Review of Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Originally posted on MI6Forums on May 14 2009


"Well, Captain, your whole crew has been replaced by teen idols."


"Those *******."




"Spock, what do you think of all this?"




"Not for us?"


"No, Jim. Not for us."


"For NuTrek."


"I weep for NuTrek as I would for an aborted fetus"

STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE (The Director's Edition)
Cause I'm sorry but if you don't have the sickbay scene or the weep for V'Ger scene, you don't have the movie.

Since the last Trek movie I saw was AbramsTrek, this was an extreme spectrum shift to the other side. Sedate where Trek XI is hyperactive, talky where Trek XI is action-packed, dull where Trek XI is colourful, cerebral where Trek XI is retarded.

But despite that, there are a lot of similarities between the two movies. Both were attempts at bringing the classic 60s characters to the big screen after a long hiatus. Both are extremely reliant on visual effects. Both have very high quality visual effects. And both feel like they have the big scope of a movie.

That's one of the big things I like about TMP is that it feels like an adventure worth taking Trek to the movies for. It's big. TSFS/TVH/TFF lack that for me. This movie feels like a movie.

A lot of people dislike the lack of "feel-good" camaraderie in the crew in this movie -- but I like it. There's a real dramatic tension between crewmembers in Star Trek for the first time and it makes you unsure of everyone's motivations -- Decker and Kirk competing for command, and Spock no longer the Vulcan we remember.

I particularly like Spock's arc in the film -- returning from the Kolinahr cold but unfulfilled, we are don't know if he's fully loyal to the ship; and going from that to Spock realizing that where he belongs is with the Enterprise crew.


That's why this scene is so important to me. It's the emotional fulcrum of the piece.

The Spock spacewalk is a fantastic moment. These guys were really out to give 2001 a run for its money and in some places they succeed.

I also really like the opening with the Klingons, the design of V'Ger, the Illia probe and Decker subplots. And the transporter accident that kills Sonak -- that's a chilling moment you don't soon forget. All in all it's a strong picture.

So what are the weaknesses? Well it's a very passive film. Our heroes spend a lot of time looking at viewscreens and discussing things and very little time actually doing anything. Also while the uniforms look good on their own, they don't work well with the production design. I think the only problem I have with the uniforms is the slacks being the same colour as the tops -- I think that's what gives them the "pajama" feel. Except for the Epsilon IX uniforms -- they're terrible. A big problem is the lighting. This movie is terribly lit. Just awful. It's hard to believe it's the same bridge set as TWOK and it's so interesting how much of a difference lighting makes.

That being said, you know, and I know, and the film knows, that the TMP Enterprise model looks great.

However, I like the mystery of the movie a lot. What is V'Ger? What's Spock's motivations? What's Kirk's? Etc etc. I like that the movie encourages its audience to think and that we defeat the "villain" by helping it and solving its problem and communicating with it rather than blowing it up.

Despite all its problems this is Star Trek in fine form. A movie like this could never be made today.

7/10

1. STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE
2. STAR TREK

Next Up -- KHAAAAAAN!

Review of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Originally Posted on MI6Forums May 17 2009


"Sir, if I may?"


"Excuse me, can't you tell I'm in mourning for my franchise here?"


"Saavik was right -- you never have faced obsolescence."


"No -- I've put out albums, and been in Priceline ads, and parodied myself over and over. I know nothing."


"You knew enough to tell Saavik that how we deal with sh*t movies is just as important as how we deal with good ones. It's called dollar voting."


"Good point. Remind me not to buy the Blu-Ray. Is that all you came here to say?"


"That -- and I that I'm glad you're not Chris Pine."


"Damn straight."

STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN

Talk about a marked improvement. Character, drama, emotion, action, but also theme, depth, meaning -- it's all here and it's all entertaining.
This, folks, is how it's done.

Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer sweep in and save the franchise. Finally, Starfleet is a believable Navy, and even the old TMP sets are lit in a dramatically vibrant style. The cinematography is truly a sight for sore eyes.

