting and actors are horrible, Zak Quinto really bombs as Spock, that irritating rat that played Chekov is really stupid,

I really don't know what the fuss is about ? most of the people I know hated the movie.

Like all JJ Abrams movies this one really made me NAUSEOUS

and one really dumb thing is getting from planet to planet in 5 seconds, now we're talking Bugs Bunny sci-fi, no one in their right mind could write something so stupid..

axilmar, this movie is garbage don't buy it.

DarthRage

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 289

Report this Aug. 14 2009, 1:24 pm

:cry:

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Aug. 14 2009, 2:13 pm

Here's mine:
It sucks.

Captain_Storma

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 11836

Report this Aug. 14 2009, 2:14 pm

Go to pretty any amazon.com/.co.uk/.de page and look up the one star/two star reviews. Those are found and very well written, over most of the 5 star reviews which are mainly short and not even structured.

Here is my analysis of the "film":

Quote
My impression: A weak TREK film, and a poor movie in general.

Before you start a crusade against me, remember that this is only my personal opinion, and I am not saying this is ultima ratio. I am really happy for all of you, who were able to enjoy the movie and who liked it. But? and that?s the truth, you won?t be able to please everyone. So far I had no issues with TREK. I liked everything (although VOY was pretty weak IMO, but still enjoyable) so far, and now I guess it is my turn to be the critic? So if you do not want to participate in a civic discussion, just over-read this topic, all others are invited to discuss this matter further.

Let?s start with the few good aspects of the film:

- The Kelvin. Wow. The opening was great, dramatic, emotional. Eventhough we have only witnessed the crew for a few minutes, they were able to evoke more sympathy than the ?new? TOS crew altogether. If it was for me, the whole movie could be a Kelvin movie, on a mission of exploration; eventhough the Kelvin itself had it?s flaws (?Polarise the viewscreen???? What the? ), it looked good, fit (almost) perfectly into TREK canon, making it a bridge between ENT and TOS. It felt right. The uniforms, the bridge (except for that window), the ship itself. Engineering was a problem, I will focus later on.

- The TOS uniforms? they got that right. Just a slight update, nevertheless almost completely the same. Good job!

- Karl Urban: Hands down he nailed it. This was McCoy. The rest of the cast was ok, but Urban (you can distinguish between real professionals and wannabe professionals) got it right. Quinto at least tried, but something was missing. Quite surprisingly my biggest point of criticism (the recast) did not bother me (that much). Cudos to the actors: They did a good job, given the poor script they had to work with.

- SFX: Although barely visible, ILM did a decent job, although we have seen better (even in TREK)

- Music: As a standalone the score simply does not work. I bought it since it was one of the few things I was looking forward to, but was really disappointed. One of the scores which works only with the movie. And surprisingly I can listen to it now? So, I will give it instead of the 2 of 5 stars my original rating would be a 3.5 of 5 stars.


So far, so good? now to the bad:

- The plot: Or should I better say, the not-existence of a decent plot. The movie felt like a mix of ?Yesterday?s Enterprise? (TNG), FIRST CONTACT and quite surprisingly like a copy and paste from NEMESIS, down to the bad guy, his ship, his superweapon etc.

- There are simply too much conincidence to make this story credible, I will post a plotholes and errors topic later, but here are some:

o What was Nero doing for 25 years? He had a superior ship. Instead of fighting alongside the Romulan Empire, wiping out Klingons and the Federation he was waiting? What for. He himself said, he would save Romulus future

o Kirk meets Spock on Delta Vega? right? then they meet Scotty later? all that on a planet the size of Earth? Coincidence?

o Where is this huge Earth starbase when Nero attacks?

o Why doesn?t Vulcan have orbital defense bases? And why don?t they simply launch an aramada of shuttles from the surface to attack the Narada?

o Why doesn?t Starfleet simply sent a legion of troops aboard the Narada when it attacks?

o So, Nero comes from 2387. Yet his ship uses missiles instead of torpedos? And it does not have shields?

