Star Trek - The Reboot
I have been putting this review off for far too long. I saw the film over two weeks ago at the friendly local drive-in with the wife and kids. Since then, I wanted to collect my though and my computer had a graphics card failure but that was still only a few days worth. Here goes:
For any remake (or in this case a reboot) to make it, it has to do three things well. 1) It must pay homage to the original. 2) It must leave its own stamp on the material. 3) It MUST be good! I have seen too many examples of a failure of #3 to even list.
Too many writers and directors seem to think that #1 and #2 and mutual exclusive. They aren't but it takes more skill to do them well. So how did Star Trek do?
Well lets start with #1, keeping true to the original:
I loved Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and her expanded personality - hey, it's 2009, she shouldn't just be the black woman behind Kirk should she? Of course not! Well acted and I look forward to seeing her in action in the future.
I was a little taken aback by the physical appearance (balding) of the actor playing Scotty (Simon Pegg) but he nailed the performance so I can forgive that minor item.
I was so impressed with the amount of character they were able to cram into Sulu (John Cho), Chekov (Anton Yelchin), Bones (Karl Urban) and Scotty given the nearly miniature screen time they received, that my hat is off to each of them.
On to the main attraction. I was always more of Spock fan so we'll talk about him next. He was played in such excellent form by Zachary Quinto that I literally forgot that he wasn't a younger Leonard Nimoy. Not that they have a large degree of physical similarity but that he didn't play Spock so much as become Spock. Zachary, you, sir, were amazing in that role.
While, Chris Pine's portrayal of Kirk has earned him rave reviews he just didn't fit for me. Not in a way that was crushing, so much as something just didn't click. Maybe he is a little too young? Not sure. I certainly didn't miss the ridiculous diction from Shatners' Kirk and enjoyed his take on the character so I will take a wait a see on him.
I give them an B-. After all, Kirk is a very important character - even for a guy who liked Spock better.
Let's continue with #2, leaving a mark:
WOW! They did this with a vengence and I'm sure that some of the Trekkie angst is aimed, in part, at the massive changes to the history of the Trek Universe. Essentially, the writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, hit the giant reset button and decided to play in the now empty sandbox. I imagine that if you care, you have seen the show but if not, I will warn you that SPOILERS follow through this review. By using time travel - and not chessy time travel - they were able to hit the reset button and reboot the entire history.
This leaves them free to do whatever they want and it's OK as the old time-line never happened. Getting Nimoy to play Spock Prime (seriously, that is how he was credited) was a master-stroke. The passing of the torch from Nimoy to Quinto (Spock to Spock) was far more believeable than the passing the torch between Shatner (Kirk) and Stewart (Picard) in Generations.
Further, they deal with the fact that Spock is half-human far more here than the original series (OS) ever did. Spock was our impression of a Vulcan even though he was technically half. This Spock is making a choice to follow the teachings of Surak and forsake his emotional ties but hasn't - as of this film - succeeded. He is even involved in a relationship with Uhura and honestly it didn't seem wierd once the shock wore off.
The origin of Bones' nickname - in this film - was apparently a remark to Kirk about his ex-wife getting everything in the divorce except his bones. A most excellent play on words.
So they get an A+ here for leaving a unique mark that doesn't dishonor the memory of the other.
Now, finally, the biggie. Was it a good film?
How can I put this? YES. I think this would have done well without the Star Trek name. Obviously not as well, but still. Despire the critics (rabid Trekkies, really) that claimed, this movie will suck because it's an odd film. (If you don't know what that means, I'm sorry, I'm not going to explain it.)
Go see this if you haven't. If you have? Go see it again.
Adios.
For any remake (or in this case a reboot) to make it, it has to do three things well. 1) It must pay homage to the original. 2) It must leave its own stamp on the material. 3) It MUST be good! I have seen too many examples of a failure of #3 to even list.
Too many writers and directors seem to think that #1 and #2 and mutual exclusive. They aren't but it takes more skill to do them well. So how did Star Trek do?
Well lets start with #1, keeping true to the original:
I loved Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and her expanded personality - hey, it's 2009, she shouldn't just be the black woman behind Kirk should she? Of course not! Well acted and I look forward to seeing her in action in the future.
I was a little taken aback by the physical appearance (balding) of the actor playing Scotty (Simon Pegg) but he nailed the performance so I can forgive that minor item.
I was so impressed with the amount of character they were able to cram into Sulu (John Cho), Chekov (Anton Yelchin), Bones (Karl Urban) and Scotty given the nearly miniature screen time they received, that my hat is off to each of them.
On to the main attraction. I was always more of Spock fan so we'll talk about him next. He was played in such excellent form by Zachary Quinto that I literally forgot that he wasn't a younger Leonard Nimoy. Not that they have a large degree of physical similarity but that he didn't play Spock so much as become Spock. Zachary, you, sir, were amazing in that role.
While, Chris Pine's portrayal of Kirk has earned him rave reviews he just didn't fit for me. Not in a way that was crushing, so much as something just didn't click. Maybe he is a little too young? Not sure. I certainly didn't miss the ridiculous diction from Shatners' Kirk and enjoyed his take on the character so I will take a wait a see on him.
I give them an B-. After all, Kirk is a very important character - even for a guy who liked Spock better.
Let's continue with #2, leaving a mark:
WOW! They did this with a vengence and I'm sure that some of the Trekkie angst is aimed, in part, at the massive changes to the history of the Trek Universe. Essentially, the writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, hit the giant reset button and decided to play in the now empty sandbox. I imagine that if you care, you have seen the show but if not, I will warn you that SPOILERS follow through this review. By using time travel - and not chessy time travel - they were able to hit the reset button and reboot the entire history.
This leaves them free to do whatever they want and it's OK as the old time-line never happened. Getting Nimoy to play Spock Prime (seriously, that is how he was credited) was a master-stroke. The passing of the torch from Nimoy to Quinto (Spock to Spock) was far more believeable than the passing the torch between Shatner (Kirk) and Stewart (Picard) in Generations.
Further, they deal with the fact that Spock is half-human far more here than the original series (OS) ever did. Spock was our impression of a Vulcan even though he was technically half. This Spock is making a choice to follow the teachings of Surak and forsake his emotional ties but hasn't - as of this film - succeeded. He is even involved in a relationship with Uhura and honestly it didn't seem wierd once the shock wore off.
The origin of Bones' nickname - in this film - was apparently a remark to Kirk about his ex-wife getting everything in the divorce except his bones. A most excellent play on words.
So they get an A+ here for leaving a unique mark that doesn't dishonor the memory of the other.
Now, finally, the biggie. Was it a good film?
How can I put this? YES. I think this would have done well without the Star Trek name. Obviously not as well, but still. Despire the critics (rabid Trekkies, really) that claimed, this movie will suck because it's an odd film. (If you don't know what that means, I'm sorry, I'm not going to explain it.)
Go see this if you haven't. If you have? Go see it again.
Adios.
posted by ludomastro | 21:43
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home