Paladin
05-07-2009, 07:40 PM
Star Trek, starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, John Cho, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood and Simon Pegg. Directed by J.J. Abrams.
Remember way back in 1999 when we heard there was a "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in the works. No one thought it would be worth much back then, especially when we heard Peter Jackson, best known then for the low budget horror flick "The Frighteners" was directing them. Then we saw the first trailer and started thinking "Well, maybe...". Then we saw the first movie and it was as epic and magical as we hoped. Well, "Star Trek" has been a on a similar roller coaster. A new "Star Trek" with new actors taking over the classic roles? It's going to suck. J.J. Abrams, the "Cloverfield" guy is directing it? Ugh. We see the trailers and "Wow, maybe it won't suck after all."
Well, the new "Star Trek" doesn't suck. But how good is it? As a movie, it is ok. As a "Star Trek" movie, it is excellent. The new actors make good effort at taking over the roles, without copying the original actors. Only Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy really plays DeForest Kelly's take on the character, and man does he knock it out of the park. For the other actors, they do a good job but don't quite reach the level of the originals. Chris Pine's Kirk matches the swagger of Shatner, but lacks the disarming charm. Quinto's Spock matches the cool logic of Nimoy, but he can't match the gravitas of the voice or the flashes of humor. Pegg's Scotty is funny, but he's also frigging hyper. Chekov, Uhura and Sulu are good in their roles, but they each get taken in slightly different directions from the originals.
In fact, much of what was laid down in the original series gets taken in a slightly, or drastically, different direction. This is the classic 60's "Star Trek" television series dragged into 2009. The bareknuckle fights are here. Bones using his medical bag of tricks on Kirk is here. The short skirts are even here. The flimsy sets are gone, obviously. The special effects shots are great, as we expect anymore. Best of all, the effects aren't going by too fast... you can actually see and appreciate them. Even Eric Bana's villian is good. His story isn't very deep, as most of the movie is devoted to reintroducing the core characters, but he's no V'ger or Vulcan messiah either. He works, but another 20 minutes or so spent fleshing out him and his story wouldn't have been a bad thing. Maybe in the Director's Cut...
Anyway, the disappointments are few. I didn't like the solution they had Kirk come up with for his academy test (fans will know of which I speak). I also didn't like a few of Nimoy's lines. The villian is, as I said, pretty one dimensional. That's not going to be a big problem for "Star Trek" fans as there's so much else here to enjoy for them. It is a bigger problem when it comes to the movie's goal of bringing new fans in.
Final verdict: 4 Vulcan Mind Melds out of 5
Not part of the review:
For me, the biggest flaw with this movie is that it is a movie. After a mini-series and 4 seasons of the new Battlestar Galactica, it is hard to sit here now and realize we might get 3, maybe 4, movies out of this cast and that is probably it. There really wasn't much, if anything, in this film that couldn't have been done for television. BSG proved that. Now I want to see this cast have adventures, not just big-budget popcorn flicks, but ones that let the characters and their interactions show through. I'm saying this down here because the movie is what it is, and what I may wish it would be shouldn't effect that. That said, this movie would have been a GREAT start for a series, and a 4 hour mini-series would have really allowed time for more development. Some things are rushed for the sake of having everyone in their roles on the ship by the end of the film. It doesn't really hurt the film, but the pacing could have been so much better.
Remember way back in 1999 when we heard there was a "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in the works. No one thought it would be worth much back then, especially when we heard Peter Jackson, best known then for the low budget horror flick "The Frighteners" was directing them. Then we saw the first trailer and started thinking "Well, maybe...". Then we saw the first movie and it was as epic and magical as we hoped. Well, "Star Trek" has been a on a similar roller coaster. A new "Star Trek" with new actors taking over the classic roles? It's going to suck. J.J. Abrams, the "Cloverfield" guy is directing it? Ugh. We see the trailers and "Wow, maybe it won't suck after all."
Well, the new "Star Trek" doesn't suck. But how good is it? As a movie, it is ok. As a "Star Trek" movie, it is excellent. The new actors make good effort at taking over the roles, without copying the original actors. Only Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy really plays DeForest Kelly's take on the character, and man does he knock it out of the park. For the other actors, they do a good job but don't quite reach the level of the originals. Chris Pine's Kirk matches the swagger of Shatner, but lacks the disarming charm. Quinto's Spock matches the cool logic of Nimoy, but he can't match the gravitas of the voice or the flashes of humor. Pegg's Scotty is funny, but he's also frigging hyper. Chekov, Uhura and Sulu are good in their roles, but they each get taken in slightly different directions from the originals.
In fact, much of what was laid down in the original series gets taken in a slightly, or drastically, different direction. This is the classic 60's "Star Trek" television series dragged into 2009. The bareknuckle fights are here. Bones using his medical bag of tricks on Kirk is here. The short skirts are even here. The flimsy sets are gone, obviously. The special effects shots are great, as we expect anymore. Best of all, the effects aren't going by too fast... you can actually see and appreciate them. Even Eric Bana's villian is good. His story isn't very deep, as most of the movie is devoted to reintroducing the core characters, but he's no V'ger or Vulcan messiah either. He works, but another 20 minutes or so spent fleshing out him and his story wouldn't have been a bad thing. Maybe in the Director's Cut...
Anyway, the disappointments are few. I didn't like the solution they had Kirk come up with for his academy test (fans will know of which I speak). I also didn't like a few of Nimoy's lines. The villian is, as I said, pretty one dimensional. That's not going to be a big problem for "Star Trek" fans as there's so much else here to enjoy for them. It is a bigger problem when it comes to the movie's goal of bringing new fans in.
Final verdict: 4 Vulcan Mind Melds out of 5
Not part of the review:
For me, the biggest flaw with this movie is that it is a movie. After a mini-series and 4 seasons of the new Battlestar Galactica, it is hard to sit here now and realize we might get 3, maybe 4, movies out of this cast and that is probably it. There really wasn't much, if anything, in this film that couldn't have been done for television. BSG proved that. Now I want to see this cast have adventures, not just big-budget popcorn flicks, but ones that let the characters and their interactions show through. I'm saying this down here because the movie is what it is, and what I may wish it would be shouldn't effect that. That said, this movie would have been a GREAT start for a series, and a 4 hour mini-series would have really allowed time for more development. Some things are rushed for the sake of having everyone in their roles on the ship by the end of the film. It doesn't really hurt the film, but the pacing could have been so much better.