Loading ...
I’ve never been one to place much stock in reviews, whether they’re for television shows, movies, music or even restaurants. So it doesn’t bother me at all that Star Trek (2009) has been given one of its first negative reviews by Armond White for New York Press. White calls the movie “watchable, yet still terrible cinema” and lambastes it for applying television principles to the big screen. I’ll admit to not entirely understanding what he’s complaining about.
I do, however, completely understand the comments posted at Rotten Tomatoes in response to the review. And they disgust me.
As I write this there are 150 comments, all of them denouncing and denigrating White and his review. If they simply disagreed with his assessment of the movie that would be one thing and I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But these comments go far beyond the review. They attack White personally. One of the first replies includes the line “You are a complete idiot, troll, who should be banned from Rotten Tomatoes. ***** you Armond, you ignorant piece of *****.” Another begins with the following: “You moronic fool! How can you give negative reviews to movies like these? Have you no heart, or are you boosting your already-inflated ego?”
One person even writes “I hope his entire family dies.”
There’s no reason to believe that everyone responding to the review is an avid fan of the Star Trek franchise so I’m not going to trot out Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations (although the saying works just as well outside the Star Trek universe and its fandom). No one should be subjected to this sort of abuse simply for not agreeing with (the presumed) majority. It is sickening. If you don’t agree with White’s review just ignore it. The fact that it exists won’t lessen your enjoyment of Star Trek (2009). Trust me.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I understand where you’re coming from, but White’s review (and researching his background) leads me to understand why so many have such vitriolic reactions. His reviews do smack of calling things crap in order to get attention, and I think there’s little else the internet lauds or alternatively denigrates to such an extent as attention-seeking.
The man smacks of self delusion- of making himself out to be the One True Critic. Does he have valid points? Sure. I’m not sure “Milk” was the amazing movie it was made out to be, and “Slumdog Millionaire” seemed a tad shallow. But presentation is as important as substance, and the fact that he seems to be as guilty of blind fanboyism as his “opponents” (witness the fact that he bemoans people don’t understand the genius of Indiana Jones IV) make me consider him just another loud-mouthed bad egg who brings his own politics and prejudices into reviews.
Of course, you’re right, people can just ignore him.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:28 am
The truth is, is that Star Trek WAS a horrible Star Trek film, and a flashy, good-looking, fun Sci-Fi film. Anyone with half an understanding of the way good stories are constructed would spot the terrible inconsistencies. Star Trek was never a kiddie show, despite the merchandising like the gold-key comics. It was a family show, and the writing team of the new movie have kiddied it up on the one hand, and then attempted to make everything grittier to add “realism”. There are no reasons for personal attack, just get together and add up the shoddy story work and make it known. A box-office success and loads of new and could care-less fans are no indicator of a “good” movie – just a “good” moneymaker.
For specifics, see my rant in the comments at:
http://thedefacer.com/?p=4
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:41 am
Yeah, well, number one, this new Star Trek film was THE most boring and stupid film I have seen for 10 years (except maybe some stupid piece of dreck called Bridge of Dragons that some long distance bus driver decided to torture his passengers with). How many times in one movie can a character be left dangling in a “cliffhanger” situation? It’s fairly ho-hum. Spock mentions a star going super nova and threatening to destroy the galaxy (?!) or did I hear that one wrong. Spock travels through time by popping through a black hole and yet later on we are supposed to be on the edge of our seat when the Enterprise is about to fall into one (but it ain’t life threatening folks, they’ll just appear 25 years in the past if they fall into it or so we were led to believe by Spock’s experience. Of course falling back in time 25 years would be a major inconvenience but not knife edge excitement). The characters all seem like bland cast offs from Beverly Hills 90210. They all seem like drones. There is no tension in the film. No intelligence. Nothing.
And to those who say this new film is an improvement on the old series cheesiness, I ain’t ever seen nothin’ so cheesy as the first ten minutes of Star Trek 11. The hero being born just as his good ol’ daddy dies valiently. Blah, blah, blah…
Videogames are fun to play but movies that resemble video games ain’t fun to watch.
But onto the more pressing matter of online stupidity and rampant internet bullying and nastiness. It’s plain pack mentality. Tasteless and cruel online personal attacks tend to come from weasels who are faceless online and generally using an impenetrable psuedonymns. They also tend to like safety in numbers and like/dislike whatever they are told to by the majority. Conformists with designer individuality tagged onto their sleaves.
If Star Trek used to be about promoting diversity it seems it has now succumed to appealing mostly to bland group think by a bunch of real life internet pods straight out of Invasion of the Bodysnatchers (“they’re here already!!! You’re next!!!”). The ones who will hope that someone’s family dies because that person doesn’t like the same films as them are just as nasty and more terrifying.
Man, why would anyone vilify someone else just for NOT LIKING the same film.
Aaaaarghhh!!!
May 29th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
It is astouding the negative reactions that Armond White generates. White cannot be called a reactionary because there is tremendous consistency to his reviews. I do think people get angry at ideas they don’t understand – further intensified by Armond White shortcomings as a writer and strengths as a thinker. Most important of all, movies are emotion and images, both of which are nearly impossible to articulate. If people have not built up a sensitivity to the traits White detests, then his weakly written reviews on difficult subject matter are even more convoluted, science-fiction even.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
The movie was great if you’re a special effects nut. However, Abrams took great pains to alter cherished characters. I for one winced every time I saw a once cerebral and logical character grope the communications oficer, who by the way was characterized as highly intelligent before the film. the plot and even Nimoy had me thnking”alternate universe” in the worst way.
I dragged out some of the original episodes and movies that critics villified in previous reviews and understood the divide. Its the Beverly Hills 90210 crowd versus the Sci Fi crowd. Its not that us non nerds are ga ga about nerds, its just we’re not wild about valley either.