Sunday, May 10, 2009
New Star Trek doesn't quite live up to the review...
...but isn't too bad. What comes across is that the review I commented on the other day was pure P.R. -- someone wrote a press release, pulled some strings, and the "review" was published. The movie, while entertaining, didn't have a deep theme (or little theme at all) beyond "outstanding people break the rules". Which I can have some sympathy for. A few lines in the end grated on me rather strongly -- the old "reason versus emotion" false dichotomy -- but as I said, overall it was entertaining, pulling a lot of elements from the original S.T., with hints of things from other sci-fi fare like Stargate, Battlestar, other S.T. movies, and even J.J. Abrams' show "Alias". I actually like the new James T. Kirk better than the old, and the younger versions of the other characters were all quite plausible. So -- 3 stars, which is a good score from me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Could you comment on what was better about the new Kirk. The reason I ask is that I am somewhat mixed on the new Kirk. At times he came across as a loud mouthed teenager. Shatner, by contrast, was always in control. Other than that, I totally agree with your assessment of the film.
ReplyDeleteMainly, the new Kirk is a much better actor. Shatner is incredibly over-the-top. As a young kid this didn't strike me, though I was always puzzled that not a single woman liked him. As an adult, it's clear that Shatner is not only a poor actor, but he had a very effeminate style. (Which the new Kirk at one point in the movie emulated in a brief tongue in cheek moment.) The combination melodramtic acting and the effeminate style makes Shatner's performances grating in many of the old episodes, and I rather wish Jeffrey Hunter ("Captain Pike") had stayed to be the original captain of the Enterprise (as he was originally intended to be).
ReplyDelete