Review: Star Trek (2009 / second-pass)

Star Trek (2009 / second-pass)
Cert: 12A / 124 mins / Dir. J.J. Abrams / Trailer



Gotta love the triple-bill! As much as I enjoyed the 2009 reboot of Star Trek (which was in the days before I wrote about everything at the cinema), it strikes me as odd that tonight was only the second time I'd seen the film. Although this underlined the fact that I'd completely forgotten that Thor is Captain Kirk's dad (even though I somehow remembered that it's Bruce Banner who's driving the aggro-bus for this movie).

JJ Abrams Star Trek is essentially the textbook on how to retool and reinvigorate a long-running franchise, giving a baggage-free fresh start to new and casual audiences, whilst being respectful to both the series' tone and existing continuity (for the long-time fans who will be going to see it no matter what). There are still plenty of nods and in-jokes to the 'old' timeline, of course, but they're telegraphed enough that the civilian audience*¹ doesn't feel excluded by them.

Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban are fantastic here, both individually and collectively with an instant chemistry that's perfect for the roles. Leonard Nimoy is a welcome addition of course, but he feels over-used by the time he whistles the closing lines of the movie. And Anton Yelchin's Checkov is irritating as hell. There, I said it*². It's far more poignant watching him now, of course, but that's largely because I've seen him not be the "I know this!!" kid from Jurassic Park in his other work. Because if there's one hurdle the film can't clear, it's that long-established characters who aren't in 'the main three' are reduced to one-note extras here, and giving them their own little scene in which to shine only serves to underline that. Zoe Saldana's Uhura is similarly afflicted, getting a great introduction and set-up, then being stuck at the back of the set with little to do. But more on that later.

From a more technical standpoint, the amount of lens-flare on the bridge of the Enterprise now feels like a warning-shot for Into Darkness, and will someone please buy cinematographer Dan Mindel a tripod or two so he can keep the cameras in one place for an entire line of dialogue? But Michael Giacchino's magnificent score holds the whole thing together. In many ways, his main theme is more memorable than some of the underused characters.

But my nitpicking belies the fact that I thoroughly enjoyed Star Trek. It's an enormous amount of fun and a very robust space-adventure. And I say that as an honourable member of The Opposition.

Besides, Simon Pegg's presence alone means it's nice to watch a film where it's not Chris Hemsworth that's murdering a Scottish accent*³…

It'd make a pretty good companion-piece to Guardians of the Galaxy.



A moot question at this point but if you can, yes.



It does.



No, but it's up there.



Nah.



I believe so but I didn't catch it, so let's go with no.
Unless you know otherwise?



Level 1: This film's got the voice of Greg 'Snap Wexley' Grunberg from off of The Force Awakens in it. Oh, and R2-D2, as well.



^^ The film itself is a very strong five, but Quinto gives it an extra point.


*¹ Of which I am a member, let's be fair.

*² I said it in 2009 and again in 2013. It'd be hypocritical of me to change tack now. It's nothing against Yelchin necessarily, just the characterisation, performance and way he's directed.

*³ Yeah, yeah. I know that James Doohan's accent in the original series was bad, but a shit joke about a shit joke is still a shit joke. Maybe Hemsworth and Pegg should star in an action-comedy about a couple of Glaswegian cops, sent on assignment to Los Angeles? Actually, I shouldn't even joke about that…


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Star Trek Into Darkness (spoiler-free)

Star Trek Into Darkness (3D) - First Pass / Spoiler-Free
Cert: 12A / 132 mins / Dir. JJ Abrams



Before I start, let me say now that I enjoyed this film. The central story and performances are solid, and a great foundation for what should be a great film for fans and civilians alike.
We good? Good.

• Oh yeah, I said "should be", didn't I? Well, for starters, the film's too damned long for the story that's in it. It's already a slow starter, and the first half has the air of an unfolding mystery and intrigue which wasn't quite pacy enough to keep my attention when it's interspersed with (admittedly fantastic) action sequences and internal politics of Starfleet. When the puzzles are resolved well before the final battle… it just seems like a wasted opportunity; almost like the film's trying to be too many things at once. Too ponderous for an action flick, too brash for a crime drama, surprisingly Earth-bound for a space adventure. Harrison's back-story (which should be the emotional key, here) feels drowned out by Spock and Uhura's teenage squabbling, indeed when Kirk interjects "whoa, don't drag me into this!" I was thinking much the same thing.

• The other thing that was constantly in the front of my mind was the number references/homages to existing ST. I'm aware that the in-universe setup is still the same, even though the timeline isn't, but the 2009 Trek made a fantastic job of restarting everything while losing nothing. This movie feels like it should be using that clean-slate for good, but can't let go of the past and is holding itself back. I can't go into it without wading into spoiler-territory, but there are very oblique references that even I found forced, and I think that these will divide the ST-fandom (certainly if my own experience with SW fandom is anything to go by).
I know that I'm essentially complaining that a Star Trek film feels too much like Star Trek, but that's the best way I can describe it.

• Thumbs up for the 3D! It's used effectively and adds a nice depth to the proceedings, which is unusual for live-action. It doesn't make-or-break the film, of course, but it's refreshing to see a film where it's worth having. If you're even vaguely interested in seeing Into Darkness, the cinema is going to give you the best results; it's made to be watched big.

• Speaking of visuals, what's with the fucking lens-flare in this film? By all means go wild with it when we've got a glory-shot of The Enterprise bursting through a planet's atmosphere, or for a Bay-eque sunrise, but most of the internal shots set on the ship's bridge have hazy blue streaks, often in front of character's faces. Often while they're speaking. Less is more, Abrams, less is more.

But, like I said, I did enjoy Into Darkness, it just didn't resonate with me as its predecessor did. And as visually/audibly stunning as it was, it left me thinking about the things I didn't like, rather than the ones I did. And that's not what a film's meant to do, is it?



Largely.



Mostly.



Likely.



Cinema.



No.



Yes.



No.

Spock and Bones are being portrayed very similarly to their previous incarnations, both in looks and mannerisms, whereas Kirk and Uhura have more of their respective performers' style coming though. Which of these approaches sits better with you, and is that because you are/aren't a hardcore fan of ST?

Please think of others and avoid spoilers for the comments on this one ;)

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.