Thursday, May 14, 2009

Worth the Trek...

The last movie I had seen before yesterday was Lord of the Rings III, I think.  So my impressions of the new Star Trek arise from someone who is essentially a movie dropout. Just a caveat.

That said, I enjoyed the movie and recommend it.  However, I'm pretty certain I wasn't the target audience, nor should I have been. Some specifics:
  • The camera work - I realize the rage is for extreme closeups and quick, eye-dazzling cuts of 2-3 seconds, but I cannot get into this style. The lack of stability to comprehend a scene or even make out what the heck is happening, let alone add timing and pace to the action was jarring.  Just like we now have to look at the nostril hair of the guy shooting a free throw, you get to see every whisker and blemish while struggling to figure out perspective and even sizes.  And why we need shoulder-camera jerkiness in a sci-fi flick is beyond me.  Do they want us to think it was a reality show?
  • The actors did a remarkable job creating younger versions of their counterparts. McCoy was the best, I think, but all captured many of the quirks and mannerisms of the guys I knew.  Kirk was over the top, IMHO.
  • The time-travel paradoxes lost me completely.  Look, I know it's science fiction, but the premises were shaky and the exposition baffling.  Veterans like myself may spend too much time reacting to obvious inconsistencies.
  • I still have no idea what the bad guy was up to or really why.  Or how you make starship captain two weeks out of the Academy.
  • Lordy, they love hand-to-hand violence. The sheer unreality of modern personal combat common in all action films reminds me of how often in Westerns guys would get knocked unconscious with a gun butt.  I grew up thinking you could really casually temporarily render someone inert with few problems or consequences.  Obviously today we have raised the bar, and the video game aspect of the action is cartoonish to me.
I'm glad I saw it, but it wasn't one I would add to the collection.  It's a new Trek for new fans with much less humanity and plot and point.  And being a prequel, it doesn't even have the chance to embody a dream about the future.

Maybe I'll go see another movie in a few years.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Was he wearing a red shirt?

Judi and I went to see TREK opening night and took the kids last night. So-is time travel posible? Probably not, but it does great things for the movies. If possible then one can have multiple dramas in the same time frame or multiple time frames and the hits just keep coming. With all of Star Trek now altered with a new time line, well you could have the Wrath of Khan all over again, but just different in a new time line. This is before even the TV series so one could do all those shows over again, because time was altered. You could even have new Picard ones in this "new" time.

Star Trek over and over and over again.

How convenient for a movie studio to keep a winning combination alive.

Terminator a whole movie series based on time travel. Dune yes the book not the dumb movie - space travel depended on the "folding" of both space and time.

We like sci-fi just have to let the old imagination go and take some things at face value.

So far Star Wars just happened a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.

Yes, Bones was played very very well, it could be an Oscar for supporting roll, but commercially promoted succesful entertaining films don't count in the "real" hollywood. And Kirk over the top? Why he was never over the top in the TV series?

Over all a very good film, lets hope the new terminator is as good.

Very wet here in the actual center of central Illinois.