This movie is masterful at doing less with more. Reduced to a paltry budget, the new team relies not on fancy visual effects but on a strong solid story with ties to the backstories of the Original Series.

It's clear the writers had seen TOS -- some of the most classic TWOK lines are actually throwbacks to oft-repeated themes and dialogues in TOS, from Vulcans never lying, to there always being possibilities, to Khan's superior everything.

James Horner's fantastic score makes this truly, truly a space opera of Wagnerian scale. Shatner and Nimoy give performances of their careers, and even De Kelley and Jimmy Doohan get great stuff to do. (Scotty's not even fat yet!)

Kirstie Alley is the one and only Saavik. She made that character worth paying attention to. She is sorely missed in III, IV, and VI.

The film moves at a breakneck pace -- you're swept along an adventure that is truly like a swashbuckling epic and we only get time to rest finally in the Genesis Cave, where we pause and reflect in two of William Shatner's best scenes as Kirk. The themes are all there -- and yet, we have not abandoned the core of Star Trek, best exemplified in the scene in Kirk's quarters with McCoy and Spock arguing over the merits of the Genesis experiment.

TWOK is a full twenty minutes shorter than TMP, and where the previous film was slow and plodding, this movie is a mad dash capped with a great deal to say about the human condition -- life, death, maturity, vengeance, mortality, age. In the end, it's a tragedy, and the death of Spock is so tactfully and beautifully handled that you almost wish they didn't bring him back. Almost . Truly, his death serves the film -- it is not there for shock value or as a cheap pull on the audience.

If I had to nitpick about this movie, it'd be that Kirk and Khan never meet face to face -- but then again, that's just a connection to the nautical feel Meyer was trying to emulate. And with Khan's genetically engineered strength and Kirk's age, it'd be a quick fight. Also, it harkens to classic episodes like "Balance of Terror".

Oh! My other nitpick is that while I LOOVE the Monster Maroon uniforms, and they are a vast improvement over BLAND TMP, they always bug me in the back of my head because they just don't feel design-wise like Starfleet uniforms - they look nothing like anything that came before and after. But they're still the best thought out uniforms in Trek.

This movie is Trek's FRWL -- every new entry wants to be it, and they all fail, most notably Nemesis and NuTrek.

Truly, this is a superior motion picture.

9/10

1. STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN
2. STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE
3. STAR TREK

Next Up -- Nimoy Directs Doc Brown as a Klingon B*st*rd!

Review of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

Originally posted on MI6Forums May 20 2009

"How could you do this, Kirk? Spock trusted you -- with everything that was not of the body." "Erm -- wat?" "You let him appear in NuTrek!" "F*cker owed me twelve dollars." STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK Leonard Nimoy's directorial debut is uneven, to be sure. The script has wonderful dialogue and fantastic character moments -- but it's a largely predestrian A to B affair dependant on a lot of leaps of faith on the part of the audience. The model work by ILM produces some of the most beautiful shots I've ever seen in the field of visual effects -- but any set not reused from previous Trek movies looks like a cheaply thrown together mess. Nimoy masterfully directs subtle character interactions, and handles anything involving Vulcans with a well-expected fine touch -- but his action direction is dull and fails to excite. So its a mixed bag, to say the least. But do these factors detract from enjoying the film? Not really. Star Trek III is a fun film to watch -- and despite the deaths of David and the Enterprise, one still gets a feeling of rebirth from it all... as the end title says, the adventure continues and we feel we've moved to a point where from here we can go on to tell any story we want. One thing's for certain -- it's a great ending. In large part the movie has good performances -- Merritt Butrick makes me wish we'd gotten another movie out of David before his inevitable demise, and Christopher Lloyd is a good low-level villain as Kruge. He doesn't match Khan, but he knows well enough not to try. Robert Hooks creates a memorable character in Fleet Admiral Morrow and I wish that part could've been reprised. The original TOS cast are great in this flick. Shatner especially really carries this movie forward the whole way, and it's interesting seeing him without Nimoy to play off of. Mark Lenard reprises his role of Sarek with subtlety, authority, and grace. Gosh, did Ben Cross suck. Unfortunately, these good performances really make the one dud in the cast stand-out: Robin Curtis as Saavik. She's trying her damnedest, but she's no Kirstie Alley. Saavik goes from being an interesting character who we enjoy seeing grow and learn, to a dull wooden wall, fit only to give exposition. Too bad. This film mainly has two weaknesses for me: 1) it's a very linear, straightforward plot. We need Spock alive again, and this movie accomplishes that, but little else. 2) The Klingon enemy should've been more pronounced: Bennett and Nimoy were trying to make Genesis a nuclear allegory with the Klingons representing the Soviets again -- but instead we get a bunch of ugly, crass, punks. I think Trek III is really the beginning of the punk Klingon thing that really damaged that species for a long time. It's the beginning of the modern Klingon. Despite that, there are some touches to the Klingons that I do like -- references to the Federation Neutral Zone and calling the Enterprise a Federation Battle Cruiser among them. Despite revolving around Spock, this film belongs to Kirk. It's really his vehicle and Shatner's got great moments all throughout the film. However, one of the things I really like in this movie is that each member of the core crew gets a moment to shine (with the exception of Chekov, who got a lot of time in the previous picture). The stealing of the Enterprise is like a Mission: Impossible episode, which makes sense since Nimoy was on that show for two years. Hell, Uhura and Sulu get more in this movie than they did in the last two combined! The best element of the film is Kirk's sacrifices for Spock, how far he goes for his friend. Bong has spoken about this eloquently and at some length and I will not presume to do better here. It's weaknesses are rushed plotting and a strange pace that makes the film feel very segmented and episodic (We recover from TWOK - We steal the Enterprise - We fight some Klingons - We go to Vulcan). The movie is short on intelligent ideas or themes -- but is so strongly based in character and so necessarily based in plot that I forgive it. Saavik's scene where she scolds David on his arrogance suffices for me. This movie really captures the spirit of TOS, and just like in TWOK you can really tell Harve Bennett watched TOS and took notes. I love the ending with everyone on Vulcan and the TOS theme playing -- beautiful. It's a fun adventure that lets us recover from the wounds of Star Trek II and move forward to new journeys. Its faults can be excused as it was a directorial debut, rushed script, and largely plot driven in its necessities. 6/10 -- Why only 6/10 after a very positive review? I can't help but say that's what the movie feels like for me. It's light and disposable fun. Gets Spock back for us. But that's really all. 1. STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN 2. STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE 3. STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK 4. STAR TREK

Review of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Originally posted on MI6Forums May 28 2009




"Admiral Kirk, Captain Spock. The charges against you are, among others,"


- "Agreeing to appear in Star Trek XI,"


- "And directing Star Trek V."


"How do you plead?"


"Are you sure now is not the time for a colourful metaphor?"


"OoOoOOOoOooooOooOoOoOOOOooOoOOOoOOOOOooooooO!"

STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME

Everyone and their mother likes this movie. So what can I say about it? I can say that it's always bothered me that the Bird-of-Prey bridge is entirely different from what we saw in Star Trek III. But then, the Star Trek III set sucked anyway. I can say that the score from Leonard Rosenman sounds like every generic 80s comedy. But then, this is an 80s comedy. I could say that the whole probe thing is a repeat of Star Trek I's plot. But then, the probe in this case is merely an excuse for a fun adventure, not the focus in and of itself.

So can I really think of a legitimate complaint for this movie?

No.

The team of Harve Bennett, Leonard Nimoy and Nick Meyer really did a great job here creating a movie that's entertaining, light-hearted, intelligent, funny, and has a strong message behind it. It's no wonder why this was the Star Trek with the most crossover appeal. Once again, Nimoy used his Mission Impossible experience to give everyone in the cast something fun to do -- I think this is the last Star Trek movie to give a genuine role to the entire cast until Star Trek XI.

