Since enough people seem to be interested in it, I figured I would start a thread having to do with the new STAR TREK film. To start it off I will post a positive review of the film from online.
***SPOILER ALERT***
From here:
Capone bathes in the glorious blue Romulan ale that is J.J. Abrams' STAR TREK!!!
Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here.
I've noticed a lot of people who have reviewed this film so far have felt obligated to detail their personal history for the STAR TREK franchise over the decades. Fair enough, although one of many beautiful things about J.J. Abrams' indecently entertaining take on the TREK universe is that it truly doesn't matter how much history you have with many series and feature films. My STAR TREK history is simple: I worshipped the original series, never watched a single episode of any of the follow-up series, and faithfully lined up every few years to see each new film version on the day it opened. I loved that the original series wasn't afraid to laugh at itself as often as it took itself with a degree of seriousness usually reserved for medical dramas or detective shows. When I was young, I never noticed that almost everything was done on the cheap and that Captain Kirk seemed to care as much about his hair and his blinding-glow tan as he did about saving his crew and his ship. I focused on and admired the moral code that Starfleet operated under, and that the show's creators saw space travel as more than just jaunts from the earth to the moon or to Mars. This show was the first indication in my young mind that space went on forever, in every direction.
What I've had to endure in recent years (through reportedly subpar TV episodes and lesser films) is a franchise that has been bleeding integrity. J.J. Abrams' job with his new STAR TREK film wasn't to reboot it--anyone who calls this a reboot is truly missing the essence of this movie--it was to save it and breathe new life into it by making us see these characters in ways we'd never dreamed possible. These are the same men and women who took us into space in 1966; none of the characters have been radically reinvented, and their core personality traits and flaws are all still here for all the faithful to see. What Abrams and writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have done is build a world before the series that will impact the world during and after the series. They haven't hit the 'Reset' button exactly, but they have taken the events we know, rewound them to the beginning, and laid out the possibility that things may not play out the same way the second time around. I'm making this sound far more complicated than it actually is, because what I'm really impressed with is that the creative team behind STAR TREK have made the first real film in the franchise that doesn't feel like an extended version of a TV episode. That said, I have no idea where Abrams and Co. could possibly go from here in a way that won't feel like episodic television. I can't imagine these characters in anyone else's hands right now, or anyone else playing these fine folks, but time will tell.
You've probably already read 50 plot synopses of STAR TREK at this point, but let me just point out a few thing I particularly liked. Chris Pine is the :q:q:q:q. He doesn't have to try too hard to remind us that James T. Kirk liked to bed women of every race, type, and species. But I'm guessing that Kirk had just as big a boner when he was doing something death defying as he did when he was mastering the art of interstellar seduction. The man was an adrenaline junkie, and the look in his eyes when he's hanging off an ice cliff or getting ready to trade photon torpedoes with an enemy ship is the same one he has when he sees a new woman he wants to conquer. Pine walks through this film like he's packing a 12-inch stiffy right alongside his phaser. I also like that the film unapologetically acknowledges that Lt. Uhura is a stone cold fox. She was the Pam Grier of the stars, and while Zoe Saldana doesn't quite have the slow-burn quality of Nichelle Nichols, I had no trouble believing that more than one member of this crew had the hots for her.
Karl Urban IS Dr. McCoy, plain and simple. Perhaps more than any other cast member, Urban delivers lines that have worked their way into the lexicon, but he manages to do so in a way that sounds like actual dialogue and not like verbal tips of the hat to the series. It kind of gave me chills to hear him say, "Dammit, Jim..." and realize that it was the first of thousands of times he would say it. I love that John Cho's Sulu is a brilliant swordsman and proves it the first chance he gets (and no, that's not a gay joke), and that the on-board computer has trouble penetrating Chekov's (Anton Yelchin) thick Russian accent. Almost more than anything, I love how Mr. Scott (Simon Pegg) is introduced into the story--perhaps a bit too late in the story for my tastes, but Pegg swarthy Scottish accent makes up for his late entry into the plot; I can honestly say I did not see that coming.
