Matt Shea
RubySoho
Morgan Bell
Cibbuano
David O'Connell
Mountain Fog
I saw Star Trek for a second time
May 5th 2009 07:41
Spoilers! To be read if you've seen the movie, or are thinking about NOT seeing it!
Greedily, I hastily accepted an invite from Paramount to see another preview screening, before "Star Trek" comes out this weekend.
Why would I do that? Well, after seeing a couple of clips on the net, I remembered that I really enjoyed the film, enough to write two reviews about it. Read my review here, and my spoiler-laden shrieks on this page.
I was interested in finding out if I was just biased... did the grandeur of the Opera House and all the finely dressed guests, the shapely women in their slinky dresses, the murmur of excitement in the crowd... was I seduced by the tantalizing taste of celebrity hysteria?
No - under a second examination, it seems that I enjoyed "Star Trek" even more the second time, and I concentrated on finding out what, exactly, I enjoyed.
Readers of 20/20 Filmsight will recognize that I often chafe at big budget action flicks, and, though I'm a great fan of sci-fi, there has hardly been anything in the sci-fi world, cinematically-speaking, to hold my attention.
I suspect that JJ Abrams, the director of "Star Trek", is the missing ingredient - and please let me explain before Matt Shea gets up in my grill about laying false praise on directors.
Abrams has admitted that he wasn't a fan of the original franchise - and I think that's the key. A real "Trekkie" or "Trekker" might have lain too close to the tracks laid by the original television series and its offspring - instead, Abrams came up with some dynamic and spirited. He took the elements of the Shatner-Nimoy show, ramped it up and then laid it out there.
Abrams also noted that the use of lens flares, where an onscreen or offscreen light spills over the image, was ridiculous, but his reason is almost magical
"I love the idea that the future was so bright it couldn't be contained in the frame"
Additionally, where most big budget pictures shy away from long duration shots and closeups, Abrams uses both techniques. We get some fluid steadycam work on the bridge of the Enterprise, making the audience feel thrown into the action.
Even better, the camera doesn't shy away from the actors' faces, especially Pine and Quinto, who hold the movie together, each as a child of a world that seems to reject him. There's a moment when Kirk and Spock realize how valuable the other is - the camera holds them at opposite sides of the screen, and as they move closer to speak, the camera shoots in closer. That's a technique commonly used to add weight to a scene - but rarely used with such efficacy.
I heartily applaud Abrams' efforts because, truthfully, the script is a quite roughshod and the entire film could have been a dismal mess. There's far too much happy coincidence and sappy parting words, but Abrams zips past it all, leaving it out there like detritus... instead, he saves his jelly and jam for the particular moments.
The tense ship battles. The away team skydiving to land on a mining station. Desperate gun battles in an unknown ship.
It's a remarkable film, and one that I have no problem recommending to audiences as a good evening of action, character development and bouts of humour. If you can't laugh in future, there's no point waiting around for it.
:
| 81 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jason King
Sydney Table
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
I went with 5 people tonight and all loved it. One of them a twenty something actor claimed it was our generations "A New Hope" and I like his claim but don't think Nero was as menacing as Darth Vader, but Kirk is a definate Luke and Han rolled into one.
One person exiting the cinema was overheard saying "But it doesn't follow the timeline" - I guess he missed the alternate universe creation and one of my friends so eloquently put it "that guy can go f*&* himslef" - my explanation of "everyone is entitled to their opinions was met with "not on this film - I wont hear of it being insulted. It's too good"
Now - this weekend I am off for my 3rd viewing in DIG IMax at EQ.
Live Long and Prosper!
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
I'm not sure I'd say it was up there with A New Hope, but it's definitely a movie that I'd see a third time! Interestingly, I read that many of the details were selected to be consistent with the Star Trek timeline??
thanks for reading Jason!
Comment by Jason King
Sydney Table
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
Comment by StarWarsGeek
The Star Wars Geek & The Trekkie in me are still fighting about if I should go see this movie. So far the Trekkie in me is losing...
Comment by StarWarsGeek
The Star Wars Geek & The Trekkie in me are still fighting about if I should go see this movie. So far the Trekkie in me is losing...
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Jai Ceresoli
Films, Flicks, Movies
The large scale of a cinema screen often aids in the impact a movie has, especially a 'big' film with lots of action and huge shots. I imagine Star Trek would be even better at IMAX (saw Dark Knight at the IMAX. WOW!).
However, my query is, will it b as good on a smaller screen and a lesser sound system?
Also a nod to Jason King's mention of the emotional opening scene. That scene had all the elements needed to be a 'tear jerker', except it fell short of a tear for me on account of the score. The music held this scene back from its full potential in my opinion.