One of my favourite elements of this movie is the resolution of Spock's character arc -- having gone through Kolinahr and V'ger and death and rebirth, Spock finally reconciles and comes to terms with both halves of his heritage. His final scene with Sarek is just fantastic.

But despite Spock getting a good arc, and Nimoy being the director, this film really belongs to Kirk. William Shatner has always had a great sense of humour and he does a fine job of carrying this picture.

What more can I say? From the great ILM effects job for the whales, to the wise decision to keep Eddie Murphy out of the picture, Star Trek IV is just plain enjoyable -- and years ahead of its time with its environmentalist theme. With no shots fired in anger, little to no violence, and the problem solved by communication instead of destruction, TVH also demonstrates some of the best qualities of Star Trek.

It's fun, but it's intelligent fun, and it has a meaning.

We grok.

8/10

1. STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN
2. STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME
3. STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE
4. STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK
5. STAR TREK

Up Next -- William Shatner writes AND directs? How can this possibly go wrong?

Review of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

Originally posted on MI6Forums Jun 3 2009


"Well, gentlemen. I wrote and directed my very own Star Trek movie. What did you think?"


"The film scored 21% on Rotten Tomatoes, making it the worst of the original series."




"Yeah, but it sure as hell beats NuTrek."


"Damn straight."

STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER

Not bad, Shatner. Not bad at all.

In a way it's a shame Shatner had to compromise his vision to all the suits at Paramount, though conversely I don't think a Trek film with the Judeo-Christian Devil as the villain would ever have worked.

At the end of the day the only major flaw of this movie is how cheaply it was done for, which I can't really blame on Shatner -- only Paramount. Other than that there's some weaknesses in the writing, for example without the epic escape from Hell originally planned (complete with army of rockmen) the climax of the movie falls spectacularly flat. And really, the climax of a movie must be strong as its the last impression the audience has. Also, as many have pointed out, the Scotty/Uhura relationship is really weird and comes out of nowhere. (Hrrrmm, that comment feels familiar...)

Also, a minor thing that always weirded me out about this movie is that it's ostensibly set six months after Star Trek II, and yet, through movies II-IV Uhura has black hair, and here she's gone grey. Yet in Star Trek VI, set ten years after Trek II, she has black hair again.

Yes, the movie is cheap, but Shatner's a good director given what little he had. And with the exception of the third act, the writing is strong too. This is the best Trek movie for demonstrating the Trinity. The character moments given to Kirk-Spock-Bones are superbly done.

Sybok is a great character, with a neat arc, and well played by Larry Luckinbill. I think a modern film dealing with a religious zealot leading a terrorist army would probably have a lot more weight than this did in 1988.

All in all I think this movie gets a bum rap. It's misunderstood. Yes, the effects are awful but that was Paramount's decision -- and besides, the effects for TOS weren't always great either. I like the storyline. I like the questions the movie asks, the statements it makes about religious fanatics like Sybok (the bit where he is shown to think of himself as God is excellent).

All in all it's a good movie -- it's just unfortunate in that it comes between the enormously popular Trek IV and the fantastically good Trek VI. That and that all the Trek movies feel like movies, and this feels like a TV movie -- like Return to Gilligan's Island or something. It just doesn't have the epic scope and scale of the other films -- which is sad because Shatner had intended it to be the most epic Trek of all.

The score is nice, too. Other than that damn TMP/TNG theme, I like the music. Some beats sound like Proto-First Contact, but the main "family" theme is nice.

There are little touches I like, for example how the Klingons consistently speak the language, as opposed to speaking English sometimes and Klingon other times.

But I'm glad Nick Meyer repainted that bridge.

6/10

1. STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN
2. STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME
3. STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE
4. STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK
5. STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER
6. STAR TREK