Eric Bana in full berserker rage plays Nero, a Romulan from the future who couldn't give a :q:q:q:q about the time-space continuum or how badly he's going to :q:q:q:q up the future by doing things in the past that weren't done the first time around. In fact, that's kind of his point. He effectively creates a world in which people are dead who aren't supposed to be dead, worlds are destroyed that are clearly a full-blown part of the original series and movie worlds. Nero makes us realize that it is time, and not space, that is the final frontier. Bana's performance is almost too good to believe, and you can't quite hate his character because there's clearly so much pain behind his black eyes and warrior face tattoos. His villainy is built on raw emotion; he's carrying the weight of billions of dead Romulans in his heart, and he wants Spock (whose future self is somehow responsible for those deaths) to feel his pain. Nero is one of the most layered and interesting foils these people will every face.
So let's talk about the many faces of Spock. One of the best things about STAR TREK is that, with just a few adjustments here and there, the role of Spock from the future (played, of course, by Leonard Nimoy) didn't even have to be in this film. This story could have been told without him, and it would have worked just fine. But by including him and his deep, gravely voice and well-etched wrinkles, we gain a sense of meaning and history in the movie that could not be achieved any other way. More importantly, Spock Prime shows far more of his human side than the young Spock (Zachary Quinto) realizes is possible. Quinto is quite good in this role, especially when he allows his emotions to get the better of him and he lashes out at those who push his buttons. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss Nimoy's baritone voice and rising eyebrow, which always made me laugh. I'm sure after seeing the film a second time that I'll get over these small things…maybe.
I'd be horribly remiss if I didn't also say a thing or two about the inclusion of Bruce Greenwood as Capt. Christopher Pike, the Captain of the Enterprise before Kirk. "The Cage" was always one of my favorite "Star Trek" storylines, and I love that Pike's fate in this movie is one of the first indications that the future is being rewritten as the result of Nero's actions.
The special effects in STAR TREK are beyond reproach. They are furious and magnificently realized, and it's clear to me that Abrams learned a little something from the way "Battlestar Galactica" space battles were staged and shot. The hand-held quality of these sequences are unmistakable, and the way that the noise from inside a starship turns into dead quiet when a person or shuttle leaves its confines is something I've been dying to see (and hear) for a very long time.
Although reviews of this film thus far have been across-the-board positive, this inevitably means that the contrarians are right around the corner. STAR TREK is not perfect (the transitions between deadly serious moments and the often downright silly humor could have been a little less jarring), but it is exactly what I needed to see from this world and these characters. At this point, I think fans (both diehards and the those of the more casual variety) don't need STAR TREK to be perfect; they need it to be good. This film exceeds those desires to be one of the most consistently entertaining large-scale films I've seen in a very long time, one that fulfills the needs of longtime admirers while still acting as an inviting entry point into this corner of the science-fiction galaxy. Whatever your background, I'm guessing the extremely thrilling and satisfying STAR TREK will hit the spot.
And then here is a negative review of the film...
***SPOILER ALERT***
From here:
Capone bathes in the glorious blue Romulan ale that is J.J. Abrams' STAR TREK!!!
Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here.
I've noticed a lot of people who have reviewed this film so far have felt obligated to detail their personal history for the STAR TREK franchise over the decades. Fair enough, although one of many beautiful things about J.J. Abrams' indecently entertaining take on the TREK universe is that it truly doesn't matter how much history you have with many series and feature films. My STAR TREK history is simple: I worshipped the original series, never watched a single episode of any of the follow-up series, and faithfully lined up every few years to see each new film version on the day it opened. I loved that the original series wasn't afraid to laugh at itself as often as it took itself with a degree of seriousness usually reserved for medical dramas or detective shows. When I was young, I never noticed that almost everything was done on the cheap and that Captain Kirk seemed to care as much about his hair and his blinding-glow tan as he did about saving his crew and his ship. I focused on and admired the moral code that Starfleet operated under, and that the show's creators saw space travel as more than just jaunts from the earth to the moon or to Mars. This show was the first indication in my young mind that space went on forever, in every direction.