o Why doesn?t Nero simply beam the captains over to his ship? Oh I forgot, just so that Kirk and his team can perform that stunt on Vulcan

o Vulcan with a blue sky? Hell, the destruction of the Kelvin (btw. The only event which is different to prime TREK) really messed up the universe?

o ? getting even Delta Vega (?Where no man has gone before? TOS) from the outerrim of the galaxy into neighbourhood of Vulcan?

o ? where it still is not destroyed by a blackhole, which can even suck up light hundrets of lightyears in distance?

o Btw? how come the blackhole destroys planets, but allows ships to travel through time? and then suddenly destroys ships (Narada)? Oh boy? What a mess

o Why are the ships being build on Earth? No explanation is ever given for that (I know it looks cooler when Kirk can ride his BMW motorcycle to the construction yard).

o Waterpipes? What for? I mean even today we can create water, mixing 2 H-atoms with one O-Atom? why would they waste ship interior for waterpipes? The Enterprise NX-01 even had protein resequencers? and that ship (it is canon for the alternate timeline) was launched 100 years earlier

o Why drill a hole into a planet? a blackhole will swallow it no matter where it is.

o ? just to name a few

- Technical execution plain and simply sucks? There are movies which need hand-camera filmed scenes (take the BOURNE Trilogy? awesome), but it does not fit in TREK. The resume is: You cannot enjoy the space scenes (cool CGI models, but messed up animation), and the interior scenes look filmed like by a 97 year old person. It hurts the movie badly. IMO they should balance the use of handhelt camera more like it was in the recent blockbusters ANGELS AND DEMONS and WOLVERINE. Character scenes in those movie were static, giving a feel of tranquillity; action scenes were filmed in a similar fashion, although not as exaggerated. TREK now can be listed among BOND 22 (Quantum of Solace) as one film where the use of those scenes is a complete nonsense.

- Sets, props: Ouch? This hurts? Except for the Kelvin?s bridge (with the exception listed above) and the bridge of the simulator, the interior sets of this film simply do not do it. The Ipod-bridge looks really fake. More like a store than a bridge (why, oh why didn?t they use the simulator?s bridge for the Enterprise), the biggest mess is the brewery? erm? I mean engineering. It was one of the worst sets ever used in a TREK production. If they only hired Herman Zimmermann to create a new set for engineering. His sets always were awesome.

- Same with the Narada: What is exactly is this ship supposed to be? Haven?t they made their research? In NEMESIS the Romulan Empire launched a new class of Warbird (Mogai/Norexan-Class) which has nothing in common with this ship. Is it an outer hull with tons of gangways throughout its interior or what? There seems to be no structure at all.

- The Romulans? Or should I say the Sith-Lord-Biker-gang of this film. They didn?t do it for me. Eric Bana did a good job, but was neither intimidating (like the Borg Queen), nor insane enough (like Khan, Soran and Shinzon) to pose a real threat. The bad guys of this movie will be one of the weaker ones. Their motivation is not explained. Why destroy Vulcan, if the Vulcans tried to save their planet? A little one-sided, and a proof that the authors are simply unable to create interesting original characters (remind you, except for the bad guys, all other main characters were already established).

- Product placement: What an embarrassment? TREK has fallen hard: Nokia, Budweiser, Apple, BMW, Intel great God. Note the Apple and Intel logos on the Enterprise working stations? Embarrassing.


Well I had no expectations, I was not surprised, after those positive reviews even slightly disappointed. Surprisingly my initial point of criticism were not the main issue IMO. Since the cast worked quite well and their interaction was somehow reminiscent of TOS, and since the redesign did not bother me as much as I feared it would have (except for the sets), I believe that with a good team of authors and a capable director, the film might have even turned out as a solid TREK movie.

As it stands, it simply IMO is a bad film. And since it seems clear that TREK XII will be written and made by the same people, I fear the ongoing TREK legacy will be no-brain-Sci-Fi movies (aka TRANSFORMERS), written by IMO untalented people, who simply do not have the quality, nor the maturity to write STAR TREK stories (IMO, people, IMO?  ).

2 of 5 stars for the film itself

1 of 5 stars for the film as a STAR TREK film

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum