SHOOT: Looks like a good flick. I for the most part read Scott's reviews to see how much I disagree with them. He doesn't disappoint, choosing nice sounding epithets (presumably to win writing awards) like this rather than saying something real and reasonable that would interest his audience:
"With its clanks and creaks and broken-down contraptions, this movie is a battered Wall-E to “Star Trek’s” sleek and seamless Eve. " He says that but deplores the "egghead aspirations of “Star Trek”. Yup it sounds great and sounds like he is an amazing writer, it just has very little to do with good reviewing and more about see-how-well-i-can-write?
Among these are efficient, reasonably swift storytelling — the movie, less than two hours long, is densely populated with semi-important characters and crammed with exposition and incident, but it rarely feels busy or talky — and a mastery of the vernacular of chases, fights, explosions and crashes.