Wear A Bib!! You're About To Be Nose Pinched, Spoon Fed & Burped !

Rating: 4/10 (19 November 2009)

Here's a text book case of a movie that requires no acting skills...just re-acting skills. A famous actor once stated that the reason there were so few acting challenges in sci-fi films was because the characters were reduced to saying things like: "Wow...look at THAT"; or "RUN...Here it comes again!".
That statement was made just before the TV Star Trek original, before 1968's 'Planet of the Apes', before '2001: A Space Odyssey' and before Science Fiction in films tallied up the big bucks. So if we knew that over 45 years ago, how come, in 2009, we get lame-brain, 6th grade dribble dialog that, from the 1st scene (Kirk's birth), rarely rises above...6th grade dribble dialog? But maybe I'm being a bit harsh. By comparing, I wouldn't want to insult the intelligence of the millions of 6th graders out there who are certainly smarter than what this script presented. I was just surprised that Kirk didn't tell Mom to "give the kid a 'Koochie, Koochie Koo' for me! OOOPs ! Gotta crash, gotta go!"
I don't know where to begin. The title's CALLED 'Star Trek'. The credits SAYS there's characters called Spock, Kirk, McCoy...etc. But at no point do you feel that the characters are the younger versions of their original counterparts. The cast was a bullseye, so it wasn't their fault. But was it necessary to reduce them to the ridiculous?
Both Gene Roddenberry and William Shatner rightfully agreed that the literary classic Captain Horatio Hornblower (an early 19th century British Sea Captain) was the inspiration for Kirk's heroic Commander. So why was the new Kirk based upon INDIANA JONES? That Lucas/Spielberg creation was a throwback to the 10 part cliffhanging serials from the 1940s. Jones was reckless, a loner that got himself out of scrapes in ways that only a movie producer can provide (often, just dumb luck & bravado). But Jones was rarely a Leader and certainly never a Commander responsible for 400+ crew members and the many 'planetary populace in peril'.
Ironically, I had no problem with the shaky camera work in 'Cloverfield' because the nature of the story demanded it and (more importantly) the length of the shots were long that allowed the special effect laden scenes to unfold and the actors to act. I felt none of that in the new Star Trek that felt more like the camera operator went out for a smoke and left the camera on wheels with the auto focus turned on (even though the camera movement was way less jittery). With the editing 'quick cuts' overused, you're supposed to feel thrilled. I just felt numb.
CGI is still in its infancy which means technology will constantly be improving it. It's unavoidable that some special effects will look outdated as time passes. What will never become outdated is a great story, smart dialog, good directing & acting, and sharp editing. If the film has those qualities, the special effects for their day, can be forgiven because the strength of the story carries it through. The imploding planets in Star Trek doesn't even hold up by yesterday's standards. They looked like lap-top downloads. And with the characters simply re-acting to action, in a sitcom generic way; the quality acting and quality dialog are out catching a smoke right along with the camera operator.
The only satisfaction I derived from Leonard Nimoy's presence was updating the current score to: William Shatner; 7 Star Trek Movies. Leonard Nimoy; 7 Star Trek Movies. Seven Movies each! Seven Paychecks each! Score's even-steven. Hah !! Take that, Bill Shatner !
About one third of the original TV show represents TV's finest from the mid-1960s. The Star Trek movies 2, 4 & 6 are bonafide classics. Aside from a few hiccups, the originals had major qualities and, when captured on film, just plain soared. Given that, the best of Star Trek always represented intelligent fun, smart drama, quotable character interactions; and their disciplined reactions to their military & fantasy challenges.
What a shame that the franchise reboot resorted to clichéd scenarios we've already seen more than 20 times in 20 years that jettisons the audience intelligence into the proverbial warp factor. The first scene between Spock and his mother was so gaggingly excruciating, that it almost seemed a blessing that her demise means we won't be tortured by Winona Ryder portraying...'Winona Ryder' in plastic putty make-up in any future installments. I realize that 'gaggingly' is not a real word, but I couldn't think of a real word that describes it better. Did ALL respectable, talented middle age actresses turn the role down?
William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and the rest of the originals had the goods on what made their characters tick. These actors brought a wealth of background stage training. When they clicked, they were spot on. The new version just looked like the actors were going thru the MTV motions without any real substance. That blame should be right at the decision makers (by committee) to not only Reboot, but Revamp the entire structure of what defined Star Trek. What ended up emerging was this: a slam-bang; quick cut; just react, don't act; noisy; say-it-simple and keep-it-simple for our global market audience; a dumbed-down product that will undoubtedly fatten the studio's financial coffers.
And never did I expect "Live Long and Prosper" to be turned into a cheap 'kiss-off'. Looks like the Star Trek Dignity has a nicotine thing going too (right outside with the camera operator). But the camera operator is only allowed to do what the director tells them.
I walked out of Star Trek 5. I walked out of this one too (with a refund). Several months later, I rented this on Blu-Ray and tortured myself for 2 hours. After that, I couldn't wait to get back to doing the dishes, raking the leaves and going to the dentist for my root canal.