Review Star Trek (2009)

chainsaw_metal1

chainsaw_metal1

Member: Rank 8
This was that last movie my mom and I went to see in the theatre together. She cultivated my love for STAR TREK, and so we were both going in with phasers set on judgmental. We both ended up loving it. It really is a very entertaining film, and the actors got the spirit of the characters down, if not every inflection.

That's not to say it's not flawed. Gone is the intellectual aspects and classical references that made the original so great. Instead we have an action film set in space, because Abrams said flat out from the beginning that he wasn't a fan, and wanted to see what he could incorporate from STAR WARS. We don't get the brilliant Kirk/Spock/McCoy bantering that we all knew and loved, where Spock acted as Kirk's logical conscience and McCoy the emotional one. I still haven't seen BEYOND, so I don't know if this improved in that film, but even INTO DARKNESS didn't really get into the friendship those three all had.

But I still really like the movie, even for its flaws.
 
Hux

Hux

Member: Rank 6
It was entertaining and respectful to what had gone before.

Creating a new timeline to tell brand new stories was a stroke of genius (though instantly and utterly wasted for the Into Darkness sequel).

For me, real Trek (the stuff I most enjoy) has always been the TV shows as it's ongoing and explores wider themes and ideas. The movies have all tended to be action orientated. I can take or leave most of 'em.
 
Gavin

Gavin

Member: Rank 6
VIP
It was an enjoyable movie but it suffered from the same challenge that superhero origin stories have. The characters aren't yet the ones we know and love. I wasn't a fan of the idea of a new timeline idea but it worked in the context of the movie. I also wasn't keen on the characterisation of Spock. Part of the success of his character originally was watching him develop to understand and accept his emotions. Seeing a seemingly fully emotionally realised Spock in a relationship with Uhura felt like he'd completely rejected his Vulcan identity when the power of the character came from his struggle to accept both his human and Vulcan parts. Despite that I could live with the movie as it was but Into Darkness was a disaster that completely destroyed the new version for me. Beyond went some way towards moving the characters more towards their original versions but, for me, it was too little, too late.
 
Hux

Hux

Member: Rank 6
The least similar in terms of looks (Scotty is losing his hair in this new timeline for some reason) and the accent is not the same though it's technically more accurate if Scotty is supposed to be from Aberdeen (which I believe he is) while Doohan's was more Glaswegian.
 
Doctor Omega

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10



A poll overshadowed by profound sadness...

But which of the two actors, in your opinion, gave the best performance as Chekov?

Walter Koenig - or Anton Yelchin?

And, in either case, why?




 
Hux

Hux

Member: Rank 6
This will be the only time I vote for the newer interpretation. I liked Koenig but he never really bowled me over or anything. I thought Yelchin brought something more interesting.
 
Hux

Hux

Member: Rank 6
Saldana seems like a totally different body shape. She's the one (along with Pegg) that doesn't feel quite as convincing as a younger version.
 
Hux

Hux

Member: Rank 6
Another character (like Chekov) that never massively matter to me so this could go either way. But purely for the voice, I have to say Takei.

 
Gavin

Gavin

Member: Rank 6
VIP
George Takei, simply because in the new movies Cho has been largely relegated to a background character. Beyond gave him a larger part but it still hasn't been enough to really develop much in the way of character.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top