29 reviews and Star Trek is still at 100%. I mean, all movies have to drop eventually, but this one's lasted a remarkably long time.

Most recent blog posts from Mike Suskie...
My ten favorite games of 2015 Top Ten I'll be getting a lot of use out of this feature...

Feedback
	randxian - May 05, 2009 (05:19 PM) Most impressive.
	joseph_valencia - May 05, 2009 (07:13 PM) I have a feeling this movie is going to make a ridiculous amount of money. EDIT: Now it's 32 reviews @ 100%. I wonder who will be the first guy to downvote Star Trek?
	Suskie - May 05, 2009 (09:54 PM) Yeah, whoever breaks the 100% is gonna get lynched.
	Suskie - May 06, 2009 (09:15 AM) 42. Christ.
	joseph_valencia - May 06, 2009 (11:23 AM) Armond White of the New York Press wrote the first negative Star Trek review. His article already has 86 comments, probably from people who haven't seen the movie yet. Hell hath no fury like scorned Trekkies.
	Suskie - May 06, 2009 (11:49 AM) Armond White is always the guy to do that. I know its sounds fanboy-ish to claim that a critic has an agenda, but look at his reviewing history and you'll see he's crap. (You have to believe me, because this movie marks the first time I've ever been excited for anything Star Trek-related.) As far as I'm concerned, the Tomatometer is still at 100%.
	joseph_valencia - May 06, 2009 (12:29 PM) I'll take your word for it, since he called Dark Knight "the sentinel of our cultural abyss" and wrote some rather mean-spirited stuff about Heath Ledger in his review. ("But how great of an actor was Ledger to accept this trite material in the first place?" Yeah, way to stick it to the dead guy. >_>) Anyways, Star Trek's second Rotten review was posted, this time from Rafer Guzman of Newsday. His review is less scathing, but I imagine it'll elicit a lot of groans. New T-Meter: 96%
	Suskie - May 06, 2009 (12:45 PM) Yeah, I knew Star Trek wouldn't last forever (no movie does), but if you look through the comments for some of the earlier reviews, people were actually predicting that Armond would be the one to break the 100%. Someone even said in the comments for his review that the guy is becoming predictable, which is the last thing you'd think he'd want to be. But yeah, I'm not usually one to attack someone else's opinion but as far as I'm concerned, if you don't like The Dark Knight, Iron Man, The Wrestler or Slumdog Millionaire and then claim that Transporter 3 is "the only movie you need to see this season," you have no business reviewing films.
	joseph_valencia - May 06, 2009 (03:22 PM) Ebert has finally chimed in. He gives "Star Trek" a so-so 2.5 stars out of four. My favorite excerpt from the review: Consider, at light warp speeds, how imprecise it would be to say “At my command ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...” Between “2” and “1,” you could jump a million galaxies. A classic Ebert observation. Anyways, I'm lowering my expectations for this movie. It might still be a decent popcorn flick, but I'm starting to doubt that it's really a match for Khan and the whales.
	Suskie - May 06, 2009 (10:05 PM) Eh. There's no denying that he's a great writer, but I disagree with Ebert on a lot of things. I still expect this movie to be awesome.