TOTALLY FREAKING ROCKS!  Saw it today with the wifey and it was incredible... 

FULLY AWESOME

Machineman: this is unlike any other Trek ever created.  It rethinks most of the technology, as well as the story (whoops!), but leaves the characters pretty much as they were intended to be.

A friend of mine went to see a screening of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan in Austin, TX a week before the new movie came out.  Just after the beginning credits finished, the film burned up.  At that point the house lights came up and who walks out?  None other than Leonard Nimoy himself!  He asks the viewers if they want him to try to reload the film, or if they would just like to watch the new movie . . .   He even sat there and watched it with them!

One thing to remember about this film: Nimoy told an interviewer that when he sat on set watching the interaction between Zach Quinto (Spock) and Karl Urban (McCoy) that he actually got misty-eyed and teared up.  That should satisfy nearly any die-hard Trek fans worries about the characters.

The old Trek space battles always felt to me like WWI naval battles.  By comparison, these battles are like watching WWII dogfights.  Not the usual, at all!

I thought the movie was excellent tbh 9/10. Only reason it doesn't get more were some dodgy sections with the plot but i can overlook that. This movie poo poos all over Nemesis and all that came before it (except Wrath of Khan, top story). Showing my age by saying i grew up watching it from day one but i think the cgi and other fx have definately helped a tired franchise. Rumour is the actors signed up for a set of three films assuming the first one did well so expect more to come. I personally can't wait

My wife and I saw it last night... and LOVED it!  We too grew up watching the various Start Trek voyages from "day 1".  (yup,...old f%#!)

There were a few "oops" type things...... but overall..... it was not only a great "Star Trek" movie... but for those who grew up on the original series... a really FUNNY movie too.  The director and actors really "nailed" all the old stereotypes and ideosyncrasies of the original cast and series.  The only dialog they missed was ....... "He's dead, Jim!"

The opening scene is a real "James Bond" style opener.  Hits you fast and furious (0 to 60 in 2 sec.) and leaves you just a tad disoriented as to the coming story.  Nicely done.

The plot twists off of the original Star Trek "backstory" were not as objectionable as I thought they'd be before I saw it.... the "different universe" thing was payed very well.

The actors absolutely nailed Kirk and Spock and McCoy.  It was hard to not imagine that those guys really WERE the younger screen alter-egos.  

Leonard Nimoy also was great.... but I hope that most of his "age" there was makeup to make him his Vulcan age......... not reality.  He really seemed old.

For an example of the "oops" department in our book, I'd rate that Scotty's accent and behavior was more a stereotypical one of a fun loving Irishman than a dour Scott.  But then it WAS an alternate universe  .

Anyway... go get yourself some tickets.  Siskel and Ebert give it "Two Thumbs Up".

best,

.....................john

PS:  And if you haven't seen this..............     

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/sapringer/STARTREKKIN.html

JBaymore wrote on May 21^st, 2009 at 6:51pm:


DeForrest Kelly always said he HATED saying that line... 

John I wrote a very simmilar review to yours before my internet crashed. I cant be bothered to write it again as you've summed it up nicely.
I would say though I disagree on the Kirk comparisons. I thought he did quite a poor job in comparison to the others.
Without a doubt the best has to be McCoy. I think Deforrest Kelly would have been proud of the job he did. The only criticsm there would be he was slightly too big. Bones was always quite a skinny man.
Zachary Quintos look was so much like a much younger spock that he nailed the part perfectly.
Eric Banna is one of my favourate actors so I was always going to enjoy his role as Nero.
As soon as I saw the guy in the red uniform I think I along with everyone in the theater let out a laughing, "he's a gonner"

I'm so glad Nimoy did have a part in the movie, his emotion and acting ability brought something to the movie that made it easy to feel the loss of Vulcan in the character.

Thanks for the heads up on that microlight, i knew scottys son was involved somewhere along the line

tcco94 wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 12:35am:


Some teacher!!!   

If his admin knows and he is still there....... some school. 

best,

.................john

tcco94 wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 10:45am:


I wouldn't bet on him staying very long, if you've posted this so cavalierly, and he's still showing the film.

In poor taste, if you ask me, but that's a whole different thread now, isn't it, Jim?

great movie.

great plot.

great character acting.

FANTASTIC musical score.

the movie to beat in 2009!

and If I have more money I would probably live in the theater,watchig it over and over and over ..

Really good one

T1MT1M wrote on Jun 19^th, 2009 at 10:38am:





That's brilliant!


Seriously though, I'm a life long Trekkie, and I thought this was the best one since the 'Wrath of Kahn'.

Hey folks.
(Holy snakes, is Staiduk back on the Internet? Not really - just chilling in a cyber-cafe before my latest doc's appointment.)

Anyhoo, some friends took me to see the new Trek right when it first opened in Edmonton. As opposed to everyone else here; to be frank I really didn't like it at all.