What I've had to endure in recent years (through reportedly subpar TV episodes and lesser films) is a franchise that has been bleeding integrity. J.J. Abrams' job with his new STAR TREK film wasn't to reboot it--anyone who calls this a reboot is truly missing the essence of this movie--it was to save it and breathe new life into it by making us see these characters in ways we'd never dreamed possible. These are the same men and women who took us into space in 1966; none of the characters have been radically reinvented, and their core personality traits and flaws are all still here for all the faithful to see. What Abrams and writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have done is build a world before the series that will impact the world during and after the series. They haven't hit the 'Reset' button exactly, but they have taken the events we know, rewound them to the beginning, and laid out the possibility that things may not play out the same way the second time around. I'm making this sound far more complicated than it actually is, because what I'm really impressed with is that the creative team behind STAR TREK have made the first real film in the franchise that doesn't feel like an extended version of a TV episode. That said, I have no idea where Abrams and Co. could possibly go from here in a way that won't feel like episodic television. I can't imagine these characters in anyone else's hands right now, or anyone else playing these fine folks, but time will tell.
You've probably already read 50 plot synopses of STAR TREK at this point, but let me just point out a few thing I particularly liked. Chris Pine is the :q:q:q:q. He doesn't have to try too hard to remind us that James T. Kirk liked to bed women of every race, type, and species. But I'm guessing that Kirk had just as big a boner when he was doing something death defying as he did when he was mastering the art of interstellar seduction. The man was an adrenaline junkie, and the look in his eyes when he's hanging off an ice cliff or getting ready to trade photon torpedoes with an enemy ship is the same one he has when he sees a new woman he wants to conquer. Pine walks through this film like he's packing a 12-inch stiffy right alongside his phaser. I also like that the film unapologetically acknowledges that Lt. Uhura is a stone cold fox. She was the Pam Grier of the stars, and while Zoe Saldana doesn't quite have the slow-burn quality of Nichelle Nichols, I had no trouble believing that more than one member of this crew had the hots for her.
Karl Urban IS Dr. McCoy, plain and simple. Perhaps more than any other cast member, Urban delivers lines that have worked their way into the lexicon, but he manages to do so in a way that sounds like actual dialogue and not like verbal tips of the hat to the series. It kind of gave me chills to hear him say, "Dammit, Jim..." and realize that it was the first of thousands of times he would say it. I love that John Cho's Sulu is a brilliant swordsman and proves it the first chance he gets (and no, that's not a gay joke), and that the on-board computer has trouble penetrating Chekov's (Anton Yelchin) thick Russian accent. Almost more than anything, I love how Mr. Scott (Simon Pegg) is introduced into the story--perhaps a bit too late in the story for my tastes, but Pegg swarthy Scottish accent makes up for his late entry into the plot; I can honestly say I did not see that coming.
Eric Bana in full berserker rage plays Nero, a Romulan from the future who couldn't give a :q:q:q:q about the time-space continuum or how badly he's going to :q:q:q:q up the future by doing things in the past that weren't done the first time around. In fact, that's kind of his point. He effectively creates a world in which people are dead who aren't supposed to be dead, worlds are destroyed that are clearly a full-blown part of the original series and movie worlds. Nero makes us realize that it is time, and not space, that is the final frontier. Bana's performance is almost too good to believe, and you can't quite hate his character because there's clearly so much pain behind his black eyes and warrior face tattoos. His villainy is built on raw emotion; he's carrying the weight of billions of dead Romulans in his heart, and he wants Spock (whose future self is somehow responsible for those deaths) to feel his pain. Nero is one of the most layered and interesting foils these people will every face.
So let's talk about the many faces of Spock. One of the best things about STAR TREK is that, with just a few adjustments here and there, the role of Spock from the future (played, of course, by Leonard Nimoy) didn't even have to be in this film. This story could have been told without him, and it would have worked just fine. But by including him and his deep, gravely voice and well-etched wrinkles, we gain a sense of meaning and history in the movie that could not be achieved any other way. More importantly, Spock Prime shows far more of his human side than the young Spock (Zachary Quinto) realizes is possible. Quinto is quite good in this role, especially when he allows his emotions to get the better of him and he lashes out at those who push his buttons. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss Nimoy's baritone voice and rising eyebrow, which always made me laugh. I'm sure after seeing the film a second time that I'll get over these small things…maybe.
