OldSchool_Boy wrote:
I could watch it again so its cool in my book.
Fair enough. I'm all for people loving movies and I really don't have anything to add about Crystal Skull that hasn't already been said.
STAR TREK (2012)
Wasted script and talent. Great performances, visual Nyquil. Lens flare should not be the focus of a movie. Haven't watched a movie that has frustrated so much in a long time. I've seen dumb movies and loss opportunities, but Star Trek had me asking "why?" over and over again. Could have been so awesome with a different director.
OldSchool_Boy wrote:
I could watch it again so its cool in my book.
Fair enough. I'm all for people loving movies and I really don't have anything to add about Crystal Skull that hasn't already been said.
STAR TREK (2012)
Wasted script and talent. Great performances, visual Nyquil. Lens flare should not be the focus of a movie. Haven't watched a movie that has frustrated so much in a long time. I've seen dumb movies and loss opportunities, but Star Trek had me asking "why?" over and over again. Could have been so awesome with a different director.
Jay Sherman said it best.
Do you mean the version from a couple of years ago, or is there a new Star Trek coming out this year?
OldSchool_Boy wrote:
I could watch it again so its cool in my book.
Fair enough. I'm all for people loving movies and I really don't have anything to add about Crystal Skull that hasn't already been said.
STAR TREK (2012)
Wasted script and talent. Great performances, visual Nyquil. Lens flare should not be the focus of a movie. Haven't watched a movie that has frustrated so much in a long time. I've seen dumb movies and loss opportunities, but Star Trek had me asking "why?" over and over again. Could have been so awesome with a different director.
Jay Sherman said it best.
That was my initial reaction, too. But after a 2nd viewing I decided, "Hell, it's new Star Trek, and it's not as bad as Star Trek V or Insurrection." And since there's no Star Trek on T.V. right now, I'll take it. And hope my all that it leads to a new Star Trek T.V. series down the road.
But yeah, it felt like it was more of an action-thrill ride type movie, than an intellectual Star Trek story. Which is what bothered me the most.
If nothing else, Karl Urban nailed it as McCoy, and we got to see Leonard Nimoy in his legendary role one last time.
indecks wrote:
Someone mentioned versus. Hated that movie.
No love for zombies shooting guns?
I like Versus too, enough that I spent $60 on the J DVD before it was released here. But I can see how someone who isn't as into the genre would think it is meh and be bored by the slower parts.
indecks wrote:
Someone mentioned versus. Hated that movie.
No love for zombies shooting guns?
I will admit it's been several years since I've watched it, and I only watched it once. But it just didn't do anything for me. Also the camera work was annoying. I know they tried to do the bullet time thing a couple of times but you could tell the guy was running in circles around the characters with his little sony handycam to emulate the effect.
Also, it made no sense to me (once again, only seen it once). At the beginning guy A is good, guy B is bad. At the end Guy B is good and Guy A is bad? wtf? And I could be remembering it wrong but didn't some of the characters say "hey thats the forest of resurrection (or whatever) - lets not go in there!"
And then they ran in there. It was just very shoddy to me.
indecks wrote: I know they tried to do the bullet time thing a couple of times but you could tell the guy was running in circles around the characters with his little sony handycam to emulate the effect.
