Originally Posted by fortunesfool
Mi3 and Star Trek were both vapid, glossy affairs, which looked bright and shiny to distract the audience from the fact that they were crap. I challenge anyone to take those movies into a film class and find anything of cinematic interest in them.
I just don't get it.
While I totally agree on Mi3, I enjoyed Star Trek...although its less to do with any skill that could of been involved. It still had all the hallmarks of Abrahms, poor editing, bad direction, and cack-handed action...I still kinda enjoyed it. One of the things that bugs me most about Abrahms is how he seems to be held in such high regard. Everyone is entitled to their opinions of course, but he seems to be a film God to some, and I cant work out what he has done to deserve it.