More reviews
STAR TREK COUNTDOWN: 25 HOURS
Enough reviews have rolled in now that Rotten Tomatoes has written a "consensus" of the new Star Trek movie: "With action, humor, a strong story, and brilliant sci-fi visuals, Star Trek will please traditional trekkies and inspire new fans, and reignite this classic franchise."
A number of positive reviews have arrived. Entertainment Weekly's reviewer (Owen Gleiberman) gives the film an A-, saying that the director, J. J. Abrams, "rewires us back into the original Star Trek's primal appeal." Most of the review is about the characters. Rolling Stone's Peter Travers gives the film 3.5 out of 4 stars, calling it "a burst of pure filmmaking exhilaration that manages to pay homage to the classic 1960s TV series and still boldly go where no man . . . has gone before." He is surprised because, in his opinion, the only other really good Star Trek movie was Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn (1982). It seems, then, that the movie has achieved what it said out to do: re-make Star Trek as something cool and popular, rescuing it from the shadow of mediocrity (nevermind that some of us have always loved it). Travers notes that some of the plot doesn't make sense to him (specifically the time travel), but "Know what? Don't care."
One of the few dissenters is king of critics, Roger Ebert, who stills gives it his highest thumbs-down score: 2.5 out of 4 stars. He sees the movie as essentially in continuity with the old movies (pace Travers) as a formulaic "space opera": "you want space opera, you got it." He calls the time travel a "sort of brilliant" story idea (pace Travers!). He concedes that the movie is fun and praises the characters: "there are affecting character moments." His negativity appears to flow from his complaint that the movie is unrealistic and un-scientific: "many things are impossible in this film," although he admits that "Star Trek science has never been intended as plausible." It remains to be seen whether implausibilities (from which many shows and movies suffer, including Star Trek) will hamper my enjoyment of the film.
All in all, even with Ebert's semi-negative review, things are looking positive, but I'm still worried that all the "killer action" of this "summer movie" (Travers) will betray the (unpopular) intellectualism that I myself enjoy in Star Trek.
x-posted: startrek
Enough reviews have rolled in now that Rotten Tomatoes has written a "consensus" of the new Star Trek movie: "With action, humor, a strong story, and brilliant sci-fi visuals, Star Trek will please traditional trekkies and inspire new fans, and reignite this classic franchise."
A number of positive reviews have arrived. Entertainment Weekly's reviewer (Owen Gleiberman) gives the film an A-, saying that the director, J. J. Abrams, "rewires us back into the original Star Trek's primal appeal." Most of the review is about the characters. Rolling Stone's Peter Travers gives the film 3.5 out of 4 stars, calling it "a burst of pure filmmaking exhilaration that manages to pay homage to the classic 1960s TV series and still boldly go where no man . . . has gone before." He is surprised because, in his opinion, the only other really good Star Trek movie was Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn (1982). It seems, then, that the movie has achieved what it said out to do: re-make Star Trek as something cool and popular, rescuing it from the shadow of mediocrity (nevermind that some of us have always loved it). Travers notes that some of the plot doesn't make sense to him (specifically the time travel), but "Know what? Don't care."
One of the few dissenters is king of critics, Roger Ebert, who stills gives it his highest thumbs-down score: 2.5 out of 4 stars. He sees the movie as essentially in continuity with the old movies (pace Travers) as a formulaic "space opera": "you want space opera, you got it." He calls the time travel a "sort of brilliant" story idea (pace Travers!). He concedes that the movie is fun and praises the characters: "there are affecting character moments." His negativity appears to flow from his complaint that the movie is unrealistic and un-scientific: "many things are impossible in this film," although he admits that "Star Trek science has never been intended as plausible." It remains to be seen whether implausibilities (from which many shows and movies suffer, including Star Trek) will hamper my enjoyment of the film.
All in all, even with Ebert's semi-negative review, things are looking positive, but I'm still worried that all the "killer action" of this "summer movie" (Travers) will betray the (unpopular) intellectualism that I myself enjoy in Star Trek.
x-posted: startrek