A sort-of review of Star Trek
If I had become a film buff in my youth instead of my adulthood and pursued an educational and career trajectory similar to that of my film-loving peers in this town (Hollywood), I might have learned to become more critical about the films I see and far more cynical about the industry than I actually am.
Long before I became a film buff, if I saw a movie with a friend and he criticized the plot, theme or dialogue of a flick I found entertaining, I’d reply something like, “It’s just a movie. It was entertaining; that’s what matters.” I reserved my critical judgment for literature. So, now, while my cinematic critical capacity has increased, I still retain another important capacity, to enjoy a well-made movie with a weak (or contrived) story, provided it keeps me entertained.
Of course, if I see such a movie a second time, particularly on a small screen, I may start groaning as soon as the opening credits stop rolling. Such, I dare say, would I react to the Star Trek movie I just saw, particularly if I saw it on the small screen.
A friend got me in to see a pre-release screening at Paramount Studios. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie even if the story as as whole just plain didn’t make sense; much seemed to contradict what I knew about the original TV series, of which I have seen many an episode, know the names of the crew, but have little knowledge of the trivia and even less of the various characters’ backgrounds.
All that said, this is a big screen movie. And see it on the biggest screen possible. It’s a perfect potato chip movie, as LA Times film critic Kenneth Turan might put it. It’s tasty when it goes down, but lacks nutritional value. It’s what I might call a “movie movie,” pure entertainment. It’s a lot of fun.
As my friend put it when we left, there “wasn’t a boring moment” in the entire flick. It had near perfect pacing. So, head on down to your local multiplex, buy yourself a bucket of popcorn, suspend disbelief and enjoy.
Star Trek fans many not find the various characters’ background true to that portrayed in the TV series. But they may appreciate the casting of Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk. He seems to have acting skills similar to those of William Shatner, the man who pioneered the role.
Latest posts by B. Daniel Blatt (Posts)
- Michael Jackson — the multi-talented performer who never really lived - June 25, 2009
- How Obama can truly change the tone in Washington - May 21, 2009
- What Carrie Prejean didn’t say - May 20, 2009
- Pelosi lied; The left-wing sighed - May 19, 2009
- Nancy’s nemesis in a nutshell - May 19, 2009
i can hardly think of anything that I don’t love about this new Star Trek… it’s funny, well edited, well acted and doesn’t drag for even a minute (like every other Star Trek does inevitably)