Okay, it's been three years since this movie came out but since it was on TV last week I thought I would give it another view.
A RE-VIEW!
(ba-doom-tish)
I'll start with this: I've always liked Star Trek as a franchise - it's ambitious, big idea science fiction with particularly dodgy production values. The new movie, by comparison, is small-minded, generic, by-the-numbers science fiction without any of the ambition or narrative that made Star Trek what it is, or was. It's almost as if the Borg had assimilated the franchise and stripped it of all drive and enthusiasm.
Primarily, I blame bad writing. Star Trek's script was the brainchild of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the same people who updated Transformers and gave us the spectacles of Spike's mother eating a hash brownie, and Devastator's scrotum. The problem with the movie is that it's a hash of coincidences. There are so many 'it just so happens' moments throughout (it just so happened that Kirk was marooned on the same planet as Old Spock and it just so happened that it's the same planet that McCoy is on as well) that I end up feeling that the story and the narrative were more an afterthought to the big special effects extravaganza.
However, as far as a special effects extravaganza goes, Star Trek is great. The space battles are heated and furious, the firefights are action-packed, and the explosions are bright and big and explosion-y. However bad writing and great special effects is what ruined another venerable sci-fi franchise, and it's a complete 180 on what made Star Trek great in the first place. I get the feeling that this re-side-boot (you know what I mean if you've seen it) is a geek in jock's clothing (even to the point of proclaiming that "this isn't your father's Star Trek!" in one promotion). It stinks of trying too hard to be part of the 'in crowd', those jerks who pushed me around when I was younger and took my stuff and ran off.
Sorry, lost it a bit there; where was I?
The acting is... okay. Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, and Zachary Quinto are the standouts. Chris Pine's Kirk is so two-dimensional it's almost a parody of the role and Zoe Saldana's Uhura is pretty much absent. John Cho's Sulu is solid (aside from the glaring 'Sulu is now obviously Korean' thing) and Anton Yelchin's Chekov is unmistakeably Chekov. Eric Bana's portrayal of the Romulan Nero is supposed to be full of gravitas and angst for a civilization lost, but there are so many (badly written) holes in his justification/master plan that he would have been more a more sympathetic villain if he put on a black cape, top hat, and moustache, laughing maniacally as he ties Uhura to the train tracks.
A final word on casting: please stop encouraging Tyler Perry. Please. I beg of you.
So overall, Star Trek has punch but no heart; lots of balls but very little brain to back it up. Yes, I know Star Trek is known for huge plot inconsistencies (which Star Trek has aplenty) but it had heart and ambition to back it up, neither of which were abundant in this venture. Overall, I would agree that Star Trek definitely isn't my father's Star Trek - however at times I was left wondering if it was Star Trek at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment