I've noticed most reviews of Star Trek start with the writer either claiming he's never been a trekkie or embracing that identity for all it's worth. I fall into neither camp. I'm not a trekkie, but I cannot comfortably use that claim since I've never seen a Star Trek film or show. I attribute that to me missing it's major zeitgeist moments. I just wasn't old enough during the franchises more modern attempts at success and as such never took interest in those projects or the older shows and films. Star Trek's presence in my life had thus been reduced to punchline status in many a sitcom or movie. With all of this in mind, I cannot claim to dislike or even be indifferent to something I've never been exposed to. But then I saw the trailer and read some of the reviews and it started to look more and more interesting. It was a summer blockbuster, sure; but why shouldn't I enjoy some hours of mindless action and fun, right? I went to see the movie with a friend who was in the same situation as me and we both came out with almost the same opinion of the film.
Star Trek is indeed a summer blockbuster full of action sequences and light comedy but it didn't feel old or tired. The action sequences are decently thrilling, the plot is not too punishing on newcomers to the franchise and there were no overly annoying exposition sequences. The movie even manages to balance the loudness of the obligatory summer-movie explosions with decent comedy from its ensemble. I'd never seen Chris Pine anywhere before, so I didn't quite know what to expect from him. I was pleasantly surprised to discover he has the charisma to lead a role in addition to his pretty face. Also in this ensemble is my hoping-he-becomes-big favorite, Anton Yelchin (Go see Charlie Bartlett, now). Here he again uses his talent with accents and caricaturesque body language to full effect. In anybody else's hands, Chekov might have been to ridiculous and annoying a character, but under Yelchin the character truly becomes fun and dare I say it, even somewhat cute.
The other great thing Star Trek has going for it is the visual experience it provides. Th set design is like watching a futuristic Apple store (Wow, redundant.), all white, shiny and with vibrant color accents. The lighting helps bring this to fruition by truly bringing out the sets' shiny aura. And like I said before, this visual excitement isn't offset with stuffy characters or terrible storylines who no one but the die-hard fans get. Granted, it's not an altogether easy-to-follow movie. My friend got a bit lost during parts of it and I tried to explain it to her and she got back on track real quick, but the fact that I had to explain still means something, right? This is however, a minor concern. If you've been holding out on seeing this because you think it's for trekkies, I'm here to tell you that is not the case.
James' review over at Rants of a Diva posed an interesting question in regards to the film's quality. I would say that The Dark Knight isn't necessarily a better film, but I did enjoy it more. Chalk it up to Heath Ledger's amazing performance or my love for Batman stories since my years as a wee lad watching the Batman the Animated Series show (On hindsight, way darker for a kid's show than you'd expect.). Star Trek is, however, still a darn good film. Yes, it doesn't come close to matching Atonement or anything, but it was still a pretty darn entertaining two hours. I heartily recommend you get off your butt and go watch it if you haven't already.
I give it: ***
Star Trek is indeed a summer blockbuster full of action sequences and light comedy but it didn't feel old or tired. The action sequences are decently thrilling, the plot is not too punishing on newcomers to the franchise and there were no overly annoying exposition sequences. The movie even manages to balance the loudness of the obligatory summer-movie explosions with decent comedy from its ensemble. I'd never seen Chris Pine anywhere before, so I didn't quite know what to expect from him. I was pleasantly surprised to discover he has the charisma to lead a role in addition to his pretty face. Also in this ensemble is my hoping-he-becomes-big favorite, Anton Yelchin (Go see Charlie Bartlett, now). Here he again uses his talent with accents and caricaturesque body language to full effect. In anybody else's hands, Chekov might have been to ridiculous and annoying a character, but under Yelchin the character truly becomes fun and dare I say it, even somewhat cute.
The other great thing Star Trek has going for it is the visual experience it provides. Th set design is like watching a futuristic Apple store (Wow, redundant.), all white, shiny and with vibrant color accents. The lighting helps bring this to fruition by truly bringing out the sets' shiny aura. And like I said before, this visual excitement isn't offset with stuffy characters or terrible storylines who no one but the die-hard fans get. Granted, it's not an altogether easy-to-follow movie. My friend got a bit lost during parts of it and I tried to explain it to her and she got back on track real quick, but the fact that I had to explain still means something, right? This is however, a minor concern. If you've been holding out on seeing this because you think it's for trekkies, I'm here to tell you that is not the case.
James' review over at Rants of a Diva posed an interesting question in regards to the film's quality. I would say that The Dark Knight isn't necessarily a better film, but I did enjoy it more. Chalk it up to Heath Ledger's amazing performance or my love for Batman stories since my years as a wee lad watching the Batman the Animated Series show (On hindsight, way darker for a kid's show than you'd expect.). Star Trek is, however, still a darn good film. Yes, it doesn't come close to matching Atonement or anything, but it was still a pretty darn entertaining two hours. I heartily recommend you get off your butt and go watch it if you haven't already.
I give it: ***
No comments:
Post a Comment