The New Yorker’s Anthony Lane reviews the new “Star Trek” movie with a big stick up his ass. The tone of this piece is just off. There’s no need to mock blockbuster movies just because they’re blockbusters; some blockbusters, such as this one, are actually really good.
Who is this review written for? Are there really people out there who are going to rely on Anthony Lane’s opinion about whether to see the new “Star Trek” movie? Most of us don’t care, and the snobby Upper East Siders for whom this review seems to be written weren’t going to see it anyway.
I don’t know why the review pisses me off so much — maybe it’s because I’d just seen the movie a few hours earlier and thought it was terrific, and then I read this I’m-better-than-you piece of crap. God, no wonder people call this magazine elitist.
I’m kind of torn. On the one hand, I can see where your reaction is coming from and I did like the movie…to a degree.
However, I’m pretty bummed to have to admit that on a lot of points — not everything, certainly, but a lot — he’s actually right. :-(
I did like this part, though:
Their first thought is Tiberius, which, given that the Romulan captain is named Nero (Eric Bana), suggests a delightful rerun of first-century imperial Rome, complete with a new Caligula cavorting in zero gravity.
I’d love to see that movie. Then again, that’s more or less Dune. Hee.
Hey, Jeff! I really enjoyed the movie, too. It’s a breath of fresh air after the debacle that was Enterprise (read: the whole Xindi arc). Can’t wait to see the sequels. It was a nice touch to have Leonard Nimoy reprise his old role.