I put out the online call and long-time sci-fi/superhero film genre fan David Hudson answered the call.
On May 4, I urged readers of this blog to give me their reviews of "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" in 200 total words or less. In a follow-up e-mail, I asked some friends and relatives to whom I send my twice-monthly "Cary's Comics Craze" column to do the same with "Star Trek." Without further ado, here's what Hudson had to say about "Trek":
CARY ASHBY: What did you like about “Star Trek?” What worked for you?
HUDSON: "The actors have grasped the essence of the classic characters. It was a special effects movie that was not driven by the special effects. Abrams is a skilled director. The tension between Kirk-Spock-McCoy was well depicted."
ASHBY: What didn’t you like? What was lacking?
HUDSON: "The story line was implausible. I don’t think that the Spock-Uhara romance fits with Spock’s character. The young actors at time bordered on mimicking the original cast instead of making the character their own. "I would rate the movie a B+/A-. I really liked the movie, but it made me re-appreciate the original portrayal of Kirk and Spock. I would equate it to a better version of 'Superman Returns' in comparison to 'Superman' I and II. The movie was excellent and well conceived despite some story and acting reservations."
Back to yours truly: Now, the fun part. Do you agree with David? Disagree? How did "Trek" do for both Trekkies and those of you who are "Star Trek virgins"? How well did it fit with "Trek" canon? Be honest, brutally honest — but TRY not to ruin it for those of us who probably won't see it until the DVD. Have fun!