View Full Version : New Star Trek movie

Home - Discussion Forums - News - Reviews - Interviews

New reviews, interviews and news

New in the Discussion Forum

Pages : [1] 2 3 4

May 5th, 2009, 06:03 PM
So I couldnít find any threads about the new Star Trek film and figured Iíd start one.

So far it seems to be getting some amazing reviews from the general press as well as the genre press. The publicly stunt of showing it to an audience of fans expecting to see Wrath of Khan and having Leonard Nimoy present it was always going bring in positive hype, but Iíve not heard a negative review about it so far. Sure people have had criticisms, but nothing too bad.

Iíve got my tickets for Thursdayís early preview and Iím really looking forward to seeing it. I used to be a major Trek fan, but lost interest when I went to Uni (around the tail end of DS9 and the start of Voyager).

Anyone else looking forward to it?

May 6th, 2009, 07:30 AM
Big fan here. Definitely going to go see the movie. :)

May 8th, 2009, 12:01 AM
You don't expect to find much fresh air in outer space, but that's exactly what the reboot of "Star Trek" brings to the musty franchise.

The film finds compelling new angles on iconic science fiction characters, thanks to spot-on casting and a young, sexy "Abercrombie & Trek" vibe. Faithful to the outlines of the classic TV series yet original, this revitalized, reimagined "Trek" is a gift to nerds and newbies alike. It's engagingly acted, intelligently scripted and confidently directed. Put it alongside "Casino Royale" and "Batman Begins" as a fresh start that gets almost everything right.

Take the command deck of the USS Enterprise. It's the same, yet different. Kirk, Spock, Sulu and Chekov sit in the same relation to each other on the bridge, but the controls, instruments and displays have a cool, elegant new design. Old "Trek" was a PC; this is definitely a Mac.

The cinematography and special effects have evolved. Space scenes feature lens flares and nebulas that look stunningly authentic, and the gorgeous landscapes on rocky Vulcan and a remote ice planet would be at home in a coffee-table book.

The first mission of the Enterprise is to neutralize a time-traveling Romulan craft boasting unheard-of weaponry. That's the basic setup of every "Star Trek" movie, and it's the film's weakest link. Eric Bana is all right as the villainous Nero, who has his reasons. And there are nods to contemporary geopolitics that will please "Battlestar Galactica" fans. But the spectacular space battles are beside the point. This is really the story of how the Enterprise crew meets, hammers out its differences and becomes a team, and the telling is pure bliss.

After a scene-setting space battle that opens the story at warp speed, we meet young Kirk, a juvenile delinquent before he enters his teens. He's joyriding in a 300-year-old Corvette, blasting the Beastie Boys, anachronisms that make him easy to relate to. Chris Pine's Kirk contrasts nicely with the original. He's a hellion and a cock-of-the-walk wise guy who joins the service as an alternative to doing jail time. He grows in the discipline of the Starfleet Academy, but he's still too impulsive to make the grade as a space officer. It takes real skullduggery to get him aboard the Enterprise. He starts out with more than a dash of "Futurama's" chauvinist, swashbuckling Zapp Brannigan, matures in a crisis and becomes an inspiring leader.

The script is ingenious in setting hurdles for the characters and then leaping them. It's delightful how deftly the film touches on and twists the standard ingredients of "Trek" lore, how it uses our familiarity for surprises and graceful storytelling shorthand. You will appreciate it if you are a casual fan, and the more "Trek" lore you know, the more your admiration will grow.

Yes, the red-suited member of the landing party is a goner, but never has his demise been so swift and darkly funny. Of course young Spock's logical Vulcan side and his human emotions are at war, but Zachary Quinto's tilt is far warmer than Leonard Nimoy's. Uhuru (Zoe Saldana) develops a romantic attachment to a shipmate, but not the one you expected. Before you accuse the filmmakers of rewriting history, understand they anticipated your objections and used a classic science fiction idea to answer them.

With the exception of Winona Ryder, wooden and unpersuasively aged as Spock's human mother, the cast is flawless. Simon Pegg is a superb Scotty, the kind of gregarious bloke you'd hope to sit next to in a pub, but that's no surprise. Who suspected that Karl Urban, a specialist in dark drama, would make such a delightfully grumpy "Bones" McCoy? How can you hear him call Spock a "green-blooded hobgoblin" and not smile? John Cho's Sulu, Bruce Greenwood's Pike, Anton Yelchin's Chekov - all honor the characters' creators but lift the roles to a new level.

The quality that has kept audiences revisiting Gene Roddenberry's universe for more than 40 years is the camaraderie between his characters, and this crew has it in spades. When the film ends, you miss them. After this exhilarating new start, "Trek" is guaranteed to live long and prosper.

[EDIT: Signatures removed. We don't do signatures. Hobbit]

May 8th, 2009, 05:57 AM
Saw it last night and it is a pretty fun film, not perfect, but very strong never-the-less.

Whilst the film is a fresh take on the franchise and characters, it still pays homage to the original series. Little things like the same sound effects, references to other characters (you never see her, but McCoy calls to Nurse Chapel) and even the score hark back to the classic Trek.

The effects are top notch Ė the space battles are amazing to watch and the new take of warp speed and transportation are fresh and look cool. The physical aspects of the Enterprise are also much improved, the ship has a more realistic aspect Ė particularly in engineering.

The new cast are great, although pretty much anyone could have played the bad guy Nero, not much is done with him and heís pretty one dimensional. Kirk and Spock are the main characters here, but the others all get a look in and all play their part. I did find that Karl Urbanís Dr McCoy and Simon Peggís Scotty did boarder on parody of the original actors at some points, but both provide the comedy aspects of the film. McCoy does get some great lines.

Story was good, but was also going to be bogged one by exposition and origin stories. However, apart from a couple of exposition heavy scenes, the film speeds along and is most enjoyable. Iíll be going to the big screen to see it again, might even try IMAX.

May 8th, 2009, 11:39 PM
The Enterprise looked so excessively white and shiny that I genuinely expected to see iEnterprise stamped on it's hull.


My wife and I caught a showing last night. The plot and backstory are more full of holes than moon cheese, but the film really is enjoyable. The dialogue was fantastic, the many nods of the head to the original series were appreciated, the special effects were top-class, and Simon Pegg is a manly, sexy god. There, I said it.

Overall, we both really enjoyed Star Trek, plot-holes and science nitpicking aside.

May 9th, 2009, 11:00 AM
It was a pretty good film questionable plot notwithstanding. Some of the dialogue was very good and in the context of the series very appropriate. Unfortunately in the context of the immediate story, at times it came off as jarring. In tone it seemed to aim for something like Spider-Man 2 but I think it didn't handle the nuance quite as well. Star Trek did not shift from comic to tragic with the same ease. It seemed a little too breezy, stuck in camp mode despite the rather stark background story. It went through things pretty fast. That helped the action though.

May 10th, 2009, 12:53 AM
Heres the review I just added to my site....