I'd be horribly remiss if I didn't also say a thing or two about the inclusion of Bruce Greenwood as Capt. Christopher Pike, the Captain of the Enterprise before Kirk. "The Cage" was always one of my favorite "Star Trek" storylines, and I love that Pike's fate in this movie is one of the first indications that the future is being rewritten as the result of Nero's actions.
The special effects in STAR TREK are beyond reproach. They are furious and magnificently realized, and it's clear to me that Abrams learned a little something from the way "Battlestar Galactica" space battles were staged and shot. The hand-held quality of these sequences are unmistakable, and the way that the noise from inside a starship turns into dead quiet when a person or shuttle leaves its confines is something I've been dying to see (and hear) for a very long time.
Although reviews of this film thus far have been across-the-board positive, this inevitably means that the contrarians are right around the corner. STAR TREK is not perfect (the transitions between deadly serious moments and the often downright silly humor could have been a little less jarring), but it is exactly what I needed to see from this world and these characters. At this point, I think fans (both diehards and the those of the more casual variety) don't need STAR TREK to be perfect; they need it to be good. This film exceeds those desires to be one of the most consistently entertaining large-scale films I've seen in a very long time, one that fulfills the needs of longtime admirers while still acting as an inviting entry point into this corner of the science-fiction galaxy. Whatever your background, I'm guessing the extremely thrilling and satisfying STAR TREK will hit the spot.
And then here is a negative review of the film...
One of the coolest sequences in the latest Star Trek movie — the silent plummeting of several members of the Enterprise’s crew through space as lights play across the clear visors of their helmets — looks a lot like 2001, A Space Odyssey. A subsequent fight on the small platform of a giant drill seems inspired by the (much more exciting) fight on the floating ship at the start of Return of the Jedi. A ship that tries to make the jump to light speed finds its engine fizzling instead, as in Star Wars. And when one giant beast nabs another as it’s about to eat Captain Kirk on an ice planet, the moment is practically spliced in from Jurassic Park.
J.J. Abrams’ barely competent reboot of the franchise provides a reasonably engaging story with a time-travel twist and a nice set of special effects. Planets implode and ships zip through black holes. Perhaps the most useful effect, on Eric Bana as the evil head Romulan, is the makeup that renders him unrecognizable. I’ve had my fill of Bana appearances in summer blockbusters, so it’s fine with me if he disappears with a shaved head and face tats that make him look like a biker dude gone to seed.
The movie, which departs from established Star Trek mythology in several respects, starts with an effective scene about the birth of Kirk. He and Spock grow up on different planets but with the same misunderstood-outsider pose. Spock, who as a boy is being bullied for being half-human (his mother is played by Winona Ryder), also represents the movie’s half-thought plea for civil rights. Spock considers himself a victim because the academy admits him on some sort of affirmative action deal for half-Vulcans.
Meanwhile, Kirk, growing up in Iowa, is a chaos-loving townie growing up near the Starfleet Academy, taking out his frustrations on the accelerator of his hot rod. Like the later fight scene on top of the drill platform, a car-chase bit that illustrates his wild side is clumsily cut. It’s supposed to be exciting but it isn’t, with its images thrown together in a salad.
One thing that could have made all of the action scenes more interesting would have been a leading man with a rakish glow. As Spock, Zachary Quinto is fine, but it’s a largely thankless part. C-3PO had more chances to act, and it’s hard to picture little girls craving news on who Quinto’s dating. As for Kirk, he’s played by Chris Pine. Who? He’s not just an unknown. He’s an unknown unknown. Casting a big-budget movie that largely depends on the charisma of a guy who isn’t one of the top 1,000 actors in Hollywood was a gamble that seemingly indicates Abrams wanted no name to upstage his on the marquee, and he got his wish. Chris Pine wants to be Tom Cruise but he isn’t even Mark Hamill. The special effects save him to a degree, but Pine doesn’t hold your attention. He’s handsome in such an unremarkable way as to suggest he should be playing the second-oldest brother in a prime-time soap about a large family. Many an actor who never quite made it on the big screen — Charlie Sheen, say — has ten times the devilish charm of Chris Pine.