Frankly, I thought it was incredibly dumb.

Sorry in advance - as my heath deteriorates my sense of humour has atrophied as well and I've had a rather grim outlook on things recently. But anyway...

Look, I can understand the idea of taking one of the most phenomenally successful franchises in the history of multi-media science fiction and wanting to change everything that made it good to make it 'new' but could we at least apply some common sense to the whole thing?

The movie had great special effects, great explosions, some funny lines. What it didn't have was the minor things...you know, like a sensible plot.

OK; so they wanted to totally rewrite ST canon - but they went overboard making the 'new' characters come out with the same tired old lines and gags that made the old characters memorable...ignoring the fact that it was the old actors that made those characters memorable.
Granted, Karl Urban is a superb actor and portrayed Bones beautifully. Zoe Saldana (?) who played Uhura (they got her first name wrong, BTW) was utterly lovely as always, and did a damned good job.
Dude that played Spock did a good job of pretending to be Leonard Nimoy.
Kid that played Kirk...well...I'm certain the management of the theatre would have been annoyed if I'd followed my first impulse and threw things at the screen. That idiot was the worse incarnation of a ST captain I've ever seen - and that's saying something. I spent most of the show wanting to wipe that little "Look! I'm William Shatner!!" smirk off his underdeveloped little face.
But overall, I don't blame him - he's just new; thrown into an impossible situation. Was he instructed to be Kirk or Shatner? Either way, he didn't have a chance of succeeding. Shatner was Shatner; there is only one (which is probably for the best...heh heh heh.)
How did the kid stack up as a Starfleet captain? let's just say if he was a member of any military service I've served in, I'd have shot him to get him out of the way.

And so we get to the bits that really annoy me.
Just one quick question: Has anyone in Hollywood ever heard the term 'Chain of Command'? If they have (and I'm sure they have, I believe I heard one of the characters say the words at one point) have they ever paused to consider the implications of that phrase?
Or to put it in really simple terms, has anyone considered that Starfleet is a Military organization?

To put it bluntly, what kind of military would be so unbelievably, phenomenally stupid to allow a hothead with major disciplinary problems, zero experience, emotional issues and a known charge of cheating to take command of a three hundred meter long, heavily armed and ridiculously expensive Constitution-class heavy battlecruiser?
Or to put it in modern terms, to put an Annapolis undergrad in sole command of - say - the battleship New Jersey?

This might be a minor issue; I don't know, but it totally disgusted me and blew any enjoyment I had in the film right out of the water. As a military leader - albeit a very minor one - I wouldn't give a kid like that command of a janitor detail, much less a ship. The idea ignored the entire concept of military advancement - however bright, innovative and eager, a young leader must spend decades learning those skills essential to a commander - organization, planning, discipline, politics (anyone who's ever attended a 'Commanding Officer's dinner' knows what that's about...) personnel management, not to mention the actual physical and technical skills required for the job. Chain of command - in other words, the rank structure - is a grim, often merciless weeding-out process, dropping less than adequate candidates by the wayside.
(Every Annapolis grad, for instance, dreams of commanding a ship of his own. And from what I know, application to Annapolis - the United States' naval academy - is incredibly rigorous. Those that make it into the academy are the top 1% of all applicants. Of those candidates, many will not complete the course and drop out. Of the remainder, only the smallest fraction will have the drive, ability, innate cunning and political savvy to command even smaller vessels. Most will, along the way, fall into positions where their skills will suit them best - supply for instance, or communications. Thus those that do rise to the top are - at least in theory - the cream of the crop.)

It might sound like a nitpick, but that basic issue - undergrad Cadet Kirk winding up in command of the Enterprise as Captain Kirk; somehow missing all the little intervening steps - Ensign, lieutenant, lieutenant-Commander, Commander - three years after signing up for something that looks less like a major Naval Academy than enlisted Basic Training (Show up and jump on the bus? Heck of a selection system there) totally blew it for me.

Back to the film though - The first sight of the Enterprise in space took my breath away - it was an utterly beautiful moment. Regrettably, it was just about the only beautiful moment in the the whole film.

It seems nowadays you can't make an action film without using that incredibly distracting Epileptic-Cameraman-On-Coke jumpy, wiggly, seizure-inducing shooting. Flash, jump, flash, shift, blur, wiggle, jump, flash...then do the next ten seconds even jumpier than the last. You'd think that if a 300m ship was engaging a 3000m ship, simple inertia alone would allow for a shot longer than oh...about 5 seconds.

Anyhoo, this is long and I've got to get to my appointment, I'll wrap it up. Wanted to like it, was really looking forward to it, was utterly disappointed. All glitz, no substance at all. Stupid jokes, stupid lines, no plot and what storyline there was made no sense at all. 15 minutes into the show I found myself saying "10 bucks they find a way to haul Leonard Nimoy out of the closet to give the thing some ST credibility." Geez; I really wish I'd lost that bet.

Later folks.