Saturday, May 16, 2009
Star Trek (2009)
There are three things you need to know about Star Trek - it's big, it's exciting and, most importantly, it's a lot of fun. Let's face it, it's the first enjoyable summer popcorn flick of 2009 (sorry, Wolverine). More importantly, it successfully reboots a long stagnant franchise for a new generation (pardon the pun). You have to ask: could anyone have engineered this rebirth as successfully as J.J. Abrams? For nearly all of its 43-year existence - all ten previous films and seven TV series - the franchise was largely a subcultural (read: nerd-based) phenomenon. Under Abrams (Lost, Mission: Impossible III), this film goes where no Star Trek has gone before: the realm of pop-culture cool.
To start, the film looks amazing. The visuals are nothing short of breathtaking; be it the jellyfish-esque space ship of Romulan villain Nero (Eric Bana) or the sequences of destruction he wreaks upon planet Vulcan, one thing is clear: the effects have finally caught up with us from the 1970s. Another point of success is the acting. Abrams's team of mostly lesser-knowns turns in a group of effective performances in not particularly demanding roles. Kudos to Chris Pine (Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock) and Simon Pegg (Quinto) in particular.
Unfortunately, the film's problems lie in its script. The story stumbles at times, and is rife with sci-fi clichés. Given the "origins" nature of the film, one can forgive writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, though their previous work on Transformers may make one wary of any future involvement here. However, in watching, you get the impression that sequels will only improve the franchise. Star Trek is still an enjoyable film and a really exhilarating experience. Give it a better script next time around, and we can be sure Abrams' vision will, in fact, live long and prosper.
2.5 stars out of 4
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment