Star Trek (3 of 5)
Wow’¦what a letdown’¦same old overtly liberal theories and characters we have seen 10 times before. Some new faces make it more interesting’¦thank god Whoopi didn’t show up. You won’t whine about the 15 bucks you paid’¦.but it won’t get in the top five of the ST episodes before it.
Stop reading and go see the Movie’¦’¦
Are you back? It was better that what I said huh?
Star Trek (5 of 5)
J.J Abrams’ Star Trek is Stupendous! Colossal! Tremendous! Gigantic! Astounding! Unbelievable! Spectacular! Phenomenal! And it’s good, too .
I will do my best to remain spoiler free’¦.because the story is the key to making this more than just another installment that tells the how they met’¦it is an epic story that marks the beginning in a whole new way. Nuff said on that.
This was a Summer outing for my Office’¦in our group of 10 we had 3 movie fanatics’¦2 Sci-Fi nuts and a bonafide Trekkie (I’™m talking Las Vegas Hilton, Conventions , everything with trek in the title on DVD level Trekkie) …that was just three of us. For me I liked how it was less political than what came before, I liked the irreversible damage it made to the Star Trek Universe’¦yea..I know, I know ‘¦sacred ground’¦.but it is very palatable’¦.a true reboot indeed. The actor choices we perfect’¦top honors go to Zachary Quito for his ability to show the inner turmoil of a half human/ half Vulcan better than even Nimoy in his heyday. Sulu and Chekov were delightful to watch and Scotty steals his scenes’¦nothing new for Simon Pegg of course. But the wonderful surprise is Karl Urban’¦He is Bones’¦..my god is he Bones’¦I squealed out loud twice as signature lines spouted from his mouth. I always saw McCoy as all talk, no action kind of guy’¦Karl mixes physically and a bit of anger all in and makes his version’¦.’™ Bones Plus’™. Kirk was perfectly cast as well, It was not an imitation, but as he moved , he talked , he reacted..you could see Shatner’s Kirk in him..you see the man’¦and the confident character that made him great. There are giggles throughout some because you know the characters, some because the situation just plain warrants it. There is tragedy… and even some courage and honor we haven’t seen for a long, long time.
The effects were top notch (the norm for most of the standard budgeted Trek outings) with a few new roller coaster rides not seen in other films. Movements are more like Jet bombers than starships with barrel rolls and sliding evasive maneuvers. A drop sequence that shared the best of ‘Drop Zone’ with the newer visuals of ‘Firefly’ and ‘2008’s Battlestar Galactica’. Even the tired warp speed gets a bone shattering pop as both the ship and you get shot out of a cannon. Pacing was brilliant (as with all J.J. stuff to date)When we got up to leave after the hour and half joy ride’¦.we realized it was two and half hours later.
Problems..if any: Well ‘¦hand held cinematography has no real place in major motion pictures’¦watch any of the Original series’¦or any of the subsequent series’¦or any of the previous 10 movies and you will see cameras bolted to anchors in ground like the one Rigg’s truck was chained to before pulling down the house in ‘lethal weapon 2’. But the technique, if you can call it that, has always been in JJ Abrams toolbox’¦and for the most part it works’¦but even the slightest wiggle and motion blur gets amplified 10 fold when seen in Imax (I feel sorry for the first 10 rows in any IMAX theater anyways.) A few missed glorious moment due to camera shake and inability to focus’¦but not enough to call it disastrous. A true Trekkie was sitting next to me counting the Trek Universe flaws’¦.by the time she got to five the intensity of the ride took over’¦and she stopped counting’¦.that was 15 minutes in.
If I would rank’¦it fits snuggly behind Wrath of Kahn (II)and in front of Voyage Home(IV) on the podium. All three of which share the honor of the hard decision on whether to see it again right then as I was walking out.
10. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) ‘“ Want to know how bad it is’¦the wrapper is still on the DVD
9. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) ‘“ Buildup too big’¦letdown too huge. Didn’t care about anybody in it. Star wars set a new bar’¦this episode could not even see the bar.
8. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) ‘“ Highlights: Kirk’s son dies (that square peg deserved it)’¦Christopher Lloyd as a Klingon’¦Lowlights: special effects and story arc (It’s just the middle of three)
7. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) ‘“ One Highlight’¦.’™I need my pain’™ The rest seemed misguided and full of holes.
6. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) ‘“ This is where is differ from most reviewers’¦This was a a very good TV episode, and a great ‘˜prime directive’™ explanation.
5. Star Trek: Generations (1994) ‘“ The ‘˜hand-off’™ from Then Original cast to the Next Generation cast was a good adventure and the Kirk /Picard dynamic was great up until Kirks death.
4. Star Trek: First Contact (1996) ‘“ What made the second NG movie work was the true peril created by the borg. Best action.
3. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) ‘“ Nicolas Meyer the director of the #1 slot comes back to close out the original cast (Not fast enough as we lost Bones and Scotty the year before)
2. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) ‘“ Ecological’¦but not preachy. Time travel, true laughs and a great ‘œfish out of water’ story.
1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) ‘“ The first motion picture was a ILM experiment gone wrong’¦over bloated and pretentious. ‘˜Kahn’™ kicked it all to the curb to make a gritty ,delightful adventure that will go down as a top ten Sci Fi film’¦not just a Trek film.
As you can tell’¦..I am a member of the ‘˜Evens are the best’™ club.
So the Vision is worthy my friends’¦IMAX if you can’¦but Widescreen is a worthy journey too. This is a ride movie with emotion (if you don’t choke up in the first ten minutes’¦Dammit ‘¦see a doctor’¦not a physicist) ‘¦and a strong past’¦.err’¦.future.
I will probably add to this as I see it a 2nd and 3rd time.