my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Star Trek (2009) (Page 1)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: Star Trek (2009) Steve Wilson Expert Film Handler Posts: 109 From: Paoli, IN, USA Registered: May 2004 posted 04-12-2009 11:04 PM                        I saw this earlier this week and it looked and played really good in this re-boot of the original cast. I think it should do some business and I am looking forward to seeing it again! I also saw the trailer to the new Transformer Movie and it looked to kick ass too!  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 05-02-2009 08:06 AM                       I have mixed feelings about this. We'll see. Btw, Transformers 2... parts filmed right here in Bethlehem, PA!  |  IP: Logged Stu Jamieson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 524 From: Buccan, Qld, Australia Registered: Jan 2008 posted 05-03-2009 07:24 PM                     It would be easy to be hyper-critical of Star Trek (2009) and tear it apart block by block but this would be contrary to the spirit of the franchise. It matters nought that the unleashing of a black hole in the midst of our solar system results in little consequence to the neighbouring planets (or galaxies, for that matter); or that Simon Pegg's Scotty bears zero resemblance to James Doohan; or that an unlikely intra-crew love affair will require some significant (and potentially fascinating) narrative acrobatics in order to segue future franchise instalments back into Gene Roddenberry's timeline. Star Trek is about the fun, the fantasy, and the politics - elements which are tied but loosely to reality - and in this charge, Hollywood hitmaker JJ Abrams' prequel to the seminal 60's sci-fi TV series succeeds admirably. The nostalgia factor is high so naturally the proceedings must be commensurate with Trek Lore lest Abrams suffer the hex of a trillion Tribbles. So accordingly Mr Spock must deliver his mandatory "live long and prosper" line whilst gesturing the corresponding salute; Scotty must declare, "I canna change the laws o' physics, Capt'n!" (or something similar); the loss of an hitherto unknown crew member must perish during an off-Enterprise expedition; and there must be the obligatory big explodey things, sleek techie space ships, breathtaking hemlines on Uhura's tunic and mean-looking tatooed aliens resembling Chopper Read. With all the boxes duly and dutifully ticked, the Trekkies/Trekkers/Roddenberrites/Starfleet Cadets (or whatever the hell they call themselves these days) are appeased. With it's young spunky talent and incumbent soap opera tendencies, the film teeters on the edge of Star Trek 90210 but crucially remains on the fun side of saccharine melodrama. The enjoyable cast have a wonderful time caricaturing their celebrated elder selves resulting in a plethora of in-jokes which will keep the fans in giggles. Of particular note is Karl Urban's playful rendition of Bones McCoy and it's a credit to Simon Pegg's performance that he so successfully pulls off his Scotty despite his unDoohan-like appearance. Winona Ryder's appearance, however, is nothing short of mysterious considering she spends all her screen time in aged makeup. Why not just cast a 60 year old? Perhaps her flashback scenes failed the final cut? Leonard Nimoy makes his obligatory cameo, indeed the Back To The Future plot seems derived specifically to get him in it; a point further supported by the contrived means by which he is united with the young James T Kirk, subsequently MacGuffining the fledgling Starfleet Captain back into the story. But be it as it may, it's always a pleasure seeing the big fella with the big voice don the pointy ears just one more time (again). Oddly, though, The Shat™ is nowhere to be seen. Gunning for the fun end of the spectrum, Star Trek is undeniably good, solid, undemanding entertainment. 7.5 out of 10.  |  IP: Logged Demetris Thoupis Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1240 From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-04-2009 02:33 PM                     Damn I thought I was reading a critic! The summary of the top review is IS GOOD BUT NOT AS GOOD AS IT COULD BE!  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-04-2009 05:40 PM                    Thank you.  |  IP: Logged Stu Jamieson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 524 From: Buccan, Qld, Australia Registered: Jan 2008 posted 05-04-2009 05:42 PM                     ^ A summary which would surely apply to all but those cinematic experiences which achieve perfection (unless the movie is really, really, bad). I prefer to summarise my review as WON'T CHANGE THE WORLD BUT ADMIRABLY ACCOMPLISHES WHAT IT SETS OUT TO ACHIEVE.  |  IP: Logged Justin Gorka Expert Film Handler Posts: 174 From: High Wycombe, England Registered: Apr 2006 posted 05-06-2009 05:36 AM                     I thought this was pretty good. Actually character driven rather than just relying on special effects. 4/5  |  IP: Logged Caleb Johnstone-Cowan Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 593 From: London, UK Registered: Mar 2006 posted 05-06-2009 06:49 PM                     Saw this on Sunday and was really impressed, possibly the best mainstream Hollywood film I've seen this year. Great special effects back up an entertaining story and the cast do a great job with the characters. Can't wait to see the IMAX presentation.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-07-2009 05:12 PM                     Loved it! I didn't think I would like it based on the trailers, but other than the completely useless "red tarantula creature thing" that chases Kirk on the planet's surface, I enjoyed it very much. 4.5 out of 5 Re: the Transformers 2 trailer - holy fucking shit this turd is going to be even worse than the original movie! How is that possible??? I'll just go ahead and give my review right now to Transformers 2: -1 out of 5  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-07-2009 07:07 PM                     ..you can give the 'Golden Turd Award' to Michael Bay if the 2nd one might reek a bit. Then, it would be his 2nd award-his first was "Pearl Harbor"  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-07-2009 07:33 PM                     Monte, did you forget... Transformers (2007) Pearl Harbor (2001) Armageddon (1998) Bad Boys I and II (1995/2003) The Rock (1996) And then there is his SLEW of godawful remakes... Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) Friday the 13th (2009) The Hitcher (2007) TX Chainsaw Massacre (2003) Amityville Horror (2005) This certainly won't be his SECOND one.  |  IP: Logged Anslem Rayburn Master Film Handler Posts: 476 From: Yuma, AZ, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 05-08-2009 02:47 AM                     Excellent movie. The cast turned out much better than I thought it would be originally. quote: Brad Miller Re: the Transformers 2 trailer - holy fucking shit this turd is going to be even worse than the original movie! How is that possible??? I'll just go ahead and give my review right now to Transformers 2: -1 out of 5 Every single person I have talked to LOVES that trailer. I don't know why so many people bash on the first movie, I felt it was one of the better action movies I have seen in the last few years. The trailer NOBODY can stand is the one for G.I. Joe. THAT movie is going to be as much fun as food poisoning if the preview is any indication. I will still watch it, because G.I. Joe is a real American hero and all.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 05-08-2009 09:06 AM                     I concur with Anslem. Very well-done movie. 4.5/5. I thought the Transformers 2 trailer looked good and the G.I. Joe one seemed lame beyond belief. When I first noticed the names that made it obviously be G.I. Joe, I got excited for a sec then progressively got less and less interested. And on Transformers, I liked it too. It's definitely Michael Bay's best movie so far, though that's not saying much.  |  IP: Logged Shane Cooper Expert Film Handler Posts: 232 From: Little Rock, Arkansas Registered: Jun 2004 posted 05-08-2009 09:25 AM                     I am a die-hard Star Trek fan so I was really nervous about this one. However, I really loved it more than I thought I would! I talked with customers as they excited these shows yesterday and everyone seemed to really like it. Every auditorium got applause. I think this will play well and have legs for days. 5 out of 5  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-08-2009 02:57 PM                        I have not seen the new STAR TRECK movie yet and would like to see it in IMAX but I will not have the time to see it during the next two to three weeks. The IMAX ad for the movie said "For Limited Time" and was wondering approximately how long that would be? -Claude  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.