Star Dreck
Stolen from Chris Roberson:
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'
I have absolutely no intention of seeing this movie -- well, until I can see it for absolutely free, that is -- but I am so getting the popcorn in for the quacklash. (And, yes, I did just make up the word "quacklash"; it's meaning should, I think, be self-evident.)
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'
I have absolutely no intention of seeing this movie -- well, until I can see it for absolutely free, that is -- but I am so getting the popcorn in for the quacklash. (And, yes, I did just make up the word "quacklash"; it's meaning should, I think, be self-evident.)
posted by Hal Duncan | 2:07 pm
8 Comments:
Fuck it, I must be a nerd. I'm going to a showing of it tonight with a pal from work That video creased me, man... 'Three hours of extra footage'.
Well, I must be crazy because I'm actually considering watching it.
Now, I've never watched one single episode of Star Trek - partly because it's not really my kind of sci-fi, but mostly because I can't see past those horrible, horrible uniforms. Call me shallow, but really...
Still. Since Sylar apparently equals Spock I migth give it a go. (Even though Heroes swerved badly off track ages and ages ago.)
It's more likely just me. Or a "Glasgow audience" thing. Gig crowds here are notorious -- wildly enthusiastic if won over, but scornfully dismissive if not. So sf tv tends to make me rave or rant, with not much in between. (c.f. my snarlings about BSG).
Aside from a few exceptions and caveats then, I find most Star Trek excruciating. And aside from Lost, Abrams just seems to have brain flatulence. I mean, Alias after season two?... Cloverfield?... and Fringe has to be the dumbest thing on telly since Prey, with only a compulsively whacky Vincent Price impersonator to make it watchable. Put Trek and Abrams together and add in the meta-issues of Hollywood corporate cinema -- SFX schlockbuster superficiality combined with the attempt to suck every last scrap of narrative meat from the bones of a rotting franchise -- and I have better things to throw money at.
But hey, I've seen a few positive reviews from people whose opinion is generally sound, which makes me happy to admit I could be completely wrong (and pig-headedly unjust to boot) here.
(Funny enough, I thought Heroes was shite from season one, but decided to check out the "reboot" with Volume 4 and found it *way* better than the structural trainwreck I remember just *boring* me.)
I've never liked the original series so I'm not thrilled about seeing Kirk, Spock, et al. in one more film. I did want to go see it, but changed my mind. May rent it, may not.
I loved it!! I always thought I was a trekkie, but maybe not if they hate it. It was fun and watchable and had plenty of little references to the original show and plenty of shiny things getting blown up. I want to go back and see it all again.
Nah, I didn't like at all. The general moviegoer in me was unimpressed, but the science fiction fan in me was absolutely gut-punched by it.
Hagelrat : According to the reviews on Trekmovie.com, most of the fans really did like it. Some of that is watching Star Trek become "cool", of course - which is a reason some people *don't* like it.
Hal : Your mileage may vary, but I found it a witty, epic piece of eye-candy. It's doesn't achieve the coherence of, say, "Serenity" at a story level, but I found it to be emotionally engaging. And anything that has Chris Pine in his underwear can't be a completely *bad* movie... :)
Hal, I'm not telling you to spend money on this, but I think you should watch this one sooner or later, if only for a few inspired sequences of K/S-love. Among other things, Spock metapohrically refers to Kirk as a "race horse" that must be "tamed" (or was it "broken"?). Later, he actually does some "taming" by "disciplining" Kirk mano-a-mano.
This movie is truly a slash paradise! I loved that much about it. As well as the glorious, shiny starships. The rest is pretty forgettable ...
Post a Comment
<< Home