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.
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%.
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%
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.
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.
randxian May 5, 2009
joseph_valencia May 5, 2009
EDIT:
Now it's 32 reviews @ 100%. I wonder who will be the first guy to downvote Star Trek?
Suskie Blogger May 5, 2009
Suskie Blogger May 6, 2009
joseph_valencia May 6, 2009
Suskie Blogger May 6, 2009
joseph_valencia May 6, 2009
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 Blogger May 6, 2009
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 6, 2009
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 Blogger May 6, 2009