‘Star Trek’
A review by James Murphy
Data stream:
Director: JJ Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Leonard Nimoy, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Bruce Greenwood
Genre: Sci-fi / action / adventure
Released: Star-date 08/05/2009
Certificate: 12A
Captain’s Log / Summary:
This is a ‘prequel’ to/‘reboot’ of the 1960s television show. James T. Kirk is a young hothead at Starfleet Academy, dreaming of command. Spock is a half human, half alien ‘Vulcan’, young but well respected by Starfleet. Kirk and Spock must work together and bond with a newly minted ‘Starship Enterprise’ crew, to repel a grave threat from the time travelling alien villain, ‘Nero’.
Main review:
‘Set phasers to stun’. I know many of you will enjoy this film, or have enjoyed it. Even hard hitting, tabloid columnists have showered praise on ‘Star Trek’. But I did not like it. And I cannot recommend it with any enthusiasm.
I can imagine how the film was pitched. ‘Hey..prequels are doing well..and we have not milked the ‘Star Trek’ cash cow for a while..I know! ‘Trek prequel!’. The last time Hollywood was that cynical, we ended up with dross like ‘Batman and Robin’. ‘Star Trek’ is not as bad as ‘Batman and Robin’. But it lacks coherence, originality and wit.
I enjoyed previous ‘Star Trek’ adventures, notably ‘The Wrath of Khan’ and ‘First Contact’. They had soul as well as grit, with philosophical discussion punctuating the action and nuances of character conveyed through clever dialogue, with literary allusions. And they ultimately had the good guys win resounding victories over everything from nuclear holocaust to ecological disaster. Not so in this, ‘war on terror’ era ‘Star Trek’, where battles are graphic and joyless and the motives of both heroes and villains are often ambiguous.
I have nothing against making ‘darker’ films. It’s good to add depth and maturity to legends. But this film’s script cannot even master basic logic. Case in point: Spock’s childhood, where he is taunted for being half human. Vulcan bullies elicit an emotional (and hence ‘human’) response from Spock. But said bullies show very human excitement in their own actions, at odds with the purely ‘logical’ world they inhabit.
The logic deficit is compounded by the absence of a decent plot or villain. The ‘plot’ is some rehashed nonsense about timelines, which would have been an incidental detail in the ‘Trek’ of old. And Eric Bana gives possibly the worst performance of his career as the villain. But Bana would have been upstaged even at his best, facing Chris Pine’s Kirk, whose charisma steals the film.
Pine captures the essence of ‘old’ Kirk (William Shatner), yet resists the trap of impersonating him. Pine conveys Kirk’s joy at action, adventure and bedding beauties after besting baddies. Kirk is the one thing that the film gets absolutely perfect, though even that is almost compromised by a pointless prologue showing his birth, childhood and quick chat from a mentor about ‘destiny’. I would have preferred a few more shots of that gorgeous green alien with the curly hair!
Leonard Nimoy makes an appearance as an elderly Spock, and exhibits both comic timing and dignified poise. But the ‘young’ Spock (Zachary Quinto, from tv’s ‘Heroes’) cannot mirror that magic. Quinto is disappointingly flat, only coming to life when facing fight scenes (well choreographed) and special effects (better than ever, on the whole). Simon Pegg’s Scotty lends warmth to proceedings, but his introduction is an ‘in-joke’ too far, too knowingly pleased with itself to be truly entertaining. Just like the rest of the film, really.
This is not a ‘bad’ film and is directed competently. But it lacks the inspiration, optimism and fun that defined previous ‘Star Trek’ outings. The film is scripted lazily and simply plunders an old series’ mythology under the guise of ‘reboot’ / ‘tribute’.
2.5 out of 5: Boldly go on DVD, but you need not beam up to the cinema. ‘Kirk out’.
A review by James Murphy
Data stream:
Director: JJ Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Leonard Nimoy, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Bruce Greenwood
Genre: Sci-fi / action / adventure
Released: Star-date 08/05/2009
Certificate: 12A
Captain’s Log / Summary:
This is a ‘prequel’ to/‘reboot’ of the 1960s television show. James T. Kirk is a young hothead at Starfleet Academy, dreaming of command. Spock is a half human, half alien ‘Vulcan’, young but well respected by Starfleet. Kirk and Spock must work together and bond with a newly minted ‘Starship Enterprise’ crew, to repel a grave threat from the time travelling alien villain, ‘Nero’.
Main review:
‘Set phasers to stun’. I know many of you will enjoy this film, or have enjoyed it. Even hard hitting, tabloid columnists have showered praise on ‘Star Trek’. But I did not like it. And I cannot recommend it with any enthusiasm.
I can imagine how the film was pitched. ‘Hey..prequels are doing well..and we have not milked the ‘Star Trek’ cash cow for a while..I know! ‘Trek prequel!’. The last time Hollywood was that cynical, we ended up with dross like ‘Batman and Robin’. ‘Star Trek’ is not as bad as ‘Batman and Robin’. But it lacks coherence, originality and wit.
I enjoyed previous ‘Star Trek’ adventures, notably ‘The Wrath of Khan’ and ‘First Contact’. They had soul as well as grit, with philosophical discussion punctuating the action and nuances of character conveyed through clever dialogue, with literary allusions. And they ultimately had the good guys win resounding victories over everything from nuclear holocaust to ecological disaster. Not so in this, ‘war on terror’ era ‘Star Trek’, where battles are graphic and joyless and the motives of both heroes and villains are often ambiguous.
I have nothing against making ‘darker’ films. It’s good to add depth and maturity to legends. But this film’s script cannot even master basic logic. Case in point: Spock’s childhood, where he is taunted for being half human. Vulcan bullies elicit an emotional (and hence ‘human’) response from Spock. But said bullies show very human excitement in their own actions, at odds with the purely ‘logical’ world they inhabit.
The logic deficit is compounded by the absence of a decent plot or villain. The ‘plot’ is some rehashed nonsense about timelines, which would have been an incidental detail in the ‘Trek’ of old. And Eric Bana gives possibly the worst performance of his career as the villain. But Bana would have been upstaged even at his best, facing Chris Pine’s Kirk, whose charisma steals the film.
Pine captures the essence of ‘old’ Kirk (William Shatner), yet resists the trap of impersonating him. Pine conveys Kirk’s joy at action, adventure and bedding beauties after besting baddies. Kirk is the one thing that the film gets absolutely perfect, though even that is almost compromised by a pointless prologue showing his birth, childhood and quick chat from a mentor about ‘destiny’. I would have preferred a few more shots of that gorgeous green alien with the curly hair!
Leonard Nimoy makes an appearance as an elderly Spock, and exhibits both comic timing and dignified poise. But the ‘young’ Spock (Zachary Quinto, from tv’s ‘Heroes’) cannot mirror that magic. Quinto is disappointingly flat, only coming to life when facing fight scenes (well choreographed) and special effects (better than ever, on the whole). Simon Pegg’s Scotty lends warmth to proceedings, but his introduction is an ‘in-joke’ too far, too knowingly pleased with itself to be truly entertaining. Just like the rest of the film, really.
This is not a ‘bad’ film and is directed competently. But it lacks the inspiration, optimism and fun that defined previous ‘Star Trek’ outings. The film is scripted lazily and simply plunders an old series’ mythology under the guise of ‘reboot’ / ‘tribute’.
2.5 out of 5: Boldly go on DVD, but you need not beam up to the cinema. ‘Kirk out’.
InMagazines are a brand name owned and published by INDEPENDENT NEWS LIMITED (c) copyright 2009.
.jpg)
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment