"Star Trek" review
Okay Abrams, you got me.
People who regularly check this (all both of you) will remember that when I saw the first trailer for the new Star Trek movie, I thought it was going to suck and called director/producer J.J. Abrams an overrated hack...and I still think he is. "Cloverfield" and "Lost" still suck in my opinion.
But he's done good by the Star Trek series. I say this as a lifelong Trekkie.
Most people (rightfully) hate prequel movies because they either ruin the continuity of the previous films (like Star Wars) or they pretend the previous films didn't happen at all (like Casino Royale). "Star Trek" wisely does neither. Because most of the plot deals with time travel, this movie establishes that because of the events taken place, the events of the Original series now count as an alternate timeline, paying proper tribute to what's already been established while freeing themselves to create new stories with the characters.
There was the concern that many had (myself included) that with such young actors and that it's dealing with them at Starfleet Academy that this would be like Star Trek 90210. Thankfully the scenes at Starfleet are brief and we get right to the Enterprise as soon as possible. They're all cadets, but everyone has either already graduated or is near graduation, and since most of the actors are pushing 30 it helps us take them seriously.
There are plenty of winks and nods to the Original series, enough that the hardcore fans will appreciate it but they don't linger so long that newcomers feel left out. There's Sulu fencing, Chekov's trouble with V's, Spock saying "live long and prosper", Uhura's ear thingy, Dr. McCoy mocking Spock's green blooded Vulcaness, Scotty screaming about giving it all she's got, and Kirk seducing green women (that in particular was a nice touch). Leonard Nimoy's supporting role offers the right amount of nostalgia as well.
Two complaints though. One: is it so hard for you Abrams to get a steady cam? This is part of the reason I hated "Cloverfield", the camera shakes too much. And Two: there were way too many blinking and flashing lights. The lens flare in this movie is insane. Also, does every shot have to be a close-up? A lot of these characters get into intense fist fights so they have bruises and cuts on their faces shown in all their bleeding glory. I saw this in IMAX and it got in so close at Chris Pine's face I half expected to french kiss him if I were watching this in 3D.
So in short? Well done Abrams. Just don't get crazy with the story like you did on "Lost".
People who regularly check this (all both of you) will remember that when I saw the first trailer for the new Star Trek movie, I thought it was going to suck and called director/producer J.J. Abrams an overrated hack...and I still think he is. "Cloverfield" and "Lost" still suck in my opinion.
But he's done good by the Star Trek series. I say this as a lifelong Trekkie.
Most people (rightfully) hate prequel movies because they either ruin the continuity of the previous films (like Star Wars) or they pretend the previous films didn't happen at all (like Casino Royale). "Star Trek" wisely does neither. Because most of the plot deals with time travel, this movie establishes that because of the events taken place, the events of the Original series now count as an alternate timeline, paying proper tribute to what's already been established while freeing themselves to create new stories with the characters.
There was the concern that many had (myself included) that with such young actors and that it's dealing with them at Starfleet Academy that this would be like Star Trek 90210. Thankfully the scenes at Starfleet are brief and we get right to the Enterprise as soon as possible. They're all cadets, but everyone has either already graduated or is near graduation, and since most of the actors are pushing 30 it helps us take them seriously.
There are plenty of winks and nods to the Original series, enough that the hardcore fans will appreciate it but they don't linger so long that newcomers feel left out. There's Sulu fencing, Chekov's trouble with V's, Spock saying "live long and prosper", Uhura's ear thingy, Dr. McCoy mocking Spock's green blooded Vulcaness, Scotty screaming about giving it all she's got, and Kirk seducing green women (that in particular was a nice touch). Leonard Nimoy's supporting role offers the right amount of nostalgia as well.
Two complaints though. One: is it so hard for you Abrams to get a steady cam? This is part of the reason I hated "Cloverfield", the camera shakes too much. And Two: there were way too many blinking and flashing lights. The lens flare in this movie is insane. Also, does every shot have to be a close-up? A lot of these characters get into intense fist fights so they have bruises and cuts on their faces shown in all their bleeding glory. I saw this in IMAX and it got in so close at Chris Pine's face I half expected to french kiss him if I were watching this in 3D.
So in short? Well done Abrams. Just don't get crazy with the story like you did on "Lost".