[9/may/2009] Score: 7/10
Contains Spoilers.
One of the things I dreaded about this before watching was that the producers would do a "Star Trek High" style of movie, bringing all the characters together as teenagers to save the universe. They, just, about, thankfully avoided that temptation, but it's a very close miss, and I'm still not quite sure why the Federation would give a crew of semi-experienced teenagers and young adults control of a flagship of their fleet, but I guess there was less time in the final script to develop the characters through a few more years of maturity, bringing them together more realistically.
There are two reasons why I downgraded Star Trek from what is a good thrill-ride, and both owe their origins to "Galaxy Quest", so if you know that wonderful satire of the whole SF cult community you'll have a clue to what I mean.
The first of these is the "big mysterious alien super-technology device" which appears here as "Red Matter" a weird material with special properties; and the second is the "why the hell to they have THIS on the ship!?" scene in which we see the intrepid crew of Galaxy Quest, oops, I mean the Enterprise, have to confront an apparently useless but challenging part of the ship to make their escape, in this case the plumbing system.
From a writer's point of view they are both useless and unimaginative devices, which appear to say the screenwriters of Star Trek lack originality and/or are paying an over-enthusiastic humorous tribute to Galaxy Quest, and all that came before it. And that made me sad to think about what was otherwise a good piece of entertainment.
Star Trek will also surprise the viewer in introducing the whole genre anew. In the same way Casino Royale rewrote and restarted the James Bond movies, so Star Treks starts afresh, proposing a new parallel universe with a new history to-come, when they use time travel to unravel everything we've come to know about the characters and their universe, for example the origins of James T. Kirk, the fate of Vulcan, and so on.
This, in a way, is the good part, as it will offer future writers the opportunity, if they can restrain themselves, of developing a new plot for the whole, new Star Trek universe, but will upset the expectations of many existing fans.
Verdict: Go, carefully.


May 10th, 2009, 01:44 AM
9/10 for me. Fantastic movie. Loved Spock and Kirk, but especially Spock. Unlike many, I really liked Nero. You could feel the anger coming off the screen when he was there. I'm a huge Trek fan, and I give it a pass and am very happy that Trek lives again. I don't go to conventions, wear costumes or anything, but I've seen every episode of every Trek TV show and all the movies many times. So I guess you can judge my Trekkie scale by this...

P.S. I'm going to see it at least one more time maybe two. :)

fluffy bunny
May 10th, 2009, 09:06 AM
I erm... hated the movie. Didn't help that the cinema I was in had the subwoofer turned up to max so every time a torpedo was launched, the audience had a major ringing in their ears.

Spoileroonies ahead...

The special effects were flash but I was expecting more of a plot. For a film meant to attract new viewers it was rushed and convoluted and the 2 non-trek people who saw it with me were pretty confused. The director may have poked fun at the Enterprise series but the weakest time war episodes were major oscar winners compared to the plot in the film. Red matter? Kirk gets marooned on a planet where he gets chased by CGI and runs into a big attack of the plot dumping. Jefferies tubes scene? Eh? Surely a bit more time at the academy and Starship Tropers like training scenes or Ender's Game type scenes would be warranted?

Choice of actors was good but the script needed a complete rehaul.

Evil Agent
May 10th, 2009, 12:59 PM
Fluffy bunny, I think you're being way too hard on the film. If you want to see a TERRIBLE script, go watch the Wolverine movie. One of the lamest scripts I have ever seen. Also, even though the script had it's weak points, it was way better than the scripts for almost all the Next Generation films, which just seemed like long (and somewhat boring) episodes of the TV show (except for First Contact, which was awesome).

As for Star Trek, I loved it! It's definitely a new take on the series, but I think it's a good one. The old Star Trek will always be around (5 series and 10 films), but this movie is making it accessible and relevant to a whole new generation.

The effects really were about 20 times better than anything we've seen before in the Star Trek universe. They actually make the other films effects seem laughable by comparison. Finally the battles actually look like battles, not slow moving chess games.

I thought the casting was quite good, particularly Karl Urban as Mccoy, and the guy who played Spock. Kirk wasn't bad either, and he really had some of Shatner's mannerisms down.

There were so many great moments (such as when the played Sabotage by the Beastie Boys!), and awesome little references for the old fans. Personally I thought this movie was awesome, and judging by the 96% positive reviews it's getting, most other people seem to agree. I think only nitpickers and extreme Trek nerds will have any cause to complain (and that's coming from someone who was quite a Trekkie as a kid).

Bottom line: this is at least ten times more enjoyable than Wolverine, and may be the best action movie of the year so far (although I really enjoyed Watchmen as well). It may even be one of the best Star Trek films so far, along with Wrath of Kahn, The Voyage Home, The Undiscovered Country, and First Contact. I'd give it at least an 8/10.