Pine is symptomatic of the essence of J.J. Abrams: He has a TV soul. He casts TV-ish actors. The staging of his thrill sequences is fine for the small screen but light years shy of real masters like Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, or Paul Greengrass. And he loves TV writers, workaday scribes like this script’s authors — Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (Lost). They are not, to put it politely, overly-burdened with talent. They got started on stuff like Xena: Warrior Princess and to a degree they’re still there. So when they attempt wit, all that comes out is camp. Meeting Uhura, a linguist, Kirk says, “You’ve got a talented tongue.” The writers’ idea of a snappy comeback is “Tell me something I don’t know.” Their notion of characterization is to throw the word “logical” into every line Spock delivers and they actually include the lines “I’d like to kick some Romulan ass!” and “Are you out of your Vulcan mind?”
Trekkies emerging from the theater were heard murmuring things like, “It’s great that it was kinda campy, just like the show.” That’s making a virtue out of necessity. If Abrams and his writers knew how to create something as fiercely non-campy as The Dark Knight, don’t you think they would?
Star Trek
Directed by: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana
2.5 stars/ 4
127 minutes/Rated PG-13
J.J. Abrams’ barely competent reboot of the franchise provides a reasonably engaging story with a time-travel twist and a nice set of special effects. Planets implode and ships zip through black holes. Perhaps the most useful effect, on Eric Bana as the evil head Romulan, is the makeup that renders him unrecognizable. I’ve had my fill of Bana appearances in summer blockbusters, so it’s fine with me if he disappears with a shaved head and face tats that make him look like a biker dude gone to seed.
The movie, which departs from established Star Trek mythology in several respects, starts with an effective scene about the birth of Kirk. He and Spock grow up on different planets but with the same misunderstood-outsider pose. Spock, who as a boy is being bullied for being half-human (his mother is played by Winona Ryder), also represents the movie’s half-thought plea for civil rights. Spock considers himself a victim because the academy admits him on some sort of affirmative action deal for half-Vulcans.
Meanwhile, Kirk, growing up in Iowa, is a chaos-loving townie growing up near the Starfleet Academy, taking out his frustrations on the accelerator of his hot rod. Like the later fight scene on top of the drill platform, a car-chase bit that illustrates his wild side is clumsily cut. It’s supposed to be exciting but it isn’t, with its images thrown together in a salad.
One thing that could have made all of the action scenes more interesting would have been a leading man with a rakish glow. As Spock, Zachary Quinto is fine, but it’s a largely thankless part. C-3PO had more chances to act, and it’s hard to picture little girls craving news on who Quinto’s dating. As for Kirk, he’s played by Chris Pine. Who? He’s not just an unknown. He’s an unknown unknown. Casting a big-budget movie that largely depends on the charisma of a guy who isn’t one of the top 1,000 actors in Hollywood was a gamble that seemingly indicates Abrams wanted no name to upstage his on the marquee, and he got his wish. Chris Pine wants to be Tom Cruise but he isn’t even Mark Hamill. The special effects save him to a degree, but Pine doesn’t hold your attention. He’s handsome in such an unremarkable way as to suggest he should be playing the second-oldest brother in a prime-time soap about a large family. Many an actor who never quite made it on the big screen — Charlie Sheen, say — has ten times the devilish charm of Chris Pine.
Pine is symptomatic of the essence of J.J. Abrams: He has a TV soul. He casts TV-ish actors. The staging of his thrill sequences is fine for the small screen but light years shy of real masters like Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, or Paul Greengrass. And he loves TV writers, workaday scribes like this script’s authors — Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (Lost). They are not, to put it politely, overly-burdened with talent. They got started on stuff like Xena: Warrior Princess and to a degree they’re still there. So when they attempt wit, all that comes out is camp. Meeting Uhura, a linguist, Kirk says, “You’ve got a talented tongue.” The writers’ idea of a snappy comeback is “Tell me something I don’t know.” Their notion of characterization is to throw the word “logical” into every line Spock delivers and they actually include the lines “I’d like to kick some Romulan ass!” and “Are you out of your Vulcan mind?”
Trekkies emerging from the theater were heard murmuring things like, “It’s great that it was kinda campy, just like the show.” That’s making a virtue out of necessity. If Abrams and his writers knew how to create something as fiercely non-campy as The Dark Knight, don’t you think they would?
Star Trek
Directed by: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana
2.5 stars/ 4
127 minutes/Rated PG-13
