5 Responses to “Star Trek (2009) – Marc’s Take”

  1. Heather says:

    It seems the things I liked about this movie you enjoyed as well, and the only real problem I had was also the “Overal Plot – or – Nuking Every Continent After Hurricane Katrina”. It was far fetched and if more time had been spent explaining the why’s of all those situations it would have MURDERED the brilliant pacing of the movie. I was ok with turning a blind eye to the motivation behind the Romulan’s and I found Bana’s performance to be enigmatic enough (agreed, not even close to Khan, but nonetheless)that it seemed ok for me.

    I’m just used to Abram’s weird way of shooting. I’m hearing other people say it was awkward for them as well, but it really didn’t bother me at all.

    I disagree about Spock 1.0 though. I loved his performance and didn’t mind for a second that he was repeating those old lines. Saying them to the “new” Kirk brought the old and new together. It had a great feel of nostalgia rather than a mimic to me. Perhaps they could have done MORE with him but I was ok with what the DID do with him. Again, I think a lot of these choices had to do with the films pacing.

    Nice point on the Waterboarding part though. It had been totally lost on me when I saw it, but am curious to take a second glance.

    I’m glad to hear you say the many bad complaints you had didn’t outweigh the fewer positives. I have the feeling you may watch it again and find yourself ignoring some of those annoying aspects. It’s not like the Ewok guy had a Jar Jar sized role here. He was in the movie for a grand total of five minutes.

    *le sigh*


  2. Glenn says:

    I honestly have never been as conflicted about a movie as I was with the new Trek. Like Marc, I could throw down for quite a while the inconsistencies with plot (god knows my feelings toward “time travel/alternate reality” BS and I’m nowhere near a hardcore trekkie. This all being said, Star Trek was the most fun i’ve had watching a movie in a long time. The whole thing just flippin clicked. It was exciting, The actors did pretty darn well in filling some pretty big shoes, yet making each character their own; with exception to Checkov and his “nuclear whistles”.
    Walking out of the theatre, I was completely clueless on how to process what I had just seen. If I was to stick with the lineage of the series and movies, it would stink up the place as bad as having to go back in time to steal a couple of whales to save the Earth. Yet if you strip it down to the bare elements of an okay story with good flow, coupled with decent acting and working chemistry between actors and story; THE MOVIE IS JUST TOO DARN FUN NOT TO LIKE.

  3. Stacey says:

    I just plain enjoyed this movie. This was a film that threw just enough of the old stuff at you that Trekkies got a grin without alienating the generations of newbies that never watched Star Trek before. A lot of it was tongue in cheek, blink and you’ll miss it, but if you caught it, you smiled. I saw the movie with someone who had never seen any Star Trek episodes or movies at all, and he enjoyed it. I did explain some stuff after the movie, not because I had to, but because the facts that the director and writer threw in there made me WANT to talk about it…teach the virgins, if you will. Of course, this earned me the “geek” title, but when it comes to this movie, I will proudly wear that moniker.

    Another thing that I liked about the movie was that because Nero changed the future, that leaves a blank canvass for future additions, and no doubt, future debates on whether the radical changes in the movie does the memory of Gene Roddenberry justice or not.

    This movie was, in my opinion, very good, and I am looking forward to many sequel.

    The Chic Geek….

  4. Ed says:

    I enjoyed the film as nothing more than a mindless action flick or popcorn movie or whatever you wanna call it. The type where you have to turn your brain off. Like you always end up doing in those Star Wars films.

    However, whenever I tried to make sense of what was in the generic plot or in some particular situation in this new Star Trek film… I had some problems.

    The whole time traveling over-used plot device, is clearly just a big gigantic clue that the writers were being lazy. They also seem to ignore how real black holes work. If this film was made in the 60′s or before we knew much about them, then I would tolerate such silly arse nonsense. But in the freakin’ 21st century? I guess they knew their target audience a little too well (12 year olds).

    The other thing that bugged me is Uhura falling in love with Spock. First of all, they probably violated protocol with that. How unprofessional of them. But the real problem for me was how unconvincing it was handled. They seemed to have fallen in love just like that. And that’s hard to believe if we consider that Spock was suppose to be unable to show emotions much less strong emotions such as love. The fact that he did show that emotion only diminished the impact from a key scene that happened later on in the movie. Where Kirk has to go out of his way to FORCE Spock to show emotions. That whole part was just lazy and weak writing.

    I agree that Nero was a lame bad guy. And the whole logic of being followed by all his crew on a wonky crusade is just that, wonky at best.

    Scotty could become very annoying if he keeps that comedy relief thing in the sequel. Enough of that crap. And what’s the deal with that Ewok creature?

    I wasn’t bothered by Chekov’s accent.

    I agree that Nemoy’s scenes were extremely weak. Not his fault. I blame yet again those writers.

    Again, the movie was fun and enjoyable. Despite it being pure nonsense. I come to expect that from Star Wars films but not from Star Trek.

    I really hope that they work harder in the sequel and produce something that doesn’t insult the intelligence of someone who’s not in 7th grade.

    P.S. This is a good film but it’s downright crazy that this film is ranking better on metacritic than some Oscar winning films or just films that had better screenplays/plots and acting. Shows how faulty and unreliable metacritic is to judge films based on scores.

  5. Marc says:

    Thanks for the comments folks.

    Heather – Agreed on the plot. As far as Spock 1.0 goes, I did not so much mind WHAT he did, only that it was ALL that he did. I’d much rather seen him used in a more organic or thoughtful way than ‘Alien Exposition Announcer’.

    Glenn – Scary as it is – I think the plot to number IV is more well rounded and developed, but I get your point. The movie def. came very close to killing it’s self, but swayed clear. Fingers crossed for next one.

    Ed – I understand the summer popcorn defense gets used a lot on movies like this, and I understand the rationale behind it. Generally though, I try and react to a movie based simply on what it delivers without having it in a preconceived basket. That said, I think Trek missed a lot of chances along it’s way, falling from what could have been ‘great’ to ‘solidly good’.

    Yes – the slow burning black holes ( like an old western with the wick and powder barrel ) was annoying. There would be no slow decay, culminating in a crumbling implosion. I *do* give them a little credit for at least using a partially original ‘dooms day’ device, even if they only half explain it’s origin and ham fist it’s use.

    Ditto on Scotty and the Ewok. Let the next film be a tad bit more serious in tone. I’m not looking for an ‘Irreversible’ level of dire pathos, just a tad less wacky at times.


« Shutter (2008)