Star Trek is the eleventh film based on the Star Trek TV series that came out not so long ago, so I got to see it at the movies and enjoy all the special effects. It tells us about the early days of James T. Kirk, the death of his father, and how he became the captain of the Enterprise.
My first question is about the title. How come the preceding ten films had "a little something in the end". So we have Star Trek: First Contact, Star Trek: Insurrection, Star Trek Nemesis, and all of a sudden they shoot a movie and call it simply "Star Trek". Why? Does this movie stand out of the rest of feature films based on the same TV series? Well since it's the only one that made it to IMDb Top 250, may be it is the best one of them, but still I thought it was pretty stupid to call it this way, as if all these other movies had never existed.
The special effects were good. I liked the cast too, especially Eric Bana as the villain (Nero), and Zachary Quinto from Heroes as Spock. There is also a Russian actor, Anton Yelchin, playing a Russian Starfleet officer. Most of all I was impressed by the make-up. At first I didn't even recognize Eric Bana with such a huge nose.
So, basically, the movie is not bad at all. I liked all the twists with the time-travel, although it was nothing new. I just really don't see what was so special about it. I've seen a lot better science-fiction movies, like Moon that came out the same year, but it didn't make it on the Top. So is Star Trek really that good, or was it just a bunch of Star Trek nerds (did I say it out loud? I meant to say "fans") who made an impact.
Favorite quote: "Who was that pointy-eared bastard?"
Interesting fact: J.J. Abrams' only two choices for Nero were Russell Crowe and Eric Bana.
They probably called it just Star Trek to signify a rebirth of the series. It's a result of the reboot craze.
ReplyDeleteYelchin plays Chekov. In the original series Chekov would keep claiming that basically the Russians invented all of civilization. It was hilarious.
The best Star Trek film is the 6th, which was basically about the collapse of the Soviet Union with the Klingon Empire standing in for the USSR.
To me, this series is played out. I love science fiction, but why not just let whole series make a greaceful exit?
ReplyDeleteI think there is unrealized potential. The 23rd century Star Trek had a lot of creativity that was really wasn't doable in the 1960's. The 24th century is milked clean, but the 23rd century is a different experience with interesting races like the Gorn and the Tholians that we can realistically portray now. Not to mention seeing the Klingons, minus their cranial ridges, at their most militant.
ReplyDeleteIf nothing else, Stargate and Babylon 5 won't make for any movies so we need Star Trek. Although, I would like to see a film about Lazarus Long. Wishful thinking.
Wasn't Stargate originally a movie? When I was little I watched Babylon 5, I guess that's the reason I don't like Star Trek. May be there is a point of shooting Star Trek movies since they can have better special effects and all.
ReplyDeleteGraceful exit Pat? I'm not sure filmmakers know what this means.
Stargate was originally a movie before becoming a very successful and far better television show with two so so spin-offs.
ReplyDeleteI just finished watching the whole Babylon 5 series a week or so ago for the first time. I can see why people liked it since it didn't drown itself in pseudo-science like Star Trek often does. The stories were plot or character driven only introducing a bare minimum of mythology. However, I still prefer Deep Space Nine in many ways.