First ‘Star Trek’ Reviews Roll In
by Tom Tapp
The first reviews of JJ Abrams’ “Star Trek” hit the web today and they should please fans of the series, if not fans of Matt Damon.
How did Damon weasel his way into this?
After denying it for months, Abrams revealed to Life magazine recently that Damon was his first choice for Captain Kirk:
“…it would have been great to work with Matt – but at the end of the day, it was such a better move to cast the movie with unknowns.”
The reviewers agree.
The Hollywood Reporter gushes that “all the familiar characters are instantly identifiable,” while the U.K.’s Daily Mail says Chris Pine plays Kirk with “real dash and charisma.” But the film’s not just for geeks who’ve already drunk the Romulan ale.
THR:
The film is so much fun, however, that it will draw in moviegoers just looking for a sensational ride. The boxoffice should beam up enormous returns.
And The Daily Mail says the film is “not only by far the best of the 11 Star Trek movies, it must rank as the outstanding prequel of all time.”
That’s breathy praise from prose that is, at times, a bit vague. But among the plot points and character details revealed are:
1. The film begins with the birth of Kirk and follows he and Spock in parallel as they mature.
2. The plot “centres on the initial dislike and rivalry, followed by respect and friendship” between the duo.
3. Eric Bana is no Ricardo Montalban. His Romulan baddie “hardly has anything to do and certainly doesn’t have any depth or sophistication of motivation.”
4. “Whole scenes are, perhaps unsurprisingly, stolen by Simon Pegg as Scotty”
5. Time travel plays a huge role in the film. (Sounds like JJ Abrams, to me.)
These last three points come from Slashfilm.com, which has an elliptical (but more considered) take on the film. Enjoy.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
54 Comments
Thank God we dodged the Matt Damon bullet!!I still get the feeling this movie is going to be crap.
OMG I agree – I would have absolutely REFUSED to give the movie a chance if Damon had been taken on as Kirk. As it is, despite the fears that Trekkers have about the new film, a long time Trekker like myself is willing to go and see what they do with the stuff. I for one am kind of eager to see what Karl Urban does with MY favorite ST:OS character, Dr. McCoy. No one will EVER replace DeForest Kelley, but I have been fairly impressed with Urban so far (didnt ever think Id like a minor LOTR character so much), so I want to give it a shot. And a friend of mine showed me some clips of movies that Simon Pegg was in and I love the report that he has been stealing scenes. Of course he would! He's a Scot!! Love the Scots!
I'll give it a shot. But with J.J. Abrams…. I just expect lots of needless plot twists. We'll see.
Thanks for your thoughts and the positive reviews, but my $10 was spent regardless. Pass the Romulan Ale.
Matt Damon? I didn't think they were going to have Borg drones in this installment.
"by far the best"?
C'mon.
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
Matt Damon is good as Jason Bourne. That's all. I haven't liked anything else he's done.
I also look forward to seeing this movie. Do you suppose Karl Urban will say, "I'm a doctor! Not a ____!"
Or will Simon Pegg say, "I'm givin' her she's got Ciptin! If I push any harder, she'll blow!"
Or will Chekov talk about the "Sheep."
Personally, I want to see who plays Uhura!
I have never anticipated a film more then this one, so I'm so glad the reviews are positive. I think the cast is incredible too, although my favorites are Chris Pine, Simon Pegg and Chris Hemsworth. I'm looking forward to seeing Chris Doohan too! It's great that he's a part of this.
Matt Damon was remarkably lifelike in "Team America". I'll probably see this film. I grew up when Original Recipe Trek was in reruns, and I was hooked on it as a kid.
Science fiction and Fantasy are the most interesting Novels that I read, and it is a shame that there are not more Movies in the Genre that have the budget needed to make interesting plot ideas work on the screen. In Scifi/fantasy it is possible to really dream of completely different worlds and the impact of technology in the future. It is often through this vehicle that the nature of good and evil can be explored, or our Humanity, our Morality, or can just be plain entertaining from the standpoint of actually SEEING and not merely vizualizing and completely different universe. Sadly, there are simply not very many good/big budget Hollywood sci fi and fantasy movies made, so in this case, reboot or not, I will relish getting to see this movie. Also, Lost is an example of one of the best Network television series of all time. The fact that this show, with all of its layers and deep concepts, is as popular as it is, is stunning. The fact that Network execs greenlighted this show, and moreso that it became POPULAR with the general public is astounding. Whether or not you like Lost, you have to concede that it has made television a better place. It has shown that Americans want more than the same tired cookie cutter, dumbed down television shows year in and out. For now, Lost is one of the few on Network TV, and cable networks like FX, HBO, AMC, and TNT, etc have been created some brilliant original programming the past several years. There are very few television shows that I don't find insulting to my intelligence, or just plain boring, but JJ Abrams obviously has talent and guts. For that, I think that this Star Trek movie is in the hands of one of the best.
Damon: I'm Matt Damon
Director: Cut! You're Kirk. Roll
Damon: I'm Matt Damon
Director: We'll edit that out later. Roll
No one should expect another "Khan." I don't think anyone does, yet unfortunately, most of the reviewers here on BH seem to think we should. I have high expectations for an Abrams vision of Star Trek, and I say that as a huge fan of Abrams and a life-long Trekkie. I think the filmmakers have been pretty honest that this isn't meant to fit into the established narrative of the previous films, and as long as we keep this in mind, I have a hunch this will be a really great experience.
simon pegg is not scottish
Basically if you go into see the film hating it before hand don't expect to enjoy it.
Matt Damon is good as a three-week-old compost heap.
James Doohan was Canadian; the accent was part of his ACTING.
"Do you suppose Karl Urban will say, "I'm a doctor! Not a ____!" "
It wouldnt be Bones McCoy if he didnt say that!!
My bad – but I still love the Scots!
Good one!!
Karl, surprisingly, has Bones's attitude sussed out properly, judging by the footage of him I've seen. And it becomes even more appropriate when you realize how much he sounds like DeForest Kelley.
Why is it the Sci-Fi Channel is completely crap at producing original science fiction for TV? Some of their series are pretty good (and at least they gave MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000 a second chance), but those don't strike me as in-house productions the way their "Original Films" are — and the latter are absolute godawful messes, every one. The writing is embarrassing, the actors are poorly directed, and the special effects are atrocious enough to make you miss the era of model shots.
Why is it the Sci-Fi Channel is completely crap at producing original science fiction for TV? Some of their series are pretty good (and at least they gave MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000 a second chance), but those don't strike me as in-house productions the way their "Original Films" are — and the latter are absolute godawful messes, every one. The writing is embarrassing, the actors are poorly directed, and the special effects are atrocious enough to make you miss the era of model shots.
I can’t wait! I’ve been a fan of Star Trek since I was a kid in the ‘60s. Me and my brothers had these little toy guns that shot these little plastic disc’s supposedly a “phaser,” memories. Also what JJ Abrams did giving our brave soldiers a pre-screening my boycott policy will be set aside. But, if Maaaatt Daaamon had been Kirk, I wouldn’t be seeing the movie, no way no how. I hope it's a good movie.
I can’t wait! I’ve been a fan of Star Trek since I was a kid in the ‘60s. Me and my brothers had these little toy guns that shot these little plastic disc’s supposedly a “phaser,” memories. Also what JJ Abrams did giving our brave soldiers a pre-screening my boycott policy will be set aside. But, if Maaaatt Daaamon had been Kirk, I wouldn’t be seeing the movie, no way no how. I hope it's a good movie.
I think Pegg was voice-coached by his Scottish girlfriend.
I for one am looking forwrd to the movie. It is plain stupid to restrict storytellers to an already convoluted Star Trek Universe. It is way too restrictive. Star Trek is a great franchise but needs new life breathed into it. This prequel might just accomplish this if it is given a chance. It is impossible to continue the franchise and keep to the fictional history that has been developed over the years. I am hoping that I will be in for a great ride when the movie opens here. Keep an open mind, and don't be too resrtictive in your thinking.
It wouldn't be Star Trek without those…. it just wouldn't.
It wouldn't be Star Trek without those…. it just wouldn't.
To be fair, I believe "Dune" and "Children of Dune" were both released by USA/SciFi. And the SF production of Dune blew the Lynch version clean out of the water. That is, if you care at all about the original storyline of the books.
I'm pretty sure most of their "monster movies" are supposed to be crap. By far the best I've seen of these was something like "Tornado Terror," in which NYC is beset by miniature tornados, which freeze things they don't suck up and shoot ball lightning, ice, and perhaps even leprauchans at disposable extras.
Shouldn't Matt Damon have portrayed a Cling-On? I assume everyone knows the joke that goes with "why is the Starship Enterprise like toilet paper."
This looks like utter crap. Who wants to see a teenage space opera?
I'm agnostic about whether or not Damon would have done Kirk well, but I suspect he would have been fine. I am, however, convinced that Adrien Brody would have been by far the best choice for Spock. As for the reviews, feh, nobody with any trust in their own judgement listens to critics anyway, so I'll be my own authority on that, thank you very much. LOL!
The producers probably saved 10-15 million buy not having Damon. And now we don't have to think of Kirk as Jason Bourne in a space suit.
I think movies live or die on good writing and direction. You can have a smash hit with "unknown" actors and good writing/direction, but you can't have bad writing/direction and a "star" save the thing.
I love JJ Abrams, but was on the fence about the 'Trek film until I read about the trip he and some of the stars took over to Kuwait to premiere it for the troops. The gracious they showed (as reported by the troops, not the media) makes me want to see it.
Not me. Looks like kids playing grownup. Utter crap indeed.
Um, teenagers who like space opera and have $10 that's doing nothing else?
Sorry, won't work. Spock had big pointy EARS. Wrong part of the facial anatomy, and it's easier to add body parts than remove them. But he is a great actor.
Or worse yet, as Good Will Hunting in a space suit. Then we'd also be stuck with "serious" Robin Williams as his mentor at the academy. "Serious" Robin is the one with the beard. "Funny" Robin is the one without the beard.
"Serious" Robin Williams really gets on my nerves sometimes too, makes me want to grab him and put some rainbow suspenders on him while saying,"Lighten up Francis."
Nothing beats Khan, that's the only Star Trek movie I can say I thought was good without any reservation. Well that and Galaxy Quest but I usually get hard stares from people with pointed ear prosthetics when I say that, so I don't bring it up that often.
I'll stick to my Voyager DVDs thank you very much.
Kate Mulgrew, Jeri Ryan or Roxanne Dawson could kick Chris Pine or Zachary Quinto’s ass.
I'll see it. Wouldn't have had Damon been in it, though. Zachary Quinto's Spock, sad to say, resembles the aliens in "Galaxy Quest". Like a poster above, I'd have loved to see Adrian Brody in the film. Hell, I like to see Adrian Brody in ANYTHING.
Someone above wrote how great movies live and die on great writing/directing. I'd add that even with a great writer and a great director, casting can torpedo a film just as well as bad writing, directing and/or editing. Casting Matt Damon as James T. Kirk would have been a travesty.
That's what I have been telling my wife. It's different. You have to actually pay attention when you are watching it. I watch it every week with my daughter and I'm not looking forward to the season ending.
I'm actually looking forward to it after reading the review. It portrays it much better than I was fearing it would be.
the wrath of kahn, of course, set up the next 2 films, that aside, it was the redemption for the series from the truly awful first attempt to bring the franchise to the big screen. and i waited in line for the first film, like a teenager waiting for his first big date and meet the parents combo. alternately scared and excited, and ultimately disappointed.
and galaxy quest! what a fine time that film was. i have a copy, and i run it two or three times a year. all in all, pretty true to the core of the trekkerverse, even starting with the kind of thin premise that it had.
i will be there opening night in my town
I always thought Voyager was underrated. Sure, Janeway was pretty touchy-feely at times. But at other times, she was downright ruthless. I recall one episode in which she had to be stopped by Tuvok from exposing a crewman from another Starfleet ship to a belligerent species to get information from him.
Jake, I totally agree but i keep watching hoping the next made-for-SciFi-Channel movie will be enjoyable. I prefer Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, and Firefly on the SciFi Channel. Two of favorite shows on tv are Supernatural and Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles.
As a five year old I loved the original series, but it was a SCARY show. Easy to forget how creepy almost every episode was for a little kid. That was the main attraction!
[...] wouldn’t really give them cover to create a $9.3 trillion deficit over 10 years. More reviews are linked at Big Hollywood. From the Times review: The movie looks gorgeous. Gone is the gloom of [...]
It's Star Trek 90210! Yuck! The two ideas just don't mix well…
Star Trek follows a basic template; this is one chance to revamp. I just don't like the 90210 style. It's too self-aware of the past & comes off as campy.
I am pumped about the movie, though I am sure I am set up for disappointment, just because I am a Trekker and have been since I was five watching Captain Jean Luc Picard get assimilated by the Borg with my dad.
I like the casting picks (still not sure about Uhura) and the SFX look decent. The Enterprise re imagined looks odd though, like something out of Jimmy Neutron or a cross between a vacuum cleaner and a sex toy.
"Galaxy Quest" was EXCELLENT!!!
And I was a "Star Trek" geek when "Star Trek" was…well…geeky.
"1. The film begins with the birth of Kirk and follows he and Spock in parallel as they mature."
Follows he? Please, who taught you grammar?
You must be logged in to post a comment.