On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Mark J. <[email protected]> wrote: > Infamously contrarian NY Press critic Armond White rips the "Star > Trek" reboot apart (scroll past his dismissal of "Wolverine"): > http://www.nypress.com/article-19758-where-young-boys-have-gone-before.html > On the other hand, Ebert (sorta) agrees with him in a 2 1/2-star review: > http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090506/REVIEWS/905069997 > > The LA Times' Patrick Goldstein doesn't agree totally with White, but > does find his view that mainstream movies today are overgrown TV shows > worth pondering:
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/05/armond-white-on-star-trek-its-tv-masquarading-as-film-.html > For the record, rottentomatoes.com has a 95% "fresh" (favorable) rating from > its critics poll for "Star Trek" and 91% for the major > critics I just got home from seeing it on IMAX. I can see a range of defensible reactions, from Ebert's "fun but not much there" to "Kick Ass!" - my own rating is closer frankly to kick ass - maybe 3.5 stars - but White's review is utter nonsense. He comes across not so much as a contrarian but a college sophomore writing a column for the NYU student paper. Apparently, anyone who does not agree with him "doesn’t respect Eisenstein and Peckinpah’s formal/spiritual innovations". Or brother. What kind of Manichean world does White live in where everything is either high culture or bullshit? This is the exact straw man statement of intellectual elitism that produces the equally dualistic and absurd world view of George W Bush. For God's sake man, you went to a film about a television show - if you were looking for "The Battleship Potemkin" or "The Wild Bunch" then perhaps you are the one who had his head up his ass. I can see a mildly disappointing review noting that JJ's re-boot is not nearly as radical or provocative in content or style as that done for Battlestar Galactica. But such a review should probably also at least consider some reasons for that (one being that the original BG sucked, and needed a radical re-visioning). Perhaps it is obvious that I am a little sick and tired of all the chic revisionist perspective on Star Trek and Roddenberry as being too tame, apologetic, conformist, etc. I don't mean so much the lack of appreciation for the historical context, but a lack of appreciation of the vision, which was not that of a radical revolutionary, but of an old fashioned liberal who imagined that the mechanisms of mainstream conformity should, and could, one day work in the service of progressive and universalist values. That is not the only vision of the future that is possible or necessary, but it wouldn't be the worst one. Ebert has a tendency in many of his reviews to point out plot flaws that are actually answered in the film - I always imagine him watching 3 or 4 films a day and not really having the time to go back carefully over his notes. For example he writes "The logic is also a little puzzling when XXXX can XXXX people into another ship in outer space, but they have to physically XXXX to land on a platform" - but the explanation for this is given quite clear in the set up (there is information available to those in the first instance that is not available to those in the second). Ebert does understand that this film basically functions as episode 1 in an ongoing franchise, and as such carries the burden of exposition, character establishment (and establishment of continuity and discontinuity). I think Abrams did all that quite well. As a fan of the franchise I was well pleased. If you are a male of my generation there is a good chance that the first time you cried at any kind of drama was when Billy Dee Williams gave his speech about James Caan - and the second time may well have been when Spock says goodbye to Kirk in Wrath of Khan. It would be hard for me to rank any Star Trek film ahead of either WOK, but this one is probably gives Search for Spock, a close run for second best. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... Smart (TV) People on Ice! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
