5 out of 5 stars for action, Special FX, 2 out of 5 for Story= overall: 2 1/2 stars
***SPOILER ALERT***SPOILER ALERT****SPOILER ALERT***
I watched JJ Abrams Star Trek over the weekend. I'm no Trekkie, I don't follow the characters or their stories religiously, though I have enjoyed a number of Star Trek films and episodes.
Throughout the film the lead character, Kirk, shifts roles between, rebel, genius, womanizer,brawler, and comic relief; sometimes within one sequence. It's a bit much to ask I think. I'm supposed to believe that such a doting character, can also take charge in a potentially dangerous situation? Okay, fine. The actor playing Kirk seems to over act and in nearly every scene is not as graceful or charismatic as one would think Kirk should be;however he does have a good sense of comedic timing. The action/drama, which is done well, is always followed by a slight comic relief, no matter how boring and devoid of content each following scene is.
The very Clever use of a version of time travel which creates alternate timelines as a device to ignore Star Trek's years of history was brilliant. Although, this kind of device can create convolution, which could be a problem since the people behind this are also behind the television series LOST. Despite how brilliant this device is, it's used simply to say "hey, this ain't your dad's Star Trek". The entire film, while being entertaining and doing well with the introduction to the new cast of familiar characters, fails to have any underlying theme. It's a series of scenes without any real story, a prologue. The strongest part of the entire story is left as a backdrop. With this alternate timeline comes a number of different possibilities, including the fact that each character, including Spock may die at any moment. This is never brought up, there is no sense that young Kirk was robbed of his place in history that the events at the beginning of the film took away opportunities he otherwise would've had. The line "Do you ever feel like you were meant for something more" (paraphrasing) should've held more meaning by the time it was spoken.
I agree with one of the only critical reviews about this movie I could find. Quoting from some of the parts I agree with:
"'Star Trek' as a concept has voyaged far beyond science fiction and into the safe waters of space opera, but that doesn’t amaze me. The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action. Like so many franchises, it’s more concerned with repeating a successful formula than going boldly where no 'Star Trek' has gone before."
"The new movie essentially intends to reboot the franchise with younger characters and carry on as before. The movie deals with narrative housekeeping. Perhaps the next one will engage these characters in a more challenging and devious story, one more about testing their personalities than re-establishing them. In the meantime, you want space opera, you got it." ,
No comments:
Post a Comment