Soulless self-mocking populist drivel. Sponsored by beer and a cell phone. (Spoilers)

[Deja Q]

Yes, it is visually appealing.

Yes, Leonard Nimoy has some need to show up in this waste.

Yes, there's a lot of nudge-nudge-wink-wink self-referential jokes and lines directly nicked from previous trek movies and tv shows.

Yes, the next movie's villain will be called "Napoleon" because "Nero" isn't sufficiently suck-ass.

Yes, I walked out 2 minutes before the ending, got to the car, and was amazed at how long that whateveritwas went.

Yes, it would have worked on its own if it didn't feel a need to usurp the name and characters of "Star Trek" and remove the balls from them all. I think that might be why Roger Ebert at least acknowledges it is "fun". Hell, it might have been better - or indeed really good - if it tried being its own thing instead of digging up and molesting old material so shamelessly.

Vapid, inane, and sponsored by Budweiser and Nokia no less. Never did I once think that corporate placement would show up in a Trek movie. Even the Star Wars prequels were unscathed.

Let Attila the Romulan die.

I just didn't give a shit. Scenes just came and went. Like any number of nameless johns in this cheap hooker of a flick.

Yes, all but ONE movie coming this summer is remakes and reboots of dead television. I can't believe the only one I want to sit through is the Ben Stiller one where he goes to the museum and everything comes to life. Beats the snot out of... "Land of the Lost".

How the heck can anyone watch the Transformers II trailer and NOT laugh their asses off because it's so much obvious garbage?

And yet another Terminator wankfest? Give me a break.

Anybody wanna know how I truly feel? (Hint: I'm not going to go to any of the sequels being dreamed up without a damn good reason.)

Wow. I'm almost on par with that Maddox guy when it comes to swearing and being crude when doing movie reviews. I remember his take on "Eagle Eye"... I wonder what he might say about NuTrek...

[Xipe Totec]

1. Just when I think the Onion can't capture reality...

Trekies bash new Start Trek film as "fun, watchable"

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film


:rofl:

[Deja Q]

2. Ebert called it 'fun'. Was it fun? Was it watchable? Not particularly...

I giggled at two lines.

In a 2 hour time frame, that's not fun.

Effects might look good, but that's why I don't go to movies. I've played video games with similar themed visuals that, OMG, happen to be *engaging*. This movie was not *engaging*. It was meandering despite the typical fast pace of most modern media.