FeedStar Trek
May 25 2009, 1:15pm
First things first: The egregious lens flares: not impressive. JJ Abrams said "I want the sense that, just off camera, something spectacular is happening," and that's part of the problem: should've spent more time ensuring that something spectacular was happening *on* camera.
But mostly I was left with the sense that there was some really cheap glass between me and the movie, particularly when there was excessive flaring on the interior shots. Or that i was watching someone else play a video game, one from an earlier generation where lighting effects like lens flare were new and exciting, so everybody overused them.
OK. On to the real problems. Must every modern cinematic hero have a tortured back-story? More to the point, must every modern cinematic hero have the *same* back-story? Or, OK, sure, like every other 11-year-old kid I suppose I ate up the "Darth Vader is Luke's father" twist in Star Wars, but the difference between the Star Trek universe & most other universes is that in Star Trek, where you came from didn't *matter*; it was what you did in the present that counted.
So to have both Kirk *and* Spock consumed with unresolved parental issues -- particularly when the fates of whole planets lie in the balance -- seems like an unwanted side trip into some other, less noble universe.
Most interesting to me, though, was the unavoidable acting comparison prompted by the appearance of Leonard Nimoy (as, um, "Spock Prime"). I'm not nominating Leonard for any acting awards (I think you forfeit elegibility when you either host "In Search Of . . ." or record "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins"), but the point is that his performance as Spock was always a triumph of underacting. A pair of pointy ears, a single arched eyebrow, and a level of self-assurance that allowed him to read lines, good or bad (and act opposite Shatner) without flinching: those were all he needed.
The actors in the original series shared a sense of bemusement, but also respect (for themselves and each other) that let them push through all kinds of bizarre scenarios, clunky sets, and intermittently hokey dialogue. The actors in this film can't decide whether to play it fully straight, or to give in to the kind of broad nod-and-wink slapstick (as in Kirk's "I've got your gun" scene in the Romulan ship) that has become de rigeur for action movies.
Mostly, though, I came away thinking that it was just one more summer blockbuster: overplotted, underdirected, substituting comic-book back-story for character development, and fights and explosions for actual story arc. Without any distinctive actors (apart from Nimoy, and Winona Ryder (!) as Spock's mom . . . oh, and the criminally underutilized Bruce Greenwood as Pike), I will have forgotten it by the end of the week.
But mostly I was left with the sense that there was some really cheap glass between me and the movie, particularly when there was excessive flaring on the interior shots. Or that i was watching someone else play a video game, one from an earlier generation where lighting effects like lens flare were new and exciting, so everybody overused them.
OK. On to the real problems. Must every modern cinematic hero have a tortured back-story? More to the point, must every modern cinematic hero have the *same* back-story? Or, OK, sure, like every other 11-year-old kid I suppose I ate up the "Darth Vader is Luke's father" twist in Star Wars, but the difference between the Star Trek universe & most other universes is that in Star Trek, where you came from didn't *matter*; it was what you did in the present that counted.
So to have both Kirk *and* Spock consumed with unresolved parental issues -- particularly when the fates of whole planets lie in the balance -- seems like an unwanted side trip into some other, less noble universe.
Most interesting to me, though, was the unavoidable acting comparison prompted by the appearance of Leonard Nimoy (as, um, "Spock Prime"). I'm not nominating Leonard for any acting awards (I think you forfeit elegibility when you either host "In Search Of . . ." or record "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins"), but the point is that his performance as Spock was always a triumph of underacting. A pair of pointy ears, a single arched eyebrow, and a level of self-assurance that allowed him to read lines, good or bad (and act opposite Shatner) without flinching: those were all he needed.
The actors in the original series shared a sense of bemusement, but also respect (for themselves and each other) that let them push through all kinds of bizarre scenarios, clunky sets, and intermittently hokey dialogue. The actors in this film can't decide whether to play it fully straight, or to give in to the kind of broad nod-and-wink slapstick (as in Kirk's "I've got your gun" scene in the Romulan ship) that has become de rigeur for action movies.
Mostly, though, I came away thinking that it was just one more summer blockbuster: overplotted, underdirected, substituting comic-book back-story for character development, and fights and explosions for actual story arc. Without any distinctive actors (apart from Nimoy, and Winona Ryder (!) as Spock's mom . . . oh, and the criminally underutilized Bruce Greenwood as Pike), I will have forgotten it by the end of the week.
