"Star Trek" 2009 review.
Before I get to the review, I'd first like to apologize to anyone who received a wall post from Elnora Guy (or something similar to that), this person signed up to the site and posted on everyone's wall linking to an adult webcam site, so as a result I banned them from the network, and all their posts were deleted. So, that's why you all received post notifications and there was nothing there. Sorry about that. Anyway, on to the review.
"Star Trek" 2009
It is very rare that a film exceeds my expectations so drastically as J.J. Abrams' “Star Trek,” which really is a perfect Hollywood blockbuster. I recently watched “Wolverine,” and while I wouldn't quite say that it was a steaming pile of shit, it was most certainly not good. However, at the same time, it wasn't quite bad enough for me to extend my thoughts on the film. It was simply there, and amidst the incredibly cliched story and action set-pieces, was a film that was pure and simply forgettable. It seemed to exist for no particular reason, as the film's climax served to disprove the relevance of any of the events that occurred throughout the film.
I expected “Star Trek” to exist in a similar vein. At this point in history, “Star Trek” is undoubtedly a significant piece of popular culture, although it really seems to have run its course. The series hadn't had a cinematic incarnation since 2002's “Nemesis,” and the most recent television entry, “ Enterprise ” wrapped it's final season in 2005. Thus, four years after the fact, a new movie seems unnecessary and somewhat removed from the pulse of Hollywood . Perhaps this is why the film is so effective. It seems like less a production of necessity, and more a product of genuine passion by people who appreciate and understand the source material.
Producing a film with the “Star Trek” moniker is a sort of double-edged sword. First you have your so-called 'Trekkies,' a built in fan base seemingly as large as the universe is expansive. Conversely, you have a similarly large group of people who refuse to watch any film with the word 'star' in the title. “Star Trek” does a wonderful job of catering to fans of the original series, all the while making the film just as accessible to those who are unacquainted with the original series. Most should be able to enjoy the film without the slightest bit of “Star Trek” knowledge, as the film establishes the characters and their quest from the very beginning, and in a way breathes new life into what was undeniably a franchise of declining quality.
From the opening sequence, J.J. Abrams (whose only prior cinematic directorial effort was M:I-3, FYI) establishes himself as a truly capable director of big budget material. It's a scene rife with action, yet he heightens the emotional impact of the sequence through a very impressive use of music, and minimal sound. It seems as though he understands that a big budget Hollywood blockbuster could actually have some sort of emotional resonance with its audience. It's nice to see amongst films like the aforementioned “Wolverine” which simply exists for existence's sake, soon to be forgotten by the audience.
“Star Trek” is so enjoyable on every level that I find it hard to fault the film in any sense. It's epic for sure, as the external shots of the enterprise and the sheer scope of outer-space would most certainly suggest. Yet something about the story, despite the time travel, unbelievably large space cruisers, and interplanetary battles, seems surprisingly intimate and small. It may be hard to pinpoint at first, but underneath all of the traditional “Star Trek” 'bigness', this is a story about the franchise's two central characters, Kirk and Spock – both the individuals and their relationship with each other.
That's not to discredit the other characters however, as my biggest disappointment with “Star Trek” is that the secondary characters are all so enjoyable, and all so true to their original incarnations, yet appear so infrequently. Everyone is perfectly cast and so enjoyable to watch, that it's a shame that the supporting characters don't get much screen time. I suppose there's only so much you can do in two hours however, and with the exception of Dr. McCoy and perhaps Scotty, none of the characters were that prevalent in the original series of films, either.
There are however, two small things I'd like to point out. First the film has a romantic subplot that seems to be tacked on just for the sake of it. It's rare to see a film these days without some sort of romance, and in “Star Trek” it seems particularly out of place. It is not developed enough to seem necessary, and as such seems very out of place, and the film would have benefited without it. Perhaps it will be elaborated on in the inevitable sequels. This brings me to my second point, by utilizing all the same characters from the original series the writers have essentially sucked out any potential for suspense that may rely on the potential death of a character. None of the major characters are going to die throughout the series, because they simply can't. They must live at least long enough to reach the starting point of the original series.
With these small observations aside, I really have nothing particularly negative to say about “Star Trek,” as I enjoyed myself immensely, and I really believe that most people, “Star Trek” fans or not, should be able to enjoy the film even if only at the most simplistic level. Fans of the series will no doubt enjoy the inside jokes and references provided throughout the film, and will no doubt be impressed with the accuracy of both the actors and the events that occur (Kirk's captaincy test near the beginning of the film is discussed frequently throughout “The Wrath of Khan,” complete with apple biting). It's details like this that make the film so enjoyable for fans of the series. Yes, you may have to suspend a small amount of logic to properly enjoy the picture, but if you're not willing to do that during a film from a series that is built around space travel, aliens, phasers and photon torpedoes, you're probably sitting in on the wrong movie. For everyone else, there will not be a better blockbuster this year (No, not even "Transformers 2"). I'm certain of it.
"Star Trek" 2009
It is very rare that a film exceeds my expectations so drastically as J.J. Abrams' “Star Trek,” which really is a perfect Hollywood blockbuster. I recently watched “Wolverine,” and while I wouldn't quite say that it was a steaming pile of shit, it was most certainly not good. However, at the same time, it wasn't quite bad enough for me to extend my thoughts on the film. It was simply there, and amidst the incredibly cliched story and action set-pieces, was a film that was pure and simply forgettable. It seemed to exist for no particular reason, as the film's climax served to disprove the relevance of any of the events that occurred throughout the film.
I expected “Star Trek” to exist in a similar vein. At this point in history, “Star Trek” is undoubtedly a significant piece of popular culture, although it really seems to have run its course. The series hadn't had a cinematic incarnation since 2002's “Nemesis,” and the most recent television entry, “ Enterprise ” wrapped it's final season in 2005. Thus, four years after the fact, a new movie seems unnecessary and somewhat removed from the pulse of Hollywood . Perhaps this is why the film is so effective. It seems like less a production of necessity, and more a product of genuine passion by people who appreciate and understand the source material.
Producing a film with the “Star Trek” moniker is a sort of double-edged sword. First you have your so-called 'Trekkies,' a built in fan base seemingly as large as the universe is expansive. Conversely, you have a similarly large group of people who refuse to watch any film with the word 'star' in the title. “Star Trek” does a wonderful job of catering to fans of the original series, all the while making the film just as accessible to those who are unacquainted with the original series. Most should be able to enjoy the film without the slightest bit of “Star Trek” knowledge, as the film establishes the characters and their quest from the very beginning, and in a way breathes new life into what was undeniably a franchise of declining quality.
From the opening sequence, J.J. Abrams (whose only prior cinematic directorial effort was M:I-3, FYI) establishes himself as a truly capable director of big budget material. It's a scene rife with action, yet he heightens the emotional impact of the sequence through a very impressive use of music, and minimal sound. It seems as though he understands that a big budget Hollywood blockbuster could actually have some sort of emotional resonance with its audience. It's nice to see amongst films like the aforementioned “Wolverine” which simply exists for existence's sake, soon to be forgotten by the audience.
“Star Trek” is so enjoyable on every level that I find it hard to fault the film in any sense. It's epic for sure, as the external shots of the enterprise and the sheer scope of outer-space would most certainly suggest. Yet something about the story, despite the time travel, unbelievably large space cruisers, and interplanetary battles, seems surprisingly intimate and small. It may be hard to pinpoint at first, but underneath all of the traditional “Star Trek” 'bigness', this is a story about the franchise's two central characters, Kirk and Spock – both the individuals and their relationship with each other.
That's not to discredit the other characters however, as my biggest disappointment with “Star Trek” is that the secondary characters are all so enjoyable, and all so true to their original incarnations, yet appear so infrequently. Everyone is perfectly cast and so enjoyable to watch, that it's a shame that the supporting characters don't get much screen time. I suppose there's only so much you can do in two hours however, and with the exception of Dr. McCoy and perhaps Scotty, none of the characters were that prevalent in the original series of films, either.
There are however, two small things I'd like to point out. First the film has a romantic subplot that seems to be tacked on just for the sake of it. It's rare to see a film these days without some sort of romance, and in “Star Trek” it seems particularly out of place. It is not developed enough to seem necessary, and as such seems very out of place, and the film would have benefited without it. Perhaps it will be elaborated on in the inevitable sequels. This brings me to my second point, by utilizing all the same characters from the original series the writers have essentially sucked out any potential for suspense that may rely on the potential death of a character. None of the major characters are going to die throughout the series, because they simply can't. They must live at least long enough to reach the starting point of the original series.
With these small observations aside, I really have nothing particularly negative to say about “Star Trek,” as I enjoyed myself immensely, and I really believe that most people, “Star Trek” fans or not, should be able to enjoy the film even if only at the most simplistic level. Fans of the series will no doubt enjoy the inside jokes and references provided throughout the film, and will no doubt be impressed with the accuracy of both the actors and the events that occur (Kirk's captaincy test near the beginning of the film is discussed frequently throughout “The Wrath of Khan,” complete with apple biting). It's details like this that make the film so enjoyable for fans of the series. Yes, you may have to suspend a small amount of logic to properly enjoy the picture, but if you're not willing to do that during a film from a series that is built around space travel, aliens, phasers and photon torpedoes, you're probably sitting in on the wrong movie. For everyone else, there will not be a better blockbuster this year (No, not even "Transformers 2"). I'm certain of it.
Add a Comment
About
Badge
© 2009 Created by Jason Pitt on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
You need to be a member of The Critical-Film.com Social Network to add comments!
